The Silver Fern

People (especially ozzies) often say that Super Rugby is difficult to follow because they know little about the opposing teams, so in the spirit of adding something different to the conversation I thought I would a bit of write up Crusaders' opponents for this Saturday's Super Rugby final, the Lions.

Where are they from?

On paper the Lions represent three unions in the central north east of the country, but they are really Johannesburg based team.

So what kind of place is Jozi? Imagine London, Detroit and Kinshasa all mashed up together.

The city started as a mining town back in the late 19th century and quickly grew to be the largest city in South Africa and the its economic center. The 130-odd years since has done little change the feel of the city and everything feels like it could be replaced/abandoned tomorrow and no-one would bat an eye. Everything feels temporary.

The clearest example of this is the old CBD (where Ellis Park is situated) which used to be the most important real-estate in the country, but in the period between the late 1970's to the early 2000's it was abandoned by business and the middle-class to become crime-ridden high-rise slum. It is sad to see, but in a typical Joburg fashion the businesses simply folded up their tents and set up shop 10km further north without a hint of nostalgia for what they were leaving behind.

In general joburg can be broken up into three parts - London in the North around the stock exchange and assorted high finance types; Detroit in the east and west around the few remaining mines and factories; and Kinshasa in the south around the deserted city center and Soweto even further out.

But in all these places you will find people who are looking to make their fortunes. Whether it be fresh-faced finance graduates, or dirt poor immigrants from from other parts of Africa, they are all looking to make a buck. Joburg is a little slice of the good 'ol US of A; big, brash and dangerous.

Yeah, so? What about the rugby team?

The Lions are just the Golden Lions (previously Transvaal) in a different frock.

Despite its population and economic advantages Transvaal has historically been the third most successful union behind Western Province (Cape Town) and their northern neighbour, Northern Transvaal.

This is kinda weird though, why have they not dominated SA rugby in the same way that Auckland dominated rugby in New Zealand? I think it has something to do with the schizophrenic nature of the place. Kinshasa was never allowed at the table and London had better things to do. That left Detroit to represent the entire region. It is this aspect that I would argue still shapes the personality of the union to this day.

Nothing, and no-one, personifies the blue collar culture of the union better than the union's president during their heyday of the early nineties, Louis Luyt. Luyt was self-made man who worshiped his creator. Growing up poor in the Freestate he made his millions from fertilizer and beer before becoming president of the Transvaal Rugby Union. During his tenure the Lions built a formidable team of former Northern Transvaal players who all conveniently decided to play their rugby south of the Jukskei river (this was when shamateurism was rife). At the union also invested heavily in Ellis Park, exactly at the time when everyone else was moving away from central Joburg. This decision to double down on their downtown location was probably the start of their long decline.

Professionalism wasn't kind to the union. In a typically egotistical moment, Luyt, by then the President of SARU, arranged a marriage between the Gauteng Lions and Freestate in what should have been the strongest South African frnachise on paper, the Cats. On grass however the Cats sucked, never quite living up to their team sheet.

Well not quite never. The Cats had a uncharacteristically successful couple of seasons right at the turn of the century under a brash and abrasive Laurie Mains. They made the Super Rugby semi's in 2001 and 2002 when this still meant something. There really seems to be something about fluffybunnies and success with this team.

Between this little blip and 2012 the Lions continued to slide into oblivion. It is quite astounding how rubbish they were. Between 2003 and 2012 they only finished above second-to-last once, in 2009 when they finished 12th out of 14 teams. By 2013 they had been kicked out, and looking back it is pretty hard to justify keeping them in the competition with those sort of results.

But wasn't just the on-field performance that were poor. The union had become rotten to the core. Club rugby was dying, they were producing nearly no Springboks, those they did produce moved off to other provinces and their school league was probably the weakest in the country.

By the end of 2013, the union was all but broke and dead. The year out of Super Rugby had bankrupted the union and there appeared to be no way back.

