By Spiro Zavos
July 8th 2008 @ 2:48am
The All Blacks are back. The Springboks are almost there
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.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(26)
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.
stuff happens said | July 8th 2008 @ 6:22pm | Report comment
Ohtani’s jacket – so tell me, did you ‘feel it in your bones’ before France in RWC ‘07 and ‘99 or Aust in ‘03 and ‘91?
Don’t worry, my bones ain’t too good sometimes either! Usually because my predictions for Australia are wrong – I never thought we’d beat the AB’s in ‘RWC ‘03 or lose to Eng in ‘07.
Ah well , that what keeps us tuning in I suppose.
Jerry said | July 8th 2008 @ 7:03pm | Report comment
Ohtani – I’d disagree strongly. While I’d expect the AB’s to win (and if it’s dry for the full 80 I’d be more confident) this Bok team isn’t that far away. A strong performance, a couple of good bounces and they could pip the ABs.
Stuff happens – As far as 99 and 91, I wasn’t that confident. Even if we’d beaten France in the 99 semi, I felt Aus had the wood on us after that pasting in Sydney earlier in the year.
Burger's Fan said | July 8th 2008 @ 9:12pm | Report comment
The above mambo jumbo is sad to say the least. Please enjoy the following quotes “The All Blacks re-established their supremacy (???????) in any form of rugby that does not end in the presentation of the Webb Ellis Trophy” The Boks lost they went beaten, Kindly watch the second match without your blinds on…..
“Consequently we are forced to conclude that South African forwards are made from materials that must have been developed by NASA,especially Schalk Burger whose forbears must have been crash test dummies.” Spies, Burger, Bakkies and Metfield will have more to say…….
“I don’t believe that he was ever injured and that SARFU gave him a holiday to go on the pop with some mates. He returned against the All Blacks seemingly indestructible and at considerable advantage because of it. The freak.”…..
The only player of note in the All Blacks is Carter….Others i choakers as the All Blacks side during various World Cups. 1991 – 20…….!
mcxd said | July 8th 2008 @ 10:32pm | Report comment
Did anyone manage to get a have a look at a NH take on this game, in particular that it was the first international played under the ELVs ?
I did. I also advise that if you like tries being scored and suffer from high blood pressure, dont even bother looking or you could be reaching for your pills.
Welshman Rick O’Shea offers his thoughts in a column on the BBC Sports website. I was nearly blown over by his comments that he actually conceded that “the first international match to played under the ELVs was a triumph that must have left many wondering what all the fuss was about. I’ll put up my hand and admit that I had feared for the integrity of the game at the highest level, persuaded by the logic of the argument that it could easily degenerate into a fuzzy form of rugby league with line-outs.”
But not to let the NH down he made another amazing statement and Anti-ELV arguement which i hadnt heard before stating this game played under ELVs was mainly successful because of “the supreme ability and equality of the two sides involved”. I ask, is that to say that a game played under ELVs by any lesser team (ie IMO any other rugby team in the world at any level) just would not work ?
O’Shea adds to his mastermind statement that “yellow cards will become rare as persistently conceding free kicks seems to be okay.”
Further, I question O’Shea’s mathematical skills given that he states the game “was at least 10 per cent quicker than anything else we have seen this summer and about 20 per cent quicker than the Australia-France match that followed.”
10% quicker than the Heiniken Cup final ? i think he missed a zero.
I also went on a few blogs to to have a see what the average punter thought of the game. Very dissapointing, most actually made no reference to the game but bleeted on that ELVs will be the death of RU, that Australians (??) are ruining the game and will change it making it look more like league. Now I ask any anti-ELV supporter, in the AB’s v Springbok game played in Wellington on the weekend, how in any way did that look like a game of Rugby League ?
ohtani's jacket said | July 9th 2008 @ 12:25am | Report comment
stuff happens,
In ‘91, I was too young to have know anything but the ‘87-91 All Blacks, so the loss was a shock to a young fella. In ‘99, I thought we had a crap team & people were dreaming that we could flip it on like a switch. In 2003, I thought we’d lose the second Spencer threw that pass. The whole thing happened in slow motion. In 2007, I was anxious before the Test because of the England upset over Australia. I had a feeling it might be contagious. Couldn’t really believe it until the end, though. Was kinda proud of the way we marched 70m upfield.
mxcd,
I’m not sold on the ELVs just yet. The Test was loose and didn’t have a lot of structure, but it was the first Test match played under the new laws, so it’s comparable to the opening rounds of the Super 14. It wasn’t league, but the “restarts” from the ruck are strange and takie a bit of getting used to. I thought the old laws were more of a leveler. I don’t like how the ELVs take away the Springboks strengths and I kinda miss the battle at the breakdown, but it was getting to the point where you couldn’t ref it anymore. I like that the ball is in play more often & you have to play the full 80 minutes, but I think the lineout needs to remain an attacking weapon.
jools-usa said | July 9th 2008 @ 12:53am | Report comment
Maybe it was closer than at first thought, but for my money SA never really looked dangerous in
the backs.
