Home Springboks Bok Bonus – for Duiwel and all

Bok Bonus – for Duiwel and all


Here’s a little bonus and a reminder to the way the Boks used to play. Click on the link following.

Not that very well put together, but check around 4:36 to see the maste Habana in action.
BTW who’s that #5 lock burning the pitch? Beanpole vd Berg?

Leave Your Comment Here



    Here are a few of the average penis sizes by country in centimetres:

    Republic of Congo, 18
    Ecuador, 17.7
    Ghana, 17.2
    Colombia 17
    Iceland 16.5
    Italy 15.7
    South Africa 15.2
    Sweden 14.9
    Greece 14.7
    Germany 14.4
    New Zealand 13.9
    UK 13.9
    Canada 13.9
    Spain 13.9
    France 13.4
    Australia 13.2

    Russia 13.2
    USA 12.9
    Ireland 12.7
    Romania 12.7
    China 10.9
    India 10
    Thailand 10
    South Korea 9.6
    North Korea 9.6

  2. The footage comes primarily from games between 1997 and 2005.

    The Bok record against Aus, Eng, Fra and NZ was:
    5 Coaches and 123 players
    won 25
    lost 35
    drew 2
    Average 42%

    Were these the glory years to long for?
    I hope not.

  3. ja I remember when we were invincible.
    If only mallet didn’t sell out Gary.
    It set a string of consequences together
    That we have never recovered from
    Thanks for that!
    May I life to see the Bokke do 18

  4. One of the saddest things to happen
    in SA rugby.
    I read Teichman’s book.

    Viljoen also fooked with traditions
    and the jacket – the braided one
    disappeared, to be replaced later.

    White made a total fookup of the
    Centenary Test, which was also low key
    to please the politicians.

    Pity no one had the guts to fight the
    move of the Bok to the right breast.
    Fokkin slapgatte. Fok die politici.
    The very least they can do is to change
    that abortion of a protea badge to a
    decent design made by someone else than
    Steve Tshwete, whoever.
    Badly designed, old fashioned primar school badge.
    There are some very good designers around.
    And the protea is quitre a pretty flower.

    Compare it to the emblem worn by the Scots, Poms, etc.
    But it seems it worries only me.

  5. Take nothing away from the play during the 97-98 run… but highlights be highlights… I can do exactly the same from this year…

  6. Reply to Duiwel @ 11:25 pm:

    In those days Wales and Scotland were a guaranteed 100 pointer, Argentina were amateur and the games defensive structures, technical analysis et al were in the stone-ages away from where we are today…

  7. Ja ja
    But in those days
    We could pass, step,sell the dummy,
    Catch the pill,offload the pill,support play
    All those basics
    Bryce I’m not disputing that other sides
    Got better
    But it is a incontestable fact that as they got
    we got worse
    I’m tired of fkn excuses
    The black gonernment,the saru ,the schedule .
    All that bollocks doesn’t help you
    Pass or catch a rugby ball
    All we do is tackle
    And kick away
    It’s a pathetic semblance of
    How we use to be

  8. Bok rugby got replaced
    By rainbow nation rugby
    And like an amputated limb
    We try and fool ourselves
    That its still there

    I’m no expert
    But I have seen Bok rugby
    And I have seen shit
    And no amount of buzz
    Will convince me that the shit
    I see now
    Is Bok rugby

  9. Reply to Boertjie @ 3:16 pm:

    For the Boks to play like that will require a transformation in SA rugby.

    A transformation in playing style is just like a transformation in racial makeup. You need to start with implementation at junior levels and will have to wait a few decades for the results to show up.

    Otherwise it will just be ineffectual window dressing.

  10. Ja-ja
    Always a story Timeo.
    Always an excuse.
    Always someone else to blame.
    If the Springbokke could pass the ball
    Like they pass the fkn blame
    We’d beat the ALl blacks blindfolded.

  11. WTF??

    So we actually did have support runners waiting for the pass at some stage? What happened, why is it now such a swear word?