It was around this time, that the union found some benevolent board member who were able to finance the union over until they they sorted themselves out. It is amazing to think how close rugby was to dying in South Africa's largest and richest city.

It seems like Joburg just thrives on regenerating itself just when you think it is dead.

Johan Ackerman, who took over as head coach in 2014 will deservedly receive great praise for what his team has achieved, but the rebuild actually started a little bit before that.

Between 2011 and 2013, John Mitchell was coaching the team. Unlike the other fluffybunnies mentioned so far, he didn't enjoy a lot of on-field success, but his contribution was invaluable in re-starting the union. Mitchell and his assistant coach, Carlos Spencer, changed the way that the team trained with much greater focus on improving the individual skills of the players. Absolutely vital in this regard was extracting the Lions from the general dick-waving contest that is junior rugby in South Africa.

The Currie Cup here has two junior competitions at under 19 and under 21 level that run concurrently with the senior competition. The big unions also played Vodacom Cup at the same time as Super rugby. All in all, the big unions maintain between four and five full time pro teams at any one time. The competition for young talent is silly, with WP, Bulls and Sharks all signing about thirty to forty kids straight out of high school. This obsession with big squads is terrible for the balance sheet and also for the quality of coaching that players receive once they are in the system. Under Mitchell the Lions started contracting fewer kids and started focusing on improving the few that they do sign. Mitchell's revolution has meant that the Lions have been able maximise the talent of their squad. We can only hope that the Lions continue down this track despite their new found onfield and financial success.

Lions today

At time of writing the Lions are still one of the four three original Super franchises who have never won a title. That may or may not change this Saturday, but regardless of result on Saturday, this is good time to be a Lions supporter.

They have an honest, humble, likable team under their very impressive (and unfortunately injured) captain Warren Whitely. The team is often incorrectly described as a bunch of journeymen, but that is not really accurate. They are bunch of talented players that have been allowed to flourish in an environment which should act as blue print for the other South African team in how it should be done.

Things are looking up financially, but their position will always remain precarious due to their stadium. Ellis Park is great when the crowds stream in from the suburbs, but as soon as soon as they lose momentum those same supporters will stay at home rather than running the gauntlet that in central Joburg.

It is amazing how things just seem to fix itself when things start going well. All of a sudden the Lions are again producing Springboks and their Craven Week side was crowned champions at the annual senior schools competition.

As fellow traveler I want to congratulate the Lions on what they have achieved and wish them the best of luck for Saturday.

@ACT-Crusader Thanks, let's see if I last another 20years

On theroar and G&G there is a lot of performative outrage about SA selecting a B side for this game, it is a heavily rotated side, but not down a lot in terms of the "first choice available" team. There are some big name injuries in the squad at the moment, Nche (as of today), Etsebeth, Kolisi, Hendrikse and Pollard so they would never have played anyway.

The starting frontrow is first choice, but there is some rotation on the bench with Marx and Nyakane being in front of Dweba and Du Toit.

The second row is the one place where they are going in soft by resting both Mostert and De Jager. Orrie is solid, similar to Mostert, but less physically talented. There is plenty written about Kleyn's selection so I am not going to go into that, but the Munster fans have been raving about his play so we'll see. RG Snyman has looked very good coming back from three years of injuries.

The backrow is uninspiring, but we'll see. We're missing Kolisi and it is between Van Staden and Kwagga Smith for that spot, but I think Smith is pretty far ahead. Van Staden is a no fuss, tough openside, but lacking in star power. PSDT has had a tough run of injuries in 2021 and 2022, but reports regarding his form from Japan is positive. Vermeulen looks like a man that is in the last six months of his career and needs to prove that he is still worth his spot. On the bench is Evan Roos who had an outstanding 21/22 season at 8 for the stormers, but had a tougher go this past season with injuries blunting his effectiveness.

At half back De Klerk is being rested and with Hendrikse out, Reinach comes in. Libbok is getting his long deserved start at 10. His exclusion from the squad in 22 was mistake that came to bite us hard when all the other flyhalf fell over in the middle of the season. He has been brilliant for the stormers and plays very similar to Mo'unga and should give the backs much more direction and edge than they had in 21 and 22. He is known to get yips with kicks at goal from time to time though.

I'm not a fan of Esterhuizen, but Harlequin fans have been thrash wanking themselves over him for years now amd he was admittedly quite good against Italy last year. Am is Am.

Arendse and Moodie come in for Mapimpi and Kolbe - not a big change in terms of quality. Moodie is 21 year old winger in the style of Ben Smith, very good in defense and in the air and has added some flair to his attack this year. Arendse is in my opinion a better version of Kolbe, he is that good.

Given the team selected I think there is going to be some tweaking of the tactics, with fewer contestants kick and more punting it long, forcing Australia to either run it back or kick back and giving the speedy outside backs space to attack.

I am going make my most controversial post ever...

I don't know if I want South Africa to win world cup. There I said it.

Don't get me wrong, I'll bollocking for them come Saturday and will be go ballistic if they win, but I think it will be bad for the game in globally and in South Africa if they win.

Rugby in South Africa has been a shitshow for about a decade now with probably the worst administrators of any sport anywhere in the world. A season where we fall over the line in the Rugby Championship and the World Cup will I think convince the powers that be that they can continue with this shit and all will be alright.

They are already starting with that process with Rassie step down as coach to focus on his role as director of rugby for SARU. The issue is that I can't see anyone taking reigns of Springboks while having a backseat driver sitting at the head office managing the team from afar.

On the other side we have England whose national team has been very very good in this four year cycle. Success that has been built on very good junior teams over the last decade.

The biggest issue I would have with England winning is that it would make Owen Farrell happy, and that is just to ghastly a proposition, so go Bokke.

Re, the line

I am going to try and make a point that is completely beyond my language skills.

Warner is full of shit and he knows it.

So, let's assume De Kock said "hey mate your wife is a slag". Nobody has actually quoted what was said, but the rumours/conjecture suggests it it's something close.

How should you react when someone calls your wife a slag? Well that depends...

Is he attacking the person I am married to or my wife? And yes there is a difference.

A mate that calls your wife a slag is insulting her. When you lash out you are protecting her honour (that might be wrong or right in its own right).

When a guy you barely know says you are married to a slag, he is insulting you. When you explode you are defending your own honour.

So which one happened here? I doubt De Kock knows or cares to know Candice Warner. He, allegedly, said something that touched a nerve with the little shit gibbon. I am sure Warner thinks he was being chivalrous, I think he was being a dick who can dish it out, but doesn't like to get it back. Also think deep down he and his team mates know that he was protecting his own little shit gibbon ego, not the honour of his partner.

So I have watched the game twice over weekend and will probably do watch it again before the week is over, and I wholeheartedly agree with @Billy-Webb above.

Just a couple of thoughts -

1- The body language coming out of the tunnel was weird, some guys looked super geed up (Kolisi and Beast especially) while others had that 1000 yard stare. I was really worried the moment might be too great for some of these guys.

2 - The early penalty against Lawes really helped. It was just such a blatant penalty that I think it helped Garces get over whatever nerves he might have had. Even though Pollard missed a kickable penalty, I think it helped the game that Garces could settle in to the game and we were able to avoid the referee freezing up like we have seen in other big games.

3- The play around Sinkler's injury was huge. It started with the first up and under being defused (big concern before the game) and then South Africa making two or three passes in the middle third of the pitch (something the team didn't do in games leading up to the final). Finally the break after two minutes settled some of the nerves I thought.

