At the end of 2006 the All Blacks were odds-on favourites to win the 2007 Rugby World Cup. The Wallabies seemed likely to struggle to win their RWC quarter-final against South Africa or England, and a chance to lose their pool round match against Wales at Cardiff.
The Springboks were struggling to win anything out of Africa and were expected to lose their RWC pool match against England which would throw them into the NZ half of the draw.
What a difference a new season makes. The All Blacks remain favourites but at longer odds. They are playing nowhere near as well in 2007 as they were in 2005 and 2006. Have they peaked, as Bob Dwyer suggests?
Certainly the controversial policy of taking 22 All Blacks out of the Super 14 does not seem to have worked, yet. There were reports that in the training period the reconditioned All Blacks had became much bigger, much more powerful and much faster. So far there has been no evidence of this. The two best All Blacks in the past two years, Daniel Carter and Richie McCaw have, in fact, been playing well below their best.
The South African sides, in the absence of the All Blacks for 7 matches, had an outstanding Super 14. Teams won out of Africa and the Bulls, powered by two great locks, Bakkies Botha and Victor Matfield, and a sensational Bryan Habana on the wing, became the first South African side to win the Super 14 tournament. The Springboks took this form into their early test matches but stumbled against Australia, requiring two drop goals to win a close victory, and then going down to the All Blacks.
The Wallabies have made the best progress of any of the Tri-Nations sides. John Connolly has finally opted for his old heads George Gregan and Stephen Larkham in the backs. The scrum has become smarter, although under a strict referee it is liable to get smashed. George Smith is back to his best. The Wallabies played poorly against Wales, burst the Springboks bubble and then defeated the All Blacks at Melbourne, after being down 15-6 at half time.
This was the first time in 55 tests the all Blacks had lost after leading at half time. It was the first time, too, in 71 halves of rugby that the All Blacks were held scoreless in 40-minutes of play.
Jake White, the Springboks coach, has opted out of taking his number 1 side to Australia and NZ. A mistake but an understandable one. He doesn’t want to risk the curse of not winning overseas on to his main team. He is now saying that his players will get a huge lift if they beat the All Blacks, or are competitive at Christchurch.
For the All Blacks, sitting on a world record 24 consecutive home victories the next two tests, at Christchurch against the Springboks and the Auckland test against the Wallabies, are all about playing ‘much better’, according to Graham Henry, than they have this year. The All Blacks will need to do this to maintain the momentum they have built up in 2005 and 2006 leading into the World up year.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
- Explore:

Darryl said | July 12th 2007 @ 7:27pm | Report comment
I object your honour!
If Aus burst SA’s bubble by almost winning the Newlands test, how much more will Aus’s bubble have been burst this weekend, when your ‘A’ team lost to our ‘B’ team thanks to errant field goal kicks from our flyhalf, and an Aus try scored from an obvious obstruction. I notice you make no reference to this last weekends result. Just think how much you’d have been hammered if our ‘A’ team were playing?!
Methinks you make too much of the drop kick victory bursting our bubble. Everybody agrees Australia played out of their socks on that day. I don’t believe they would have kept up that performance if they’d played us again the next week. Far from our bubble being burst, rugby is just a funny game. I think SA are in a much healthier spot than Aus. Our ‘B’ team showed the depth we now have, whereas I would say that if Aus lost a Larkham, or a Giteau, it would seriously affect the quality of your ‘A’ team.
But anything can happen on any given Test day. Which makes the RWC so enticing. Any of the top 5 teams stand a chance of winning the WC thanks to that unpredictability.
Darryl said | July 12th 2007 @ 7:29pm | Report comment
Oops, grammatical error in my previous post:
“when your ‘A’ team lost to our ‘B’ team”
was meant to be the opposite way around:
“when our ‘B’ team lost to your ‘A’ team”
DaniE said | July 12th 2007 @ 7:37pm | Report comment
Now that we are heading into the business end of the Tri-Nations, I am almost out of my skin with anticipation. The teams have performed in ways which I had not expected them to. It should be briliant to see how comes out on top!
Having said that, the RWC is a different tournament… there is so much more at stake and the claustrophic and yet festival atmosphere are new pressures on the teams. I’m not expecting anything anymore from the teams – the Tri Nations have surprised me enough! On another note, I have just today received our tix to the RWC…. France here I come!!!
Andrew said | July 12th 2007 @ 8:06pm | Report comment
G’day Darryl,
My turn for the objection!
Everyone I spoke to about the 1st 3N game said the Wallabies defended brilliantly, but that’s about it. Lacked direction in attack, and couldn’t win possession. The only people who think they played “out of their skins” are South African.
Cheers mate.
mcxd said | July 12th 2007 @ 9:13pm | Report comment
Hi guys,
I just want to clarify something…. i keep reading in various posts about Wallabies scoring a try that was “an obvious obstruction”. Im not sure which try that is ? If you are referring to the first try by Gerrard, I dont agree. After watching a few times on replay, the SA defender (cant tell you who) was clearly commited to tackling Larkham (not that he does actually tackle him) leaving a gap in the defensive line. Larkham threw a inside pass to Gerrard who went over. There was clearly no obstruction.
On the other hand, Giteau’s try ? well, that was quite inconclusive really..if it was referred to the video ref and was it, i dont know if i would award it …
Cheers
DF6 said | July 12th 2007 @ 11:10pm | Report comment
Here is a thought to ponder
Brian Lima will possibly be playing in his 5th world cup this year, he has only played 64 tests, imagine samoa had a test schedule like nz or aus or SA or even england, he would have maybe 160-180 test caps
not bad
jools-usa said | July 13th 2007 @ 12:15am | Report comment
Spiro,
Next Test is the acid one.
A good showing against NZ away -maybe a win-, would be a momentum plus.
Even so, can’t overlook Wales in Pool & assuming we get to Quarters, Poms or SA.
As you said, with a maverick ref, our tight five could be impaired……..plus injuries to Gregan, Larkham, Latho, Mortlock………………… Heaven forbid!
Trend is good but champagne stays in cellar until October.
Jools-USA
Darryl said | July 13th 2007 @ 12:32am | Report comment
Hey Andrew,
Yeah, I was just having a go at Spiro mainly. Didn’t want to let him get away with being too one-eyed about SA’s bubble bursting.
I wouldn’t pay too much attention to that Newlands test quite honestly. One has to wonder how much players are committing their bodies to these tests so soon before the WC. If you’re injured now you’re most likely out of the WC.
Aus always show up when it gets to the business end, and barring any injuries to your top lads, I’m sure Aus will be in with a shout in the semi’s at least.
I just want 2 things:
- damn good rugby, and
- refs that don’t stuff up games
What are the odds on 2/2 do ya think? Here’s hoping!
Jerry said | July 13th 2007 @ 7:34am | Report comment
Jool-Usa –
How do you read “maverick ref” from “strict ref”? A ref who applies the rules and doesn’t let the Wallabies get away with the sort of crap they used to get away with a crap scrum vs SA and the AB’s (particularly in the 1st half) isn’t “maverick” so much as “doing his job”, surely?
Sam Taulelei said | July 13th 2007 @ 10:58am | Report comment
As much as it pains me to admit it, I agree with Spiro’s assessment of the Tri Nations teams performances so far.
The Wallabies, with the least number of quality players to select from, absence of a rest and reconditioning program, lack of outright pace in the backline and the least feared forward pack in the competition have progressed the most this season.
The Springboks while they are experiencing a blip at the moment, still pose the biggest challenge to the All Blacks winning the World Cup. They haven’t transferred the style of game that made the Sharks so dangerous and enjoyable to watch to the test arena, but at full strength they are a team worthy of the title World Cup champions.
The Kiwi public are still waiting to see the benefits of the famed reconditioning program in the All Blacks performances this year and compared to the high standards they have set over the past two years, are off the pace. The program is designed to have players peak in September and October, but it isn’t obvious to the naked eye of any evidence of the reported gains in strength and speed. I’m not a physiology expert but I don’t think that these gains will just automatically switch on once they are in France, and they are running out of games to achieve some form before the World Cup. I don’t agree with Bob Dwyer’s comments that they are a team in decline, but rather they haven’t progressed as much whereas the Wallabies and Springboks have.
It’s still hard to gauge an accurate guide about the strengths of each team and the next two tests in New Zealand will answer some questions. The All Blacks are expected to beat South Africa and need to play with greater accuracy and be more clinical in their execution to answer critics and appease an increasingly nervous public. They will also want to have momentum leading into their final match against a resurgent Wallabies side who are gaining in confidence with every game they play.
It’s time for the All Blacks to stand up and prove they are still the team to beat and I’m picking them to win by a convincing margin on Saturday. 20+ points