  12. Reply to Duiwel @ 9:55 pm:

    I think what he is trying to say (and if you read comments, sms’ and comments on blogs and the media) is that supporters, supports the conservative approach.

    I just blame it on the Bulls and their run of luck from 2007…

  13. Reply to Timeo @ 2:58 am:

    Racial transformation, rugby transformation, is nothing more than a transformation of a mindset. We (and at junior levels it is mainly parents or teachers, ie supporters) don’t coach youngsters “expansive” rugby because we do not believe in expansive rugby.

  14. Ja-ja.
    Transformation will enable me to
    catch and pass a rugby ball
    I have heard it all.
    That is the problem with the
    Rainbow nation:
    It’s better at talking aimlessly about
    why it can’t do stuff
    Than actually doing it.

  15. Expansive rugby is catching
    And passing ?
    No Timeo
    It’s simply part of the game
    More to the point ,it’s the part that eludes us.
    In fact all the parts save
    Kicking poorly and aimlessly
    and tackling
    Eludes us.
    We have turned into rugby leaguers .
    Bash and tackle and when in doubt
    Skop die ding weg!
    Like palookas

  16. Reply to Morné @ 8:43 am:

    And if the mindset change completely tomorrow, it will still take a decade or more for the results to show, because the needed skills will have to be developed from the juniors on up.

    And as long as the Bulls or the Stormers, in their current guise are successful, the mindset will not change.

    Suck it up.

    The video is not a summary of the glory years, it’s the best extracts from a dismal period. The 97/98 run was an anomaly. Nothing more than a lucky streak.

  17. Reply to Timeo @ 7:31 pm:

    Lucky streak se gat.

    As for the majority supporting
    the conservative Bok style:
    Not what I judge by reading the
    comments coming from supporters.
    They want entertaining victories.
    The Boks are playing such a kak
    style, I can’t figure out how
    they sometimes manage a win.

  18. Reply to Timeo @ 7:31 pm:

    I am not disagreeing with you, the mindset change is more of a cultural change imo in any event, we are by nature conservative and rugby is simply an extension of that.

    As far as 97/98 goes, the only difference for me is we had forwards that dominated the contact point or rucks. If any backline has 70% quick, front-foot ball to play with, they will look awesome.

    In 2009 it was the same, and we scored some beautiful tries even from set pieces with ‘conservative’ players like FDP, Morne Steyn, JDV operating in the 9,10,12 axis.

  19. Reply to Boertjie @ 12:30 am:

    Supporters by large would not know the difference between entertaining rugby or conservative rugby if it sat on their faces.

    They want the Boks to play like the All Blacks who kicks the ball more on average per game. Go figure.

  20. It’s like saying the Bulls were lucky from 2003… (the “run of luck”) Morne refers to… fuck they must be the luckiest team in the world….

    As a matter of interest the period season 1996 and 1997 and then 2000 – 2003 were probably the least successful years ever in the history of Bok rugby…

    In 2012 the Boks played twelve games and lost three. It is one of the most successful seasons ever…

    And we’re whingeing…

    That is a good thing for a change but the playing style has fuckall to do with it.

    Habana’s chip and chase individual effort was not the only good try of the season by the Boks.

    Suggest go relook at videos of the games.

    Habana (3) and Kirchner v Aus

    Francois Steyn v Arg (a)

    Habana and Kirchner v Arg (h)

    Hougaard and Pietersen v Eng (2d test)

    JDV v Eng (1st test)


    We scored plenty of fucking tries this season and duuuhhh the TRY OF THE SEASON was scored by a Springbok…

    The glass is always half empty…

  21. Reply to Boertjie @ 12:30 am:

    The reason I said it was a lucky streak is because, before or since, there has been nothing close to resembling it.
    If there was a formula, then it would have been repeatable.

    If Mallett had a formula, his results in 1999 and 2000 would have been comparable. Instead, the rest of his tenure was worse than average. They regressed to the mean. Which means, that whatever the secret to the Bok success was, Mallett did not know it. Which means he was just lucky. Which means SA rugby was just lucky.