4 - There was period in the middle of the first half where things could have gone very wrong for the team. It started with a missed kick to touch (which on replay was a dud call); our maul was disrupted by Cole thanks to very wide gate (twice I think); two tight forwards went down injured with the ref allowing play to continue very close Mbonambi while he was receiving treatment; and finally England smashing away for twenty odd phases.

With the game tied up at 6 all, I was having flashbacks to Twickenham 2018, Wellington 2019 and the pool game against New Zealand where South Africa dominated early doors but didn't convert domination into points.

5 - THE moment of the game for me. SA goes up 9-6 off the back of our dominant scrum. Its three minutes to half time and England kicks deep from the kick off. South Africa recycles the ball a couple of time and get ready to box kick to close out the first half in England's half of the pitch. Luckily the ball comes out awkwardly and Faf shifts it out to the centres where Am makes a neat break, but runs out of support and chips, putting Daly under pressure. Daly knocks on, scrum penalty.

All of a sudden England are chasing the game. Even if they get a 7 pointer, we are still within penalty goal of retaking the lead.

6 - In the third quarter nothing happens and this suits South Africa just fine. Pollard and Farrel trade penalties with the lead staying between 6 and 9 points. England are starting to try a couple more things but are just eaten up by fantastically organised defense and PSDT winning himself a world player of the year in the process.

7 - In the final quarter England start feeling the pressure. The scoreboard suggests that they are still in the game at 12 points to 18 but it is slipping away from them. The scrum has settled down, but you just can't see England scoring a try to break it open and South Africa is starting to enjoy territorial dominance. Little cracks start to show in the English defense until Mapimpi and Am link up to score.

From there England start pushing even harder, but they are going nowhere and when Kolbe goes over from turnover to seal the game.

The game could easily have ended in blow out at this stage, with at least one more try nearly slipping through on Mapimpi's wing from cross kick taking an awful bounce.

8 - I really wish they would do away with the silver medal ceremony. The guys clearly don't want to be there and they are on hiding to nothing. I am sure that in a couple of years the English players will reflect fondly on the tournament they had, but minutes after the final whistle is not the time for that. It is completely understandable that they would just want go to the locker room and reflect in private on what must be a very disappointing night for them.

@mikethesnow

Nah - Sexton bends down gather and drives into Taylor, hitting Taylor on the chest with the shoulder - really isn't anything that Taylor can do in this situation.

This sort of contact is not dangerous, this is not a case of a bad tackle where Taylor was lucky, it's was just two guys on a rugby field trying occupy the same physical area.

The process is fucked up - instead of looking at the incident and making a call on what happened, they choose to look for evidence of foul play. The totality of the video angles shows Sexton's shoulder hitting Taylor's sternum, but one obscure freeze frame makes it look like Taylor's arm/shoulder hits Sexton in the head. It is like arguing the world is flat because that's what it looks like from window - just because evidence of something exists doesn't make it true.

@voodoo the world's tallest boy band would like a word

@Billy-Webb I don't think the boks' performance can be called clinical - by my count they left four clear scoring opportunities on the field* as well as a couple more half chances.

I'd rather say the boks hit all their KPIs but didn't really exceed them.

*that is not to say the boks should have had an extra twenty points - some like the two held up, Mapimpi getting pushed into touch or where Moodie was slow to fold round Mapimpi; were either under advantage or led to points soon after.

I don't want to say it on this forum, but the ABs were very poor in this game. The number of errors they made meant they were invited pressure onto themselves and allowed SA to be a bit careless with opportunities they manufactured.

As bok supporter im pretty happy with that, we came into the game favourites and played like it. The team had a calm confidence about them where they knew that theyd win if they only did their job right. It wasnt the flashiest performance but didnt need to be and cutting out all risk just made it impossible for the All Blacks to fluke a try to bring them back into the game.

Couple of work ons though - the maul isnt working and even if New Zealand defended well it wasnt great against wales either. But mauling is such a part of our game that im pretty sure we'll get it right soon enough.

