Defeated Sharks still SA’s best
6 Aug 2012
MARK KEOHANE, in his weekly Business Day column, writes that while there was no surprise in the Sharks Super Rugby final defeat, they were the best South African side in the tournament.
The only surprise in Hamilton on Saturday is that so many of the people I spoke to were surprised by the emphatic nature of the Sharks’ defeat in Super Rugby’s 17th final.
A few, as is the custom in SA, blamed the referee. New Zealand-born Steve Walsh had absolutely no bearing on the outcome of this one.
Walsh missed an obvious infringement in the last play of the game in 2007’s final and he was blamed for costing the Sharks their first Super Rugby title. I was among those who caned him, even though it is no secret that the supporter in me has always prized the blue of the Bulls more than any black-and-white tribal strip.
Many of my Bulls mates back in 2007 were quick to point out that Frans Steyn rushed the conversion that would have given the Sharks a two-score advantage going into the final minute of the final, and that even though there was a concession that Walsh was poor the Sharks, playing at home, should have looked after their own destiny. It was Butch James, and not Walsh, who missed a clearance kick for touch, and about half the Sharks forwards couldn’t get a hand on Bryan Habana as he beat several defenders with a step and pace to score what proved to be the decisive try of the final.
The Sharks back then really had no reason to complain. They produced rugby of the necessary quality to win the final, but their coach at the time — Dick Muir — wasn’t quite on the button with his substitutions and his two most experienced players, Springbok captain John Smit and fullback Percy Montgomery, watched the final quarter from the touchline.
Muir got it wrong back in 2007 more than Walsh ever did and the Sharks certainly lost the final more than any on-field superiority won the Bulls their first ever title. You can’t say the Sharks lost anything in Hamilton, outside of a good many hours sleep in getting to the New Zealand north island town from Cape Town, where, a week earlier, they had shown incredible spirit and defied the odds to beat SA’s conference winners, the Stormers, who had finished as the overall league winners, which counts for nothing unless you actually stick around to host the final.
Sharks captain Keegan Daniel refused to use the travel complications as an excuse. Likewise coach John Plumtree and any player interviewed.
The Chiefs players, especially their captain, Craig Clarke, were the ones who weren’t going to be lulled by the illusion that they were in a contest.
Clarke dedicated the first bit of his post-final acceptance speech by paying tribute to the Sharks’ season and offering an acknowledgement from within his squad of what the Durban-based team had overcome to make it to Hamilton.
They had scored four tries and emphatically beaten the Bulls in Durban. The bonus point had given them life in the tournament.
What followed was another bonus-point, home win against the Cheetahs to make the top six play-offs. Then it was off to Brisbane, victory there, a flight back to Cape Town, victory there and a flight back to Auckland, New Zealand.
Sure there was hope from every Sharks supporter that the impossible was possible. And there had to be hope because without hope there is nothing.
It is every rugby supporter’s right to always believe that no matter the challenge his team will triumph.
Those who could view the final without the emotional blindfold of simply having to believe the Sharks would win knew it had the potential to get embarrassing if the home team kept their composure and played with the intent and consistency we had seen all season.
I don’t see much point in trying to dissect where it went wrong for the Sharks. The answer quite frankly is when they won in Cape Town.
It was not a fair contest and this should also be viewed in context. This is not a whine from me or Sharks supporters or South Africans.
It is a mere reflection of the reality of a tournament in which if you host a final and play an opponent from another country you don’t lose easily. In 17 years the only team to dream the dream and get the win have been the Crusaders.
The Chiefs won the collisions and won the game. Forget any reference to an opening 20 minutes when the Sharks controlled the ball and field position because they certainly were not controlling anything in the tackle.
They played as if they were sleepwalking — and you can’t blame them — on a day complicated by a Chiefs unit who played with the conviction of a team whose players knew they could not lose.
101 Comments
6 Aug 2012, 10:23 am
KEOTV? Never gonna see the light of day again or what? **** Happens man. Let’s get over things now and move on.
6 Aug 2012, 10:23 am
I was a slightly suprised Dragon!
6 Aug 2012, 10:24 am
@brandon96end-1: You forgot “Dragons”. All these newbies breaking tradition…
6 Aug 2012, 10:25 am
This is unbelievable! “Chiefs coach robbed during Super rugby final”
www . superxv.com/news/super15_rugby_news.asp?id=36087
After all Kiwi-mafia constantly telling us how crime-free NZ is!
or could this have been some disgruntled Saffa ex-pats?
Or maybe it was “Suzie”?
6 Aug 2012, 10:26 am
Not a newbie bokfan. Just have not commented in ages. Belated “DRAGONS” then
6 Aug 2012, 10:28 am
running crusaders close for filthiest team in the comp title.
6 Aug 2012, 10:32 am
@bokfan1-4:
Who said we dont have crime??
Name them, go on.
6 Aug 2012, 10:34 am
@wait for it, wait for it…-6:
Because they won mean they are filthy.
Not one thing said about the Chiefs from you all year until they won the final.
Even when they played the Saders, not one word.
Just shows how sour you are.
6 Aug 2012, 10:36 am
@bokfan1-4:
Wow everyone, there was a robbery in NZ.
Unlike the robbers in SA no humans or animals were hurt or killed.
Really do you need to post problems that happen in a country?
We get slaughtered on here for doing that.
6 Aug 2012, 10:49 am
@Hurricane-8:
come on hurri, you know, i know it, we all know it.
chiefs have become adept at filthy play since wayne smith’s involvement. no doubt about it. i called them out as a dirty team early in the comp already but didnt think them filthy enough to rival the crusaders in the cheap shot, late hit type stakes.
well they’ve surpassed the crusaders in the last two games, thats for sure.
nice little cynical style they got going. targeting players is one thing but late,cheap dangerous hits is another.
anything for a win, hey. nz’s motto.
6 Aug 2012, 10:56 am
@wait for it, wait for it…-10:
oh boy, you are a lost cause.
6 Aug 2012, 10:58 am
A part of me does not condone illegal play, but there’s another part of me that says if a team gets away with something through cunning play, well, you know what, good on them.
That’s one reason I’ve always had grudging respect for Richie McCaw.
A number of New Zealand teams this season have perfected quasi-obstruction on attacking ruck ball – for example, three forwards will stand flat at first, second and third receiver close to the ruck, looking to run onto the ball, but the ball will actually be distributed to the flyhalf standing quite a bit deeper. The three forwards will be running onto a pass that never comes, and then effectively will be obstructing the flyhalf from the defensive line coming through the first and sometimes even second channel.
6 Aug 2012, 11:01 am
@brandon96end-5: Hahaha just kidding with you china
6 Aug 2012, 11:02 am
@WP Till I Die-12:
Add the Gridiron style blocking on the up and unders and kick returns as well as taking out defenders around the fringes and we might as well change the name of the game.
All it takes is a ref prepared to blow them up for it and they’ll desist sharpish.
Perhaps now that crooked Paddy has ridden off into the sunset…..
6 Aug 2012, 11:03 am
@WP Till I Die-12:
Again – I call it “quasi”-obstruction because it’s actually bloody clever.
While it could be argued that the move qualifies as blocking the tackler – defined by the Laws as “intentionally moving or standing in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier” – they will always be able to argue that those three forwards did not do so intentionally, it was purely accidental since they were actually expecting to receive the ball as first receiver and, being forwards, could not get out of the way quickly enough. The scrumhalf simply opted to not exercise that option and rather cut them out and pass to the flyhalf standing diagonally behind them…
6 Aug 2012, 11:05 am
@wait for it, wait for it…-6: Come on, be a bit gracious in defeat. Chiefs have played AWESOME rugby all season. Forwards are hard and scrum is good. Midfield is brilliant. Cruden might be up for ugliest Kiwi Of All Time Award but he is GOOD! (he just wont get the underwear ads that Carter got when he is AB #10).
Tamalolo (sp?) can be a bit dirty, but the Chiefs are no dirtier or harder than any other team. No team can or will ever come close to the Saders for blatant cheating
6 Aug 2012, 11:06 am
@Hurricane-7: The Kiwi Mafia Don who actually lives in Shepherds Bush London
6 Aug 2012, 11:08 am
@WP Till I Die-15:
they can still be can still be called for obstruction.
accidental or otherwise,
6 Aug 2012, 11:08 am
@bokfan1-16:
lol
6 Aug 2012, 11:09 am
@the artist formerly known as gunther-18:
A bit of a stut…stutt….stutter their Gunther
6 Aug 2012, 11:09 am
@the artist formerly known as gunther-18:
Accidental offside, perhaps.
6 Aug 2012, 11:10 am
@Hurricane-20:
ferferferferferfukkkoff.
6 Aug 2012, 11:19 am
@bokfan1-16:
ja, but the chiefa gave the crudsaders a rugby lesson in blatant cheating in their semi final. and once the crudsaders were out the kiwi judicial crew gave us a good ol lesson in making problems go away for the chiefs.
there is nothing to like or respect about these unsporting cheats. thats why there are rules. the only result of this sort of behaviour is that other teams become forced into a titt for tat type arms race of dirty, cynical, filthy play in order to have the remotest chance of winning such contests.
then rugby loses.
again, this is why there are rules to govern the game.
but this is of no concern to most of the kiwis it seems.
te rangi being the exception.
6 Aug 2012, 11:24 am
@the artist formerly known as gunther-18:
It’s an interesting dilemma.
Just got an e-mail back from a mate of mine, he’s a referee in Ireland (club rugby).
His opinion is that you can only award a penalty as a sanction where the obstruction is intentional – the laws are clear.
If there is accidental obstruction, in his opinion you should play on if there was no advantage to the attacking side, if there was an advantage to the attacking team, award a scrum to the defending side.
6 Aug 2012, 11:26 am
So, in essence, if a tackler is unable to tackle the ball carrier due to his path being obstructed by this method, and it cannot be proven that the obstruction is intentional – award a scrum to the defending side.
It will stop this tactic very quickly…
6 Aug 2012, 11:38 am
While the obstruction running is still a debatable issue, there can be no ambiguity about holding back a player who does not have the ball. This is as cynical and unlawful as you get and, if caught out, should be penalised harshly and swiftly.
So when the ref sees it not once, not twice but thrice and still remains all “aw shucks, fellas” about it, you know it’s going to be one of those games.
6 Aug 2012, 11:39 am
@WP Till I Die-21:
exactly.
and if they change their lines at all (which they do) they’ll get done for the real thing.
6 Aug 2012, 11:48 am
the law says nothing about awarding a scrum if obstruction is unintentional… just that if it is intentional a penalty is awarded…
10.1 OBSTRUCTION
(a) Charging or pushing. When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, either player must not charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) Running in front of a ball carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball carriers when they gain possession.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
Sanction: Penalty kick
but again these laws are crazy because it is very difficult for a ref to know whether something is intentional of not…
so i agree with the above… if the instruction is thought to be unintentional a scrum MUST be awarded… if it is thought to be intentional then the penalty…
there should also be a written law that if a player or players do it is more than x number of times unintentional or not a penalty must be awarded…
when it’s left up to the referee’s interpretation of the player’s acting skills it will always be a problem…
6 Aug 2012, 11:54 am
@Hurricane-19: glad you liked it Godfather
@wait for it, wait for it…-23: Aggg we all know the NZ teams cheat, and that they get their refs to swing games for them.
Example Bryce Lawrence:
- Refs Ire v Aus. Makes shocking decisions to allow Ireland to win the game, thereby setting SA and Aus on a collision course (SA & Ire “shouldve” played the QF).
He then admits to having been harsh on Aus.
He is then “rewarded” with reffing the same QF!
Another joke of a performance ensues, and Aus win the game (presumably he feels so guilty over the Ireland game he cannot bering himself to penalise them). Boks (the only team capable of beating NZ in NZ) are knocked out.
Nov 2011- Lawrence wins Ref of the Year award (!)
Aug 2012 – IRB announces that Lawrence will not ref anymore.
Rugby is losing out, and cheating is becoming more “acceptable”. It is a shame
6 Aug 2012, 11:56 am
Well actually it was a surprise to a few guppies who really believed that their team could beat Sonny Bill and his Chiefs.
It is true!
6 Aug 2012, 11:59 am
@>^..^< katman-26:
Agreed.
It should be an instant penalty if a player attending the ruck pulls an opposing player, standing off from the ruck, into the ruck.
6 Aug 2012, 11:59 am
I couldn’t believe the amount of off the ball obstruction that was going on in that game. I really don’t understand how they get away with it.
I mean if you look at the Chiefs 2nd try. Their no8 break aways from the back of the scrum to score, but if you look at the reply, their No7 is 2 meters in front of him holding onto 2 Sharks defends, deliberate, blatant obstruction. If you look at this vid on youtube… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI8uLb6zQVM at the 2.26 mark. Clear as day.
6 Aug 2012, 12:03 pm
I have also noticed during many backline moves, they often send a center flying into the defensive line as a “decoy” runner, but meters ahead of the play, standing amongst the defenders. Now, that player clearly disrupts the defensive lines and even delays the defenders movements. Why is this not considered obstruction? Its a planned move, therefore its clearly intentional?
6 Aug 2012, 12:15 pm
@blank-32:
phew, that was unbelievably blatant.
don’t think hurricane can argue against that – pure cheating.
6 Aug 2012, 12:21 pm
Mark, I disagreed with you on Friday when you said the Sharks will get slaughtered. I thought that they will be much stiffer opposition to the Chiefs.
You were right. They were slaughtered.
You had a good last three weeks afa your predictions went. Well done.
6 Aug 2012, 12:22 pm
@charo-34:
he’ll certainly have a stab at it our hurri.
expect some interesting analysis for Poep too.
6 Aug 2012, 12:22 pm
2195594″>bokfan1-29: @bokfan1-29:
It must suck holding the opinions you do,
to,
at the same time somewhere deep inside oneself
realize that they bear simply no resemblance to the truth whatsoever.
6 Aug 2012, 12:23 pm
@wait for it, wait for it…-10: man you are talking kak!
6 Aug 2012, 12:28 pm
I need to spend some more time with Hurricane on this blog,he is starting to sound like Pooper Lite…
6 Aug 2012, 12:29 pm
Bismarck should just’ve slapped that lock who tried to pull him in at the ruck.
Walsch only speaking to the captain about the Chiefs players holding on to A-defenders around the fringes of the ruck pissed me off more than him doing nothing about it.
The fact that he talked about it, meant that he saw it and that he knew it was outside of the law. A penalty or two early in the game against the offending players will sort that kind of thing out quick-quick.
6 Aug 2012, 12:36 pm
@WP Till I Die-31: i recall the saders vs chiefs round robin game where the crusaders were pulling chiefs players into into rucks etc, the other two kiwi commentators were bemoaning the tactic and justin marshall also chipped in and said “i agree it is not on but i can tell you, we’re encouraged to drag in players, hehehehehehe i just revealed a training ground secret”
6 Aug 2012, 12:37 pm
@nama1-40: were you as equally pi ssed off with walsh allowing the sharks to stand offside willy nilly through out the game?
6 Aug 2012, 12:40 pm
@Transformation-42:
Walsh WARNED the Chiefs about it twice.
And then proceeded to watch whilst they created a try using the very same tack.
Poor effort really.
6 Aug 2012, 12:44 pm
@Transformation-41:
I quite like Justin Marshall’s commentary.
6 Aug 2012, 12:44 pm
@bokfan1-29: And yet it’s a South African, Joubert, who seems to let us get away with the most, e.g. RWC final and he was the AR that missed the blatant head high vs the Sharks. Are we also to blame for your referees?
6 Aug 2012, 12:45 pm
@gonzo-45:
Joubert was helpless to do anything – after all, your commentary team was holding Bobby Skinstad hostage…
6 Aug 2012, 12:46 pm
@WP Till I Die-44:
Indeed.
Bobby should phone him for some tips.
6 Aug 2012, 12:49 pm
@Transformation-41:
I heard that as well.
@Transformation-42:
Espcially McLeod was off sides the whole day.
Yes, it pissed me off from both teams. The back line of the Chiefs were also off side most of the time.It was probably their tactic to shut down Michalak.
