at least Richie McCaw will be able to sleep this year knowing he doesn’t have to face Tuqiri again!!

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

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!

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.

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.

THe difference wtith the World Cup quarter final was the way the scrum was reffed.

…Brisbane.

Don’t know why I left that out.

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.

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?

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.

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 ?

“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…….!

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.

Australia would have to do the mother of all cock-ups to lose to SA too.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.