We should also have found a way to score few more points in the first thirty when we were camped in the All Black 22. It has been a consistent issue in 2021 and 2022 so i have less fiath that we'll find solution to that one.

But my god NZ were poor. Its hard to say if the players or the coaches are to blame, but there are bunch of guys that dont look up to the standards of all Blacks of the last 20years. Also a couple of the old heads were poor and having three test Centurions all misfiring at the same time makes you wonder whether they have time left in their career to turn things around.

I have never seen New Zealand have so many different issues all at the same time and the next coach will have some very tough calls to make about personnel and game plan.

What a truly bizarre situation, so many different things happening at the same time.

Method

WTF, not exactly being subtle are they? Trying to sneak something onto the field when a zip/button etc is far easier to explain away.

The media conference

It was bizarre, half a confession, half a case for the defence.

Calling a news conference on the face of it seems like the honest thing to do, nip the entire process in the bud before you lose control of the situation. But what we ended up with lead to more questions than answers, who was is this leadership group, why in this innings and why Bancroft?
And does anyone really believe what Smith said? This is the first time they have done this (there was very early reverse swing in both the PE and Durban test matches and questions were raised about Warner’s bandaged hands on both occasions?
Sticky tape with some dirt on it? I am imagining something like yellow electrical tape. There is no way that you would achieve anything using electrical tape (or similar) to rough up the ball.
Lehman didn’t know anything? That is plainly not true. It is pretty clear that Hanscombe was sent out there to warn shortly after getting signal from Lehman. I don’t think anyone is buying that. So if Smith is throwing the “leadership group” under the bus, why explicitly exclude Lehman?

Why call the news conference at all. No one expecting them to confess straight off the bat, why not just give a written statement where you are at least protected from making an ass of yourself and having paper thin lies uncovered so easily.

The reaction from back home

Wow. The prime minister coming out to comment, calls for Smith’s immediate and permanent sacking, it is all a little over the top.
People are saying that the Aussie team has undermined the trust that has been placed in them and sullied the image of the baggy greens forever.
Buuuuuullllllshhhhiiiiitttt.
You have to have a combination of a very short memory and a very blinkered view of the Australian cricket team to think they were unsullied before this incident. I guess it goes back to that famous “line”, but when one of your proudest sons were done for drugs and inappropriate contact with bookies, you can hardly make out as if this is an unprecedented insult to cricketing institution that is the Baggy Greens.
I am just really struggling to understand vitriol that is being directed at the team. They cheated, they got caught, it is embarrassing, but fuck’in hell, the sun is going to come up tomorrow and little Johnny down by the oval is still going to want to play for Australia.

WTF is the ICC doing

So when the umpires got the report from the third umpire/match referee I was expecting them to change the ball and award five penalty runs. When they didn’t, I thought, well they didn’t see the evidence, but surely after tea…
Ok maybe not after tea, but after the overnight confession surely they will do something…
In the end it didn’t matter, South Africa won by 300-odd and all was good in the world, but imagine Starc bowled a great spell and blasted out the lower order with a ball that Australia at least attempted to tamper with, what would have happened then?
Then we hear that Bancroft has been found guilty of a level two offence and have been awarded three demerit points. What the ICC is saying is that in their opinion his actions are just culpable as Rabada’s should rub/barge from Port Elizabeth. Really, do we really think those two actions are in the same league?
But it doesn’t really matter, because we all know that Cricket Australia will take sterner action against these miscreants.
That may or may not be the case, but shiver to think what the response would have been if you replace Bancroft with Rahane and Cricket Australia with the BCCI. The internet would have exploded.

Very frustrating game from a South African perspective. The game showed two and half issues that the Boks have been dealing with all season.

Looking at the game, we kept Wales to 130 running meters and it didn't feel like we were losing the kicking battle. So how did the Welsh manage to score 18 points? Through penalties, duh... But it wasn't just the six penalties that they put over - just about all the field position the Welsh were able to gain came from South African offences. I didn't think Williams was great (he hammered on some minor issues while missing some major ones), but we need to be better at navigating the referee's interpretation.