6 Aug 2012, 12:49 pm
This is a bad taste of after match moaning
A decent team -which I considered the Sharks to be – would have done the following prior to the Final:
1. Reject Steve Walsh outright, the scoundrel awarded the Stormers 14 point for nothing against them at the Semi and it was pretty obvious he was about to do the same at the final which he did
2. Send the 2nd + reserve team to play in NZ, their 1st team was not match fit, the Kiwis wouldn’t mind, wining fair and square for them is just like it is for the Stormers: it’s against their moral fibers, not an option, I guess we all saw how the ABs won the RWC under one of the most fraudulent, convoluted refereeing by Craig Joubert, or didn’t we?
6 Aug 2012, 12:53 pm
@Hondo-49: Can you tell us which referees are not scoundrels?
6 Aug 2012, 12:53 pm
@WP Till I Die-46:
jub jub is a quisling.
he has been brainwashed.
just like grantie when the aliens probed him.
6 Aug 2012, 12:56 pm
@the artist formerly known as gunther-51:
I was at Surfer’s Corner, Muizenberg, yesterday afternoon…it was quite overcast with the sun breaking through every now and again in between some drizzle.
I was walking back from Knead when I saw a rusty, banged-up old Nissan 1400 parked across two parking bays. I thought, wait a minute…
6 Aug 2012, 12:58 pm
@blank-33: Absolutely agree with you, it irritates me intensely.
Also this blatant playing of a man without the ball (particularly when he’s nowhere near the ruck/maul). Teams seem do be doing it more & more lately & I don’t understand how they are allowed to get away with it…maybe somebody can explain it to me?
6 Aug 2012, 12:58 pm
@Transformation-38:
errrrrm, could you be more specific.
6 Aug 2012, 13:01 pm
@WP Till I Die-52:
6 Aug 2012, 13:07 pm
@the artist formerly known as gunther-51:
quisling?
is that the same as an uncle tom?
6 Aug 2012, 13:09 pm
@wait for it, wait for it…-56:
Vidkun Quisling, the fifth columnist. Look it up.
6 Aug 2012, 13:27 pm
@gonzo-50:
Why do you even ask?
They all are according to our Hondo.
6 Aug 2012, 13:38 pm
@WP Till I Die-57:
i knew that, was just wondering in the case of our lovely ‘jouba’ which was more appropriate.
6 Aug 2012, 13:44 pm
@the artist formerly known as gunther-51: You can with Nissan
6 Aug 2012, 13:47 pm
quisling captious conversation goes pfft.
6 Aug 2012, 13:51 pm
@WP Till I Die-25: Rule changes like in 2008.
6 Aug 2012, 13:52 pm
This rugby was serious. TESTS. NEXT!!
6 Aug 2012, 14:25 pm
Having just watched the game, my thoughts:
1. Glad I didn’t drive down on the night. Poor weather and the incessant cow bells would have proved too much.
2. Bobby Skinstad is a nice bloke but isn’t the sharpest knife in the draw.
3. The du Plessis brothers were over-eager and it cost the Sharks.
4. Michalak was extremely poor, worst player on the field.
5. Lambie looked tentative, needs game time.
6. Home advantage is enough. There should be a two week gap between semis and final.
.
7. The Sharks were offside a lot. They were effective around the fringes.
4.
6 Aug 2012, 14:29 pm
..but took too long to adjust to the Chiefs’ kicking game.
6 Aug 2012, 14:29 pm
@shooter-60: meant for Hi WPTID
6 Aug 2012, 14:31 pm
and the gold medal in the sour grapes competition..
an outstanding achievement, setting a world record and leaving their competition in their wake..
the one
the only
Seth Africa..
they have dominated this event for almost 100 years now…. we cant see anyone in the near future breaking their stranglehold in this discipline, they just continue to churn out the excuses and the tears..
beeeee otiful
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!
6 Aug 2012, 14:41 pm
multiple personalty disorder breaking out…
6 Aug 2012, 14:53 pm
and ads we speak, SAs cPacheco turns up
Bakkies, any words for the adoring fans, you could start with how the opposition cheats in every game your charges lose.
I’m sure the crowd never tire of hearing your paranoia
6 Aug 2012, 15:01 pm
@lapoftherugbygods-37: Thanks for the poem, I got a bit teary eyed. It must suck to be you full stop.
@gonzo-45: It absolutely was! And I am ashamed that he is a Saffa! He obviously got orders from Paddy to maintain the status quo, and as it was his first big appointment, didnt want to destroy his career.
But I agree his reffing was disgraceful
6 Aug 2012, 15:04 pm
@poppa69-69:
Kia Ora Poppa! You well boet?
6 Aug 2012, 15:13 pm
@oob-64: Agree with all your thoughts from what I saw (and heard – Skinstad) of the game.
6 Aug 2012, 15:15 pm
with all the pain and angst and sorrow and hurt…
could do with some balm for crushed egos and salve for bruised personas
clearly some wise council is needed all round…
ladies, gentlemen, sharks fans (and stormers fans before)… i present to you…
The Bogmen… one of the coolest bands ever not to become huge…
listen… chill… heal…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoDSrfWvoAY
Lying in a puddle of my own remorse
When a voice came through the heaven: “Get back on that horse.”
‘Cause love comes easy at first, unknown,
Got to learn to tumble when you get thrown, oh yeah!
6 Aug 2012, 15:21 pm
@poppa69-67: Pops what happened to you? Why all the bitterness and anger, where’s the love my man?
6 Aug 2012, 15:47 pm
@74
he is just returning serve…
6 Aug 2012, 15:57 pm
I think that Yohan Blake fellow will be the ultimate outside centre.
6 Aug 2012, 16:04 pm
@Skeppie-74: really ask the question again
what happened to this Poeps?
616. poppa69 :
July 26th, 2009 at 2:38 am
#609 skopskiet: it comes from all sides mate, no one is less or more guilty… Passion can make a man do things he later regrets, and hopefully, most of us are big enough to know when we have overstepped the mark and be forthcoming in our apologies…
I enjoy the site, have made some great friends here, have had my fair share of disagreements too… but I find if one can counter others arguments with fact or a valid point, and not digress into the verbal slanging match that it so deteriorates too, then it just seems to tighten the whole SA/NZ rugby history…
I also like to think that a lot of the banter/arguments actually are born from respect, just misdirected as my teams better then yours type of thing
6 Aug 2012, 16:11 pm
@oob-64: 6. Agreed. But considering the length of the season, the only way to add in a week off would be to scrap the quarter finals and just go straight for the semis.
It also means there will be less travelling – at worst, we’d have seen the Crusaders nip over to finish off the Stormers then back to Waikato with no complaints
6 Aug 2012, 16:49 pm
@Jeraldjay-76: Hahaha he could just be! |Those okes probably cant catch or something (although there was a story that Bolt couldve played for Windies).
I still reckon Juan DJ would smash Blake… and step him
6 Aug 2012, 16:50 pm
poppa69(poppa69) Says:
May 9th, 2012 at 11:38 am
@Fern is not a stud,he is merely no19(Fern)-64: man youre a try hard loser..
is this the same fern who has regaled us all with his many conquests over NZ woman?? the “man” who has PROUDLY claimed conquest after conquest of NZ woman?
run along dutch.man, go fck the bab.oon that you currently call “mate”…
6 Aug 2012, 16:58 pm
Keo – its articles like this one that will get your neighbours up in arms.
Im sure that you will get it pointed out to you that the Stormers won the conference?
6 Aug 2012, 17:00 pm
@Transformation-77:
Wow, it’s been three years already.
Time really flies.
6 Aug 2012, 17:05 pm
dont make me laugh! the sharks had a couple of okay games nothing great to be honest the hole tourny was pretty poor and i cant wait to get rid of super rugby its a ******* joke now.
6 Aug 2012, 18:59 pm
Good article…..of course we wanted a win and backed our team to win, that’s what a supporter does even when you know its going to be a challenge.
6 Aug 2012, 20:06 pm
Keo certainly knows which team is the best in SA.
6 Aug 2012, 20:18 pm
What does Provvas (Skyewalker), Dog Pedigree (Ruck), Fit1ella (skopskiet), Robzim, Stormerforlife1 (Capo), DirtHarry (?), Cab and all the rest of the Arkham Asylum Stormer lunatics have to say about Keo’s view? There are a few decent Stormers fans on here, but holyfuckingcow most of them are rightplicks.
6 Aug 2012, 21:13 pm
“How kak must you be to lose a home semi?”