Could be it’s because SA ball frequently ends up 10 meters from breakdown in Burger’s hands, whose
pass-out-of-tackle ratio is one in 10. Know his manic commitment & bashing is part of SA game-plan
but it hurts smooth delivery. Also, James has yet to break gain-line with any conviction.
As usual NZ always look so dangerous with clean ball. Just hope Wallabies can be too.
Jools-USA
Roger said | July 9th 2008 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Jerry, my memory must be failing me! Whilst the wallabies scrum has certainly struggled over the last few years, I cannot remember any games (like against ENG) where the failure in the scrum has appeared to have such a direct link to the wallabies losing.
Whilst everyone says the wallabies scrum is hopless (as I have also being saying for years), after watching NZ scrum deal with IRE, ENG and SA, I started wondering why NZ had never inflcited a scrum demolition on the wallabies in recent memory….they have certainly won the scum contests in recent games, but not the extent that I thought the wallabies scrum was responsible for the loss like I do when we play ENG.
Why is it so?
Jerry said | July 9th 2008 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Roger – seriously, watch a replay of that 2005 match in .
Along with the sublime play of McCaw, the AB’s scrum dominance was one of the major contributing factor in the AB’s narrow 13-9 victory. There were quite a few times when the Wallabies had the feed in decent attacking positions or with an opportunity to put pressure on the AB’s or create some momentum but the AB’s would put in a big shove and, if they didn’t turn the ball over immediately they’d put sufficient pressure on the Wallabies ball that they weren’t able to assert any real pressure on the AB defence. The AB scrum has had the wood on the Australians since 2003, but that game was the most obvious example – Remember the Bledisloe fixture last year when Gregan managed to avoid actually feeding a scrum until the second half of the match? That’s why.
The reason why the English dominance stands out more, I suspect, is that England generally don’t really dominate anywhere but the tight forward exchanges whereas the AB’s may win the scrums but also are capable of dominating all other areas of the game (except lineouts damnit!).
I do see what you’re saying though – despite what some NH scribes believe, a strong scrum is never going to win a game on its own – even in the “golden-oldie scrums” win at Twickenham or in Marseille it has been the English dominance in strength and numbers at the breakdown that has been more of a telling factor. If a team can’t get any good ball off its own scrum it will often struggle, but the Wallabies have usually had enough weapons elsewhere to get by.
Jerry said | July 9th 2008 @ 10:01am | Report comment
“watch a replay of that 2005 match in…”
…Brisbane.
Don’t know why I left that out.
ohtani's jacket said | July 9th 2008 @ 10:21am | Report comment
The Brisbane Test was in 2006.
THe difference wtith the World Cup quarter final was the way the scrum was reffed.
Jerry said | July 9th 2008 @ 10:27am | Report comment
OJ – my mistake, 2006 you’re correct.
Matt said | July 9th 2008 @ 11:07am | Report comment
On that note, I actually remember the frustration during last years Tri-Nations Roger, where the AB’s were all over the Wallaby scrum but were somehow penalised when Woodcock and Hayman were guilty of no more than domination in this facet or the game? I remeber quite cleary the absolute puzzlement of Matt Dunning or Guy Shepherdson clearly dropping thier hits when the pressure came on, sometimes no more than 10m from the Wallaby line, and the ref penalising the AB’s.
Also, the arguement of when else has Australia lost as a direct result of the scrum is a fair call, because it takes are VERY poor scrum to blame it as the sole cause of a loss. But, as with the AB v SA match last saturday, the dominating AB scrum helped inflict dissaray in the SA camp and demoralise their otherwise aggressive and domineering personalities.
So while it wasn’t the sole cause of the defeat, as you have asked in your intended rhetorical question, it certainly gave NZ an edge to attack from. So if Australia are hoping to unleash a revamped backline then they are going to have to contend with the Tight Forward power of the AB’s and Boks which is both powerful, but also mobile.