The second issue is our inability to finish off half and full chances. Just some examples - Jantjes getting caught with ball after De Allende's break in first half (half chance), Reinach failing to link up with Mapimpi after Reinach made that great break (full chance), Am's kick and regarher to set up on the Welsh five meter (half chance). Convert one or two of those and the game looks completely different.

Related to this - we are struggling to set up chances. We had 60odd percent territory, much of it around the Welsh 22, but as soon as the attack got stalled, we had no way of getting it going again. Props to the Welsh for defending bravely, but we did not make it difficult enough.

All in all, a win is a win, but there is an alternative universe where we lose this game despite Wales not doing much of anything.

No offence to Wales though - they showed up given their injuries and limitations, but the game should not have been anywhere as close as it was.

@Crucial said in The recent troll account:

@Kid-Chocolate said in The recent troll account:

@Duluth said in The recent troll account:

(a mental patient who is obsessed with TSF)

who, me?

No. A different one.

Oy I haven't posted in months, leave me out of this

@TeWaio said in RWC Final: England v Springboks:

This modern trend of this trend of super mobile ball running props makes it easy to forget how absolutely important scrums are. You are screwed in a tight game if your scrum gets hammered: any dropped ball = youget ball back or a penalty, any penalty within 50m = chance for points. Same principle for the trend of selecting smaller locks who are brilliant in the loose (Itoje @ 1.95m) and two 7s - you are giving up second row power and it matters.

I get your point and respect it, but you also need to realise how good this tight five (ten, or is that eleven if you count PSDT) of South Africa is.

Beast might lack the subtly of Sinckler or the ball carrying of Vunipolu the fatter, but he is busy around the park clearing out and tackling hard. Marx, Kitshoff and (especially) Snyman are super slick ball in hand. Mostert is a lock sized human being (don't be fooled by how he looks next to his locking partners) with an engine like nobody's business.

Tribute to these guys for working their game to get it where it is. Beast started out as a blindside, yet today he is capable of winning a world cup final off the back of his scrummaging. Kitshoff started out as bit of pot plant prop, but his ball handling and carrying is truly world class.

One of the things in the build up that annoyed me was how often the British scribes pulled out the old cliches - South Africa is big/slow, will tire, lack skills, etc. It just seemed lazy and short sighted to base all the analysis on what was admittedly a poor performance against Wales.

***This post is not meant to deify the springbok team. They did/do have weaknesses - Marx and Mbonambi are prone to yips in the line-out. Beast and Etsebeth, despite the power and speed, are not great ball carriers. Du Toit's running game seems to have disappeared just as his defensive game has become the best in the world, etc etc.

@booboo nope I think he spelled it perfectly

“Our decision to exit the Western Force has been guided primarily by financial outcomes.

Am I the only one that reads that to mean that they can't afford to pay/buy out the owners of the Rebels, so they went with the Force because that is what they can afford to do right now?

I think it is a mistake. I am hardly an expert on the Australian sporting landscape, but from here it looks like nobody gives a shit about the Rebels in Melbourne. Long term I thought the Force had a better chance of being a medium fish in a medium pond, while the Rebels will always be drowned out by AFL in Melbourne.

@chimoaus

In boxing they say styles make fights. The abs ran into a style that is just super awkward to play against.

Since at least 2012 the All Blacks have been a pain in the ass to play against cause you just know that they would score at least 2 tries out of fucken nothing, normally from turnover or an arsey kick. Today the pumas made almost no errors that the all blacks could capitalize on. The Pumas, unlike aus in the first three bled tests, really managed to put pressure on the All Black ruck ball.

I also felt that in the middle 40 the pumas showed more energy around the park. They were better in the ruck and when a ball fell free they made the 50-50 balls 80-20 to them.

