By Spiro Zavos
July 21st 2008 @ 6:08am
The Wallabies open up the Tri-Nations to all three teams
The Springboks, favourites with the bookmakers and with home supporters, went into the Test at Perth against the Wallabies believing that a victory would virtually ensure them of the 2008 Tri-Nations titles.
The brilliant, gutsy and convincing victory 16 - 9 by the Wallabies (especially in the second half) has thrown up the tournament to all three teams.
The Springboks go back to their laager in South Africa with five points, a bonus point loss at Perth and four points for defeating the All Blacks at Dunedin.
In hindsight, they may be relatively pleased with this result.
The win in New Zealand was their first in a decade. And to get a bonus point in Australia was a sort of bonus considering that they have only won a couple of Tri-Nations Tests in Australia.
In South Africa it is a different matter.
The Wallabies find it almost impossible to win there, and it is only slightly less difficult for the All Blacks. They won their first Test in South Africa under Graham Henry last year in his fourth year as coach.
So the Springboks will fancy their chances of winning all three of their home matches. They will have to do this, at least, to win the Tri-Nations.
For the Wallabies to win the title you’d think that they will have to win at least two of the Tests against the All Blacks. A win in South Africa at either Durban or Johannesburg would make things easier for the Wallabies. It would help, too, if the All Blacks could win their Test against the Springboks at Cape Town.
None of this speculation is very definitive, which is why the Tri-Nations is such a great tournament.
To win it, a side has to defeat two of the strongest home side teams on their home turf.
The most impressive aspect of the Wallabies win against the Springboks at Subiaco to my mind is that the method used to achieve the victory is transferable to achieve victories out of Australia and the home ground advantage.
The Wallaby set pieces were good. The scrum was so solid that the Wallabies were able to run a rehearsed move from five metres out for Stirling Mortlock to bulldoze his way to the tryline.
The lineouts were solid, too, with South Africa conceding a couple and giving away a crucial penalty on their own throw for offside, while the Wallabies converted a lineout later into their second try.
Most importantly, the Wallabies were much better at the tackled ball than the Springboks. They forced 26 turnovers. In previous years these turnovers were invariably kicked away (as the Springboks were inclined to do). But I noticed that Robbie Deans has got the Wallabies thinking like the Crusaders and the line was in place virtually every turnover for a counter-attack to be launched.
Probably just as important as the attack beginning to pose threats was the implacable defence.
In the first half particularly, the Springboks made a number of breaks but were unable to finish off any of them due to the scrambling and accurate defence by the Wallabies. There were no weaknesses in the Wallaby line, especially near the tryline.
Rocky Elsom was rightly given the man of the match award, but the two players who really stood out for me, beside Elsom, were Peter Hynes and Stirling Mortlock.
The selection of Hynes has been a masterstroke by Deans. His running has been abrasive and so has his defence. Bryan Habana got away only once in the match when Ryan Cross came across to make a Test-saving tackle to knock the ball away as it was being planted.
But for every other moment in the Test, Hynes dominated South Africa’s speedster. And a Springboks side with Habana under control has virtually no potency on attack.
The statistics showed the Springboks gaining the advantage line on 71 per cent of their carries, and the Wallabies on only 63 per cent of carries. The side that wins the advantage line generally wins the match.
Why not this time?
In my opinion it’s because Mortlock made the advantage line 100 per cent of his carries and this gave the Wallabies momentum to push on with their attacks when earlier phases had gone backwards.
Of course, Mortlock’s barging, shoving, thigh-driving run to the tryline was the epitome of his ability to take tacklers with him for the hard yards at the advantage line, and this time over the tryline.
Mortlock came off the field seemingly groggy and possibly concussed.
Will he be available for the Test on Saturday against the All Blacks?
My guess is that he will be. And if he is, he’ll be returning to the ANZ Stadium at Homebush which was the scene of his greatest game for the Wallabies, a match-winning performance in the semi-final of the 2003 RWC.
The Test at Sydney is a similar sort of match.
The Wallabies need to win it to preserve their 2008 Tri-Nations home record. The All Blacks need an away win to make up for their home loss to the Springboks.
So both teams have everything to play for at Sydney then.
Like this article? Please spread the word about the Roar to your mates.
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...
(22)
Benjamin said | July 21st 2008 @ 7:21am | Report comment
A bit OTT, gutsy may be accurate, but not brilliant. Mortlock was always going to be a plus point because his opponent is a natural 12, much like when Mortlock schooled McCallister. Smith was superb, by far the best player on the pitch. Other than that the kicking was appalling, the passing was aimless, and the forwards were often intermingled between the backs during attack ball. Players were rarely deep either. The first half gave the impression that neither team actually understood the game of rugby union. I very much doubt that Henry saw anything to worry him.
Sam Taulelei said | July 21st 2008 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Spiro
NZ won its first game under Graham Henry in the republic in 2006 at Loftus Versfeld and by a convincing margin and have a 50% win ratio in SA during his tenure. Prior to that you have to go back to 1998 for the last time SA beat NZ at home.
Sam Taulelei said | July 21st 2008 @ 8:57am | Report comment
Sorry I meant prior to Graham Henry’s tenure
Jerry said | July 21st 2008 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Sam - the AB’s record in SA under Henry is actually only 40%. They lost in 04, 05 & 06 and won in 06 & 07 (there were two matches in 06).
Homer said | July 21st 2008 @ 9:02am | Report comment
In the first half the Wallas were flat footed and lost in parts and the boks smashed a few of our forwards (Sharpe must be very sore today) but credit where credit is due. I have only seen one article today that even mentioned the aussie scrum which did fantasticly compared to recent times. They didn’t go back, they got a few good shoves on the boks and laid a platform for some attacking moves . Lets not forget that the boks gave it to the AB’s scrum last week and had two props on the bench as well. The variety in the lineout was fantastic and had the Boks guessing. The long throw to Smith allowed for immediate momentum and took the Bok back row out of the play while we crossed the gain line.
The game was far from perfect but I thought the wallabies controlled the ball much better than the boks who seemed to be trying to score from any part of the field instead of building.
The other thing was that the bench players didn’t drop the momentum when they came on as a group. Plata-Nau added some great counter rucking and Coringly was the wise head at the right time of the game, he will be missed when he moves to France.
I agree with Benjamin about the depth and Smith was so good that Waugh barely hit the pitch. Could we actually be favourites for next Saturday now?
Benjamin said | July 21st 2008 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Homer, the scrum was a solid point. It generally was good, