The All Blacks are back. The Springboks are almost there
Columnist
Related coverage
- Canterbury Crusaders news
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- Rugby World Cup 2011 news
- New Zealand All Blacks news
- South Africa Springboks news
- ELVs news
- 2011 Wallabies squad news
- Rugby 2011 news
- Wallabies v All Blacks news
There were a number of intriguing questions answered – and one unanswered – at the end of the titanic All Blacks-Springboks Test, the opening match of the 2008 Tri-Nations tournament, won in the rain and cold of Wellington by the home side, 19 – 8.
Would the All Blacks maintain their decade-long series of victories over the Springboks in New Zealand? Yes.
Would the sequence of 29 successive home Test victories in New Zealand remain in place? Yes.
The All Blacks have now played an astonishing 2400 minutes of Test rugby in New Zealand without a loss. Are the All Blacks back from the horrors of the 2007 RWC? Yes.
In my preview of the Test, I suggested that the All Blacks must be closer to the end of this amazing run of home victories than to the beginning of the sequence. But it was clear on Saturday night that it is going to be a very good team that will end the sequence.
Luckily for the Wallabies, they play only one of their four Bledisloe Cup Tests (two in Australia, one in Hong Kong as well) in New Zealand.
Are the 2008 Springboks going to be that team in Dunedin on Saturday?
Coach Peter de Villiers will have to rejig his pack, probably to bring in Pierre Spies and Ryan Kankowski.
Juan Smith and Joe van Niekerk were barely seen throughout the Test.
Schalke Burger played a mighty game heading the tackle count for both teams with 17 hits. The next highest tackle count, for both sides, was Victor Matfield with 14 tackles.
But Burger was virtually forced to try and combat the impressive New Zealand loose forward trio (even though Richie McCaw was out) by himself.
The New Zealand tight and loose forwards had such a strangle hold on possession that the South Africans were forced to make 164 tackles. New Zealand had to make 126 tackles. Both sides conceded 29 turnovers.
The Springboks took in their Rugby World Cup game plan of playing without risks and capitalising on interceptions and unexpected break-outs for occasional tries into the Test.
Unfortunately for them, and due to another selecting mistake by de Villiers, the third leg of the plan, dead-eyed goal-kicking, was missing.
Butch James missed a couple of shots that Percy Montgomery would have slotted and the All Blacks had a narrow 9 – 8 lead at half-time (after a brilliant try by Bryan Habana) which should really have been a Springboks lead.
After half-time, the fitter, faster and more enterprising All Blacks scored ten points to nil, and they were robbed of a try (apparently by a ruling from the assistant referee) when Jerome Kaino was deemed offside when he clearly was on-side chasing through a Daniel Carter grubber kick.
The Springboks, sooner or later, will have to play more rugby in these big matches if they want to win away from home.
Their lineout remains impregnable, with Victor Matfield in majestic lineout form. And towards the end of the Test, they started unravelling the New Zealand system and won three New Zealand throws in succession.
The Springboks scrum, though, was under pressure.
Of ten Springbok feeds, there were three resets and a lost scrum. There was little attempt to play sequences of play by moving the ball through the backline.
And the All Blacks?
The pack was strong in its set pieces, especially the scrums.
With Daniel Carter in majestic form, the backline looks dangerous whenever they run the ball. Ma’a Nonu made several damaging breaks, and Conrad Smith is a clever defender and organiser in the middle of the field.
Without McCaw this is not a great All Blacks side. But it is a very, very strong team with a lot of character, an area that was missing last year.
The fitness of the All Blacks, too, is going to put opposition teams under pressure (as the Crusaders do) in the second halves of tight matches. There is a lot more action with the ball in play under the experimental law variations (the ELVs).
My feeling is that the Springboks are not anywhere near the fitness levels needed to play effectively for 80 minutes under the ELVs. The Wallabies, in my opinion, have even less 80 minute ELVs fitness than the Springboks.
Three teams that have won the RWC – the 1987 All Blacks, the 1991 and 1999 Wallabies – dominated the rugby world for a couple of years after their World Cup triumph.
Two teams – the 1995 Springboks and the 2003 England – dropped down the ladder in the years after their World Cup victory.
So the last of the intriguing questions arising out of the first 2008 Tri-Nations Test arises: will the World Cup champion Springboks fall back into the pack, or will they remain the rugby pack leader?
The question wasn’t answered on Saturday night.
These are early days. The 2008 Springboks won their home Tests with a degree of panache.
They have lost the first Tri-Nations Test, against an implacable opponent, more easily than the scoreboard suggests. But there was enough in their efforts to suggest that the history of the 1995 World Champions might not be repeated.
At worst, the Springboks are going to be extremely difficult to defeat in South Africa.
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.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW (4)
- Nathan Sharpe to retire at end of 2012 (4)
- Queensland ready for Super challenge (2)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (52)
- Foley excited about Samoan rugby challenge
- Force rugby coach praises his pack (2)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (65)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (26)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
LukeR said | July 8th 2008 @ 10:00am | Report comment
Good points Spiro,
The fitness aspect really showed up in the favour of the all blacks. The fitness of the All black back row was truly devastating for the boks, particularly So’iolo and Thompson. Kaino also had a very strong ball running game. And then of course there is Thorne, Williams and Hoare. All strong ball runners and mobile.
There is however a lot of hope for the boks. Botha and Matfield will almost certainly play better in Dunedin. The inclusion of a backrower with some spark, my pick would be Kankowski, will certainly test the defence of the All black back three.
I actually think that Juan Smith played pretty well all things considered. He made some important tackles and did manage to disrupt the ball at the breakdown to some extent.
Australia’s only real hope of winning this tournament is our back row disrupting the All black ball, and maintaining solid possession agains the boks. Look for Dean to play a backrow of 6: Elsom, 7 Waugh, and 8 Smith against the boks and again against All blacks if McCaw is still injured. This combination maintains a three man lineout option and should prove to be extremely difficult for the boks and blacks, neither of which have a true 7 at the moment.
Roger said | July 8th 2008 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
I just watched the replay over lunch and didnt see the game as one-sided as most are reporting.
Game appeared to be pretty much played between SA 30m and NZ 50m lines, with a large amount of midfield bombs.
Both team played up and in defenses and dared the other to run around them. What was of real note was that whenever a player was tackled, unlike under the old rules, defedners tended to fan out in defence.
Now I agree that there was some ferocious contact in the game, but like watching league, this contact is emphasised when it is more of a man on man tackle without several other diving into the contest like in the Australia v France game.
As far an individual performances, De Villiers played very well, as did James in parts (sans high hits of course). I thought Juan Smith did an enormous amount of work and looked absolutley spent. He and Burger seemed to do the work of 3 men, which was needed as Neirkerk went missing and SA will do well to bring Spies in. Matfield and Botha didnt reach their awesome hieights but were still capable and Matfield would have enjoyed a more open game.
Thompson for mine did nothing in attack or defense and just added another body, Soialo played manfully but was rarely stretched in terms of expansive attack and defense that 7s are crucial for. Williams and Thorn were fantastic and really seem to have an appetite for aggression and contact. ABs centres certainly tested the defence but arent world breakers. Ellis seemed apprehensive at times and his choices seem tentative. Carter = sublime.
This game felt very much like a game of chess when both teams played down the middle channel for most of the time and just tried to get the opposing forwards running back to help their backs deal with retrun bombs.
So all told, NZ dominated at Scrum and kick, but SA are right in the next test with a great shot. With Spies in and the rest of team with a game under their belt, I would say if SA play with more width that they might get a better result…but then there’s always Dan Carter to beat!
I
True Tah said | July 8th 2008 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
Roger,
most of the articles I have read suggest that NZ were unlucky to have only beaten the Boks by 11 points – funnily enough they were all written by NZers. Having said that at least I didn’t have to listen to Murray Mexted’s commentary last weekend.
Schalk Burger is simply a machine, the man never takes no for an answer, de Villiers made quite a few breaks down the centre channel (although sooner or later Nonu’s defensive weaknesses will be found out).
This weekend will be the best opportunity for the Boks to win in NZ for a long time. Bringing in Spies will ensure speed and size from the back of the ruck, although he may not be match fit.
What about Franci Steyn – a lot of people love criticising the guy, but when he comes on, the game changing significantly – keep your eye on this guy, because he could easily be as good as Daniel Carter.
dennis4u15 said | July 8th 2008 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
Very good assessment…the all blacks definitely looked fitter and that counted in the end..the margin should definitely have been bigger..as for the wallabies they have a tough task in the coming weeks…the intensity of the tri nations will be much higher compared to the three tests the wallabies have played so far and the boks and the all blacks will ask more questions of the good looking oz defence… australian scrum still looks vulnerable and both the african and the kiwi coaching staff must have taken a note of that.. all the best to the wallabies
Roger said | July 8th 2008 @ 4:17pm | Report comment
A lot of time and attention has gone into discussing the Australian scrum. For mine, I too sometimes listlessly imagine when Richard Harry or Ben Darwin would actually make the opposition look twice.