The All Blacks have a good line out and maul, but their scrum looks like a weakness. They have a number of good second channel runners (Ardie, Sotutu, Coles) but needed Tuipoluto and the props to do more in close. Defence is fine, but never looked like getting turnovers. Kicking game is not the strength it has been (I thought the Puma full back was shakie and should have been tested more). Discipline was poor and dumb, summed up by Coles getting that penalty reversed after Gardner just warned both teams about that shit.

Also to add, it's not clear who the superstars additions are going to be in this WC cycle. Clarke was spectacular on debut, but nothing yet since. Sotutu looks very promising and Jordan was great in SRA. Ideally you'd want a couple more stepping up to replace B Smith, SBW and Read already gone and A Smith, Whitelock, Moody, B Barret, Coles and maybe Retallick not looking likely they for 2023.

I'm a not sure how I feel about the Koirebete hit. It seems identical to the red in in the Wales/Arg game. In both cases I would lean towards yellow using a drop in body height as mitigation/excuse. On the other hand, in both cases the tackler chose to make huge hit which they were unable to control, so I don't have much sympathy for either tackler. The 20min red would have been the right result in both cases, but unfortunately that was voted down.

A bigger problem is the inconsistency of what is being picked up by the referee and TMO. After the SA A v Lions game Gatland in a presser tried to argue that Faf should have seen red for his hit on Wyn Jones. Erasmus fired back on Twitter raising a couple of hits that were not reviewed (

. .

If we really want change behavior it is far more important that every high hit is punished rather than picking instances at random for severe punishment. I am reminded of story in Victorian England when pick pockets would be executed in public hangings. But people would continue to pick pocket at these events because the risk of being caught was so low.

Oh can I just congratulate Matera, he was a fucken beast today. I really hope people remember this performance whenever best individual performance comes ups. It was up there with Carter v lions 2005, Lomu 1995, Desautoir 2007.

@chimoaus I hate this ruling - what the panel is saying is that the ref was wrong to rc the player. It was one of those calls where reasonable people can disagree and the panel can even conclude that they would have called it differently, but this is not an example of a wrong call. Don't ban Koriobete sure, but saying he did nothing wrong is just objectively wrong.

The Springboks approach to the refereeing in this game interesting. Firstly, for better or worse, Rassie's pressure on the referee worked and O'Keefe was much stricter (on both teams) than Berry in the first game. But the players also put far more pressure on him. It has been a theme of this tour that the Lions have been "bullying" opposition teams with little hold backs and shit tons of chat. In this game, every time there was a bit of a push the Springboks would rush in and force the ref to deal with it. It made for a terrible spectical, but at least the lions were not allowed to set the narrative the way they have been allowed to on tour.

In the first half it felt like South Africa was playing a bit more of the rugby, but inaccuracies led to consecutive penalties that kept the lions in the game.

I am actually a little more worried about the Boks attack now than I was before the game. Whereas the Lions didn't try to attack, the Boks in patches did, but the passing and alignment was so bad that they couldnt get anything going. A grinding, trench war is good enough to win this week but based on this performance I am worried that we will fall flat on our face if we decide pull the trigger.

And my god was this a stop start affair. For example, in the first 10 minutes of the second half there were about 10 phases of rugby played. Mapimpi scored in the 44th minute, after the conversion and kick off there was a scrum that collapsed three times, leading to free kick to the lions. One or two phases and then a penalty in 50th minute. That's just dreadful.

There's a lot of talk about South Africa winning the aerial battle in the second half, neither team was any good. The lions knocked on a couple balls, but the South African back three were not a lot better. South Africa were just a bit better at recovering loose balls after the kick were miss-fielded.

And can supporters please shut up about cards all the time. Social media is full of calls for five or six citings to be dished out against both sides. It was nasty unpleasant game, but a hundred miles from being truly dirty. It feels like everyone is just looking for drama for drama sake.