  22. Reply to Timeo @ 4:37 pm:

    If that group of players were of above average talent, one would have seen above average results in the years before and after ’98 also. Those results were below average.

    If it was Mallett’s game-plan that was superior, then it would have left a legacy of superior results in the following years and better than average results, even after he left. Memories and vestiges of the superior game-plan would have lingered for a while. There was nothing of that.

    Instead, there was a regression to the mean, which suggest that the winning streak was a random event. Just a lucky streak.

  23. Reply to Morné @ 8:30 am:

    I think the SA playing style that you describe as conservative has more to do with geography than with culture.

    SA is the only country where the majority of rugby games are played at altitude. The Bulls are playing to a formula that gives them an advantage at altitude and since they play more than half their games at altitude, the formula has translated into success for them.

    This makes SA rugby schizophrenic, because the Boks do not play the majority of their games at altitude.

  24. Reply to Morné @ 8:33 am:

    Fact is the ABs do so much more
    than kick.
    E.g. support play, offloads, creating space
    out wide.
    They score tries, even from their own 22.
    The Boks don’t.
    Simple, innit?

  25. Reply to Boertjie @ 5:37 pm:

    Their Super Rugby teams do too, as does their ITM Cup teams. Quite similar to the Cheetahs and Lions for SA…

    In the words of Sean Fitzpatrick; ‘The basics of rugby will never change, do the basics right, and you can play any type of game you want to.’

    It seems we all know how we want the Boks to play, but not many have a basic idea of how to do it other than comparing them to the All Blacks.

    The All Blacks are doing one thing very well, the basics.

    Great tries are scored from great platforms being laid.

  26. Reply to Morné @ 8:09 pm:

    Have we lost the basics?
    Don’t we have the players or coach(es)?
    I mean a blind man can see how fkn
    predictable our whole game is, how
    we can’t pass, offload, create space,
    support – you name it.

    Next time someone please count the
    number of passes the Boks make in
    a test. Surely moving the ball around
    is keeping the oppo guessing, not
    telegraphing every move?

    Where is Duiwel when I need his support?
    Even Shields will do.

    [OK, you may regard this as the
    mutterings of an old geezer living
    in the past.]

  27. Here’s a little diversion. I’m surprised we’ve not have more discussions on this.


    I was a little shocked when I first saw the ABs in those AIG jerseys

    OPINION: The signing of insurance company AIG to be jersey sponsor of the All Blacks was a coup for the New Zealand Rugby Union, but many fans don’t like it, writes Tony Smith.

    Remember the line in an old Kentucky coalminer’s song: “I owe my soul to the company store”?

    Steve Tew and his New Zealand Rugby Union hirelings should have been humming it when they announced AIG – an insurance giant that received the biggest government bailout in American history – was the new jersey sponsor of the All Blacks.

    This was hailed as a major corporate coup by the NZRU. But it’s the final straw for longtime All Black fans of my acquaintance.

    The NZRU may have a convenient case of corporate amnesia, but a lot of New Zealanders remember AIG as one of the biggest basket cases of the 2008 financial system implosion.

    The American government bailed out AIG to the tune of $US182 billion – about $60 billion more than New Zealand’s annual GDP.

    It wasn’t the Government paying for the insurer’s excesses – the cash came from the pockets of American working people.

    No wonder the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) stated the AIG “rescue” demonstrated that the Treasury and the Federal Reserve would commit taxpayers to pay any price and bear any burden to prevent the collapse of the America’s legal institution.

    The panel said the deal had had “poisonous effects” on the financial marketplace and public opinion. Fair COP?

    Yet within a week of the bailout, AIG spent $US444,000 on a retreat in California where staffers enjoyed lavish banquets, golf games and spas. A further $US86,000 was squandered on a hunting trip to England for company executives.