However, since the early 2000s I cannot remember anyone other than the English punishing us in scrums. Can anyone cite any other games where we have been soundly beaten in a scrum, AND have also lost the game? Very confusing as Engalnd seems to be able to dish the Wallabies scrum up whenever it plays us, however has no real effectiveness against other countires that our scrum failrs ok against and against who we have success.
Why is it so?
stuff happens said | July 8th 2008 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
I agree with these three posts except that in attack James looked to me out of his depth and took the wrong option by kicking away the ball. Maybe it was just a bad game for him – generally he has been a much improved player recently.
The ‘Boks have a great opportunity this weekend .As Dave Brockhoff would say – ‘No backward steps!’
We’ll see.
Jerry said | July 8th 2008 @ 4:24pm | Report comment
Roger – uh…the team with it’s name in the title to the thread? Most notably in the 2005 game in Australia, the AB scrum has been one of the big differences between the teams.
Rugby Follower said | July 8th 2008 @ 4:49pm | Report comment
Great game and the AB’s thoroughly deserved to win.It has been noticable to me how the Northern Hemisphere teams have all struggled with their fitness aginst the Southern Henisphere teams this year. The French were out on their feet before half time in the Sydney test and the Welsh fell away badly in the last 20 minds of the second test in which they had been very competitive until then. I beilieve that the ELV’s used in the S14 have played a big part in this. One of the key Bok players, Matfield , was playing under the S14 ELV’s for the first time and he struggled wth the pace of the game by his own admission. Otherwise I didn’t think the Boks were less fit than the AB’s and I certainly did not think it was a one sided match. The conditions played a big part as did the injury to Smit. The game was marred by some apalling decisions by the match officials. Disallowing the AB No 8′s try was one and calling Botha offside on the AB line was another – particulary as the Boks were attacking and Solialo was clearly offside at the time. Sanzar lets have neutral refs for these games, please. The thought of Matt Goddard this week makes my hair stand on end!
Incidently the S14 and Tri Nations ELV’s are fine, as are those used in the Sydney Club Premiership. Unfortunaltely these are not the ELVs approved by the IRB to be applioed internationally from August. For an insight into how appalling the latter are , look for a replay of a Currie Cup game. You will see almost non stop full arm penalties at the breakdown! Remeber the IRB have told the refs to be very strict at the breakdown.The South Africans are already voicing their disapproval but unless someone does something we will end up going backwards rapidly come August!.
Nick said | July 8th 2008 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
It is interesting reading through all the comments to think once again about the embarrassment of riches available to South African and New Zealand selectors despite the exodus of players to Europe. I wouldn’t want to choose between Spies and Kankowski (my pick of all the players in the Super 14 this year except when he was Phil Waughed against the Tahs – twice).
I’ve thought for a long time now that indecision in the mind of selectors has been one of the main problems for both our main rivals. Whereas Australia has had a core set of players that have picked themselves – we’ve done as much as we can with what we’ve had and allowed combinations to settle, New Zealand and South Africa chop and change trying to decide, disrupting the teams and the combinations.
I notice the talk of Australia now having two players in every position. That may be the case in terms of potential and talent but not proven performance – yet. It is an exciting time for sure with new rules (finally) all this young blood flowing through the team and a very different pattern of play but for the first time in a long time I have NO IDEA how we will go against South Africa in a home test and I am extremely nervous that we will get spanked.
This nervousness was heightened on the weekend at the Australia A game on Sunday. I was quite frankly bitterly disappointed by the performance of our second national side. I was expecting a victory – they really should have dominated that Maori team made up largely of second string Super 14 players. The result was not a good indication of depth.
So, all fingers crossed that our rivals trip over their talent and Australia limp across the line in this Tri Nations series because unless Robbie Deans is truly a magician, at this stage it is the only way I see Australia lifting the trophy this year.
ohtani's jacket said | July 8th 2008 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
I don’t know what Test you guys were watching, but South Africa’s chances of winning this weekend look pretty bleak. Take it from a one-eyed Kiwi, you can feel it in your bones when New Zealand are gonna lose.
Australia would have to do the mother of all cock-ups to lose to SA too.