I thought it was a valid point.
Sam Taulelei said | July 9th 2008 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
I agree with Spiro that the All Blacks imposing record of home wins is getting closer and closer to their first loss – that is the natural life cycle with any record of achievement. However it will take a very good team to win on NZ soil and whilst talk this week is again focusing on this being the best opportunity for SA to break the sequence I believe that this time the opportunity has been missed and it will be a consecutive loss for the Boks.
The Boks will account themselves well as they are a proud team, they will be hurting from the loss and they will improve.
The All Blacks on the other hand are now a confident team. I sensed that with the injury disruptions, the selection changes, the inclement weather and playing the world champions NZ was clearly the underdogs (which is a position every coach tries to manipulate) and there was a degree of uncertainty and perhaps even self confidence in their ability. Beating the Boks without Richie McCaw has given the entire squad (and the coaches) an enormous boost in self belief and confidence, such is the influence that he wields on and off the field. There aren’t many teams that can absorb and overcome the loss of so many experienced and talented players over the last six months and I believe that Dan Carter is really maturing as a player in his ability to marshall a team around the field and play the percentages correctly.
That was the key difference between the sides last week. In the second half NZ played classic wet weather rugby, keep the ball in the opposition 22 and apply pressure, pressure, pressure. In order to do that you need a forward pack to play accurately and a halfback or first five to kick accurately, keeping the ball in front of the forwards and constantly turning the opposition around. The Boks tired noticeably in the second half and the adjustment to the aerobic fitness levels required to play the ELV’s caught most of the SA Super 14 sides on the hop. Peter de Villiers selections will be crucial and he will need to get the balance right in his front row, loose forwards as well as their midfield. The Boks are a good side and they’re not that far off the pace, but Graham Henry has outsmarted de Villiers and co and I suspect that Robbie Deans will outstmart them in Perth as well. If that is the case, who at the outset this season would have predicted the Boks to lose their first 3 Tri-Nations tests. I suspect that wins away from home this year will be very hard to come by and it could be bonus points that will separate them.
I wrote in another thread earlier this year that the Boks will take time to adjust to a new coach, his attacking and defensive systems and how they react to their first loss will show their true resolve and quality as a champion team.
It was not a faultless performance by the All Blacks and there is still room for improvement but the outbursts from Peter de Villiers about alleged illegal scrummaging techniques shows the immense pressure the Boks are now under as they’re trying to deflect attention from their own shortcomings. They can feel justifiably outraged at the one match suspension meted to Brad Thorn for what was a dangerous tackle as the umbrage from the NZ media and public if the same action was performed on Richie McCaw would have been as catatonic as our reaction to a certain English referee missing a forward pass.
Jerry said | July 9th 2008 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
Sam – A quick note on that last point. Lote Tuqiri was suspended for (in effect) one match for his spear on McCaw a few years back, and unlike Thorn dropping Smit on his back Tuqiri went through with the tackle and actually drove McCaw’s head into the turf. There was a fair reaction to the tackle, but there was the added context that the Wallabies were pretty obviously targeting McCaw (eg Phil Waugh’s forearm accross the face when McCaw was a tackler).
Realistically any country tends to be a bit one-eyed about how they view the ref’s calls – I note that not many SA fans have mentioned that Burger could have been carded for a professional foul early tackling McDonald in his own 22 for instance). Smit’s claims that AB’s get away with more is simply sour grapes IMO, especially considering the likes of Waugh above, Matfield’s late high KO of Kelleher in 2005 or Marcus Horan rucking Muliaina’s head in Wgtn this year – none of which were penalised or cited.
As far as the incident itself – Thorne deserved a yellow card in my view and Dickinson’s claims not to have seen it properly don’t seem accurate – it was about 3 feet in front of his face!
Sam Taulelei said | July 9th 2008 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
Jerry
Fair comments and agree that with respect to any loss it’s hard for any country to acknowledge we were beaten by a better team on the day and try to find faults or excuses wherever they may exist.
As a Hurricanes supporter I’ve been impressed and pleased with Ma’a Nonu’s improved play at this level and Conrad Smith’s strong tackling. The more games they can play together for the All Blacks the better their combination will gel and that can only assist us as the season wears on. The same can be said also for Jerome Kaino who is getting better and better with every game at no.8
True Tah said | July 9th 2008 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
Jerry,
at least Richie McCaw will be able to sleep this year knowing he doesn’t have to face Tuqiri again!!