    Still, AIG kept going cap in hand to Capitol Hill for more cash. It reported a record fourth-quarter loss of $61 billion in March 2009 – yet the very same month paid bonuses totalling $165 million to its executives.

    Here’s what United States President Barack Obama had to say about that: “It’s hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less than $165 million in extra pay.”

    Is this really the type of company the NZRU should leap into bed with?

    Why would it allow a foreign corporate with a chequered record to splash its livery on the jersey of a team synonymous with a century of excellence?

    Why should AIG rehabilitate its reputation through riding on the coat-tails of one of world sport’s most successful teams?

    Ad Feedback

    How much is the NZRU getting from AIG? It won’t say, although it’s clearly more than 30 pieces of silver.

    It won’t be as much as the $US56.5m AIG paid to feature on Manchester United’s shirtfronts between 2006 and 2010 at the height of its financial crisis.

    But the AIG deal is reportedly the NZRU’s second biggest sponsorship behind adidas. The rugby body rakes in about $80m in sponsorship each year, so do your own sums.

    I’d like to think there was at least one lone voice around the NZRU board table questioning whether it should do a deal with a company of AIG’s ilk.

    But should we really expect anything other than self-interest from the NZRU?

    The All Blacks may be the exemplars of courage on the field, but their governing body hasn’t historically always displayed moral backbone.

    This is, after all, an outfit that capitulated to demands from South Africa’s racist regime not to include Maori players in the 1949 and 1960 touring teams.

    It sat back and allowed proud Pasifika and Maori men like Bryan Williams and Sid Going to tour South Africa in 1970 as “honorary whites”.

    The All Blacks toured South Africa in 1976 in contravention of the Gleneagles Agreement among Commonwealth nations opposed to sporting contact which provided succour to the apartheid regime.

    The upshot was African nations pulled out of the 1976 Montreal Olympic Games in protest.

    The NZRU and prime minister Rob Muldoon allowed the 1981 Springboks to tour here, knowing civil unrest would ensue in a nation deeply divided over sporting contact with South Africa.

    Not long after rugby went professional, the NZRU abandoned its 75-year partnership with a New Zealand-owned apparel company, Canterbury International, for a deal with global giant adidas, which boosted its coffers by 60 per cent.

    Shrewd business? Perhaps.

    But it spurned a company that produced jerseys made by New Zealand workers on New Zealand pay rates for those made for a German firm at factories in Asia, where apparel industry staff have been paid sweatshop wages.

    I know a lot of people who say to the idealists among us “you can’t eat your principles”.

    But the All Blacks’ jersey is taonga. Before sullying it with a sponsor’s logo, you’d like to think due diligence would be done on more than just the bottom line on the balance sheet.

    That proudest and most humble of All Blacks, Keven Mealamu, revealed while modelling the new AIG-inscribed uniform the All Blacks first wore against Australia at the weekend, that the senior players had insisted on a smaller logo so it didn’t dominate the jersey.

    If that decision was left to the marketers would every square centimetre, apart from the silver fern, carry a corporate’s imprimatur?

    I was one of those who naively believed professional rugby would lead to players who threw their bodies into rucks week after week out being fairly compensated for their labours and that the sport would become self-supporting.

    There has been a trickle-down, not a torrent, to the game’s grassroots yet the amateur arm is still dependent on gaming trust grants – hence Steve Tew’s recent opposition to a Maori Party MP’s Te Ururoa Flavell’s private member’s bill aimed at eradicating pokie machines.

    Do you ever wonder whether professionalism has been a boon for sport?

    Has anyone really benefited beyond players, coaches and executives?

    Many professional sports franchises around the globe are giant loss-making enterprises which would be heading for a date with the Official Assignee’s office if normal business principles were applied.

    They are propped up artificially by television network money or the largesse of owners seeking vanity projects or tax write-offs. You have to head down to the lower leagues to find the real “professional” clubs – those living within their means.

    Fortunately, sport does still have a soul. But you’ll find it in the dressing sheds, not the boardroom.

Comments are closed.