Your wifes face has that effect on men
6 Aug 2012, 21:15 pm
@NoRugbyGuru_0_-87: fail. How do you know I have a wife? How do you know I am a male?
Dumbo Stormer.
6 Aug 2012, 22:06 pm
@How kak must you be to lose a home semi?-88: Male Stormers fans are especially good at sniffing out other males……
WP will beat the Sharks in the Currie Cup opener, and then this lot will be on here beating their chests again. So prepare yourself.
The Sharks will without a doubt have to play with a very watered down team.
6 Aug 2012, 22:08 pm
@poppa69-69: Pops – the Super 15 trophy went to the correct team in 2012. It would have been some kind of miracle if the Sharks had won and I cant deny that I was disappointed but in the end the trophy went to the team that deserved it most in 2012. Well done Chiefs.
6 Aug 2012, 23:29 pm
@Gumboots-71: Kia ora bro… sorry I missed you last night, just logged on briefly to wind a few people up….seems it worked
@Skeppie-74: mate, got sick of all the “love” as you put it thrown in my nations direction, especially when SA were WC’s and we had been robbed in Cardiff, … gotta fight fire with fire I say, or as Bowie once said, Im putting out the fire with gasoline
seems many of your countrymen dont like that, but its only the circle of life.. what they once sowed they now reap, guess they should have planted their crops much more carefully… dont worry, in 2015 when the WCs on I’ll change tack…but better hope we dont win it then 
@Transformation-77: its funny Trans, but people like Gumboots and Puma, they always treat me with a modicum of respect and what do you know, they receive that respect back… simple concept I know..
Ive realised that so many people on this blog are EXPERTS at deciphering and interpreting TONE from the written word, hence so many wade right in, often when I am firmly tongue in cheek… the meltdown line is a classic, it must stroke their egos, but how can they be so sure Im not just on the wind up? guess they know better then me how Im feeling? hahaha I must remember to use smilies more often, but then even that doesnt work as whatever proved yesterday
it does give me a great laugh though, and its nice to know that I can get that reaction with a single post.. seems I need to upgrade the cannon on my Waka so that it fires a driftnet, such is the number of fish that congregate whenever my Waka sails into SA waters 
the best thing is, Ive been assured by both Ranger and Fern that theyd never have a beer with me, I am so upset at that
and this after Fern continually harassed me to meet him at the Opera house bar for a beer when he is in Sydney next? now he doesnt want to, guess the GF and life at the Dam has softened the internet hardman 
as Skeppie puts it “where is the love” ?
@NoRugbyGuru_0_-80: you must have that post saved on your hard drive huh? do you look at it and does it get your blood boiling? does the red mist descend like that fabled story of the doctor who lived with the beasts? (Grillas in the mist)… its funny you continually repost that, but have never once condemned Fern for the very things my post highlights….what a fcken hypocrite… ….I often wonder which part of that post has you irate? is it condemning Fern for his misogyny [thats woman hating to save you time looking it up] , is it the reference to people from Holland? Did you know that Abel Janszoon Tasman, he of the Tasman sea, that which seperates NZ and Australia, was a D.utchman?
and I quote, ” The sea was named after the D.utch explorer Abel Janszoon Tasman, the first recorded European to encounter New Zealand and Tasmania” see, in your country it may be a racist epitet, but in the big wide world it often refers to those who are from Holland… very hard to get my head around that one, perhaps we in the big wide world should call them Hollandaise to save the confusion? perhaps its because your country has specific labels like coloured and stuff that is the real problem? do you get upset every time the commentators at the Olympics mention the Du.tch supporters? oh my… or is it the reference to the type of woman that finds Fern attractive? hang on, are you Ferns “mate”? is that why you repost it all the time? hahahaha..
@Dusky-90: was a bridge too far for the sharks, but their fans can be proud, they had a great run and you could see the toll it had taken on them during the game… if they had found that form earlier they may have won the whole competition…alas it wasnt to be.. . seems the wick on the black and white dynamite fizzled, there was no Booooom
7 Aug 2012, 00:42 am
And still no HG.
At least Fern has shown face which still is not that pretty
7 Aug 2012, 02:09 am
@Hurricane-92: you know HG is off visiting France dont you? his favourite hiding place?
7 Aug 2012, 03:03 am
@wait for it, wait for it…-10: Hey dork stick…typice SAFFA response, if the Team loses it is everyone elses fault, what a joke, what a bunch of LOSERS – rest easy my man, the Rugby World Order remains the same – NZ, NZ, NZ and then the Chiefs….build a bridge and get over it…whinger…
7 Aug 2012, 03:08 am
@bokfan1-29: WOW you must be a disciple of Einstein with that explanation….of course SAFFA teams don’t cheat….not on your nelly…they are clean, drug free, live in fortress homes, and wish for the old days…get a grip you poor excuse for a rugby fan….your Team got thrashed, end of story. So I would just like all Saffa’s to stop with the moaning, blaming and finger pointing, you guys win that competition hands down…NZ rules the roost cobber…
7 Aug 2012, 06:13 am
“A few, as is the custom in SA, blamed the referee. New Zealand-born Steve Walsh had absolutely no bearing on the outcome of this one.”
Thats genius journalism right there – 1. point out the obvious that a 4-try 31-pt margin victory had ‘nothing to do with the ref’ and 2. in so doing, courting controversy that ‘it had nothing to do with the ref’, thereby increasing the number of hits on a SA rugby site.
‘nothing to do with the ref’ – HA ! genius.
7 Aug 2012, 07:03 am
“**** Muir got it wrong” are words I hope never to hear/read again in the context of any rugby team playing in SA
7 Aug 2012, 07:55 am
Sorry Keo, they were the best/lucky side for the last four games. Keo so easily forgets about the drubbing they recieved from the bottom of the log Lions. They hit form late in the tournament but their overall effort saw them lose in the final after three away games in the playoffs.
As soon as the sharks came 6th they just delayed the only possible result, loss on a foreign field.
I’m sorry, they got to the final because of two high ball mistakes by the stormers which resulted in the two tries that got them the game. After that it was a foregone conclussion that a NZ team would win the Super15 2012.
7 Aug 2012, 14:29 pm
@BreakdownBoy-98: Seems everyone gets lucky against the Stormers/WP in playoffs. Bulls, Crusaders, Sharks, Lions….must be some kind of rotten luck !?
So, when JP Pietersen scythed through the Stormers defensive line to score his try – that was a high ball mistake ?
So the fact that the Sharks scored half the number of tries the Stormers scored all season in their last 4 games were all high ball mistakes ? Did the Bulls also make a bunch of high ball mistakes when they got nailed 32-10 ? How about the Reds in Brisbane ?
Grow some sportsmanship man. The Sharks deserved to be in the final. Unfortunately, it was never going to be a fair contest. It was quite literally a bridge too many.
9 Aug 2012, 13:16 pm
Hell, I should have been a rugby journalist. How did I know the Sharks had no chance. All over at half-time. Perhaps with the exception of Mvovo they were 3 out of 10 **** lousy, the lot of them. I’ll always go with the SA team. But geez, Sharks, you disgraced us all. What a rout!!! (Or was it rape?)
13 Aug 2012, 02:35 am
Did anybody else notuce how the sneaky AB tricks that we have been seeing from the AB’s the last few years surfaced in the way that the Chiefs played in the final (and sonme earlier games too)? Things like:
- the ball mysteriously popping out the SIDES of rucks when the Chiefs awere on defence, for turnovers to the Chiefs.
- premeditated backline moves (eg off the scrum) where the one opensides purposefully moves into an obstruction position to prevent the other opensider from covering the flyhalf channel in defence – especially notice how teh obsruction happens far enough away from the ref’s field of vision so that he does not see it, although it affects the game.
- backline moves where there is obstructive running behind decoy runners, which is not always seen by the ref – and these are only ever used when there is nothing to lose, in teh begginging fo a gamem, or middle – never at the end where the ref’s overruling of a try can cost them the game.- “taking the space” (or illegal obstruction) in front of the rucks to prevent the opposing team cleaning or challenging posession effectively.
It seems like cheating to get a result is an acceptable risk, and training is done with this in mind…
So my guess is that Smith brought this kind of nonsense with him to the Chiefs. I only hope that with Smith no longer there, the AB’s will stop that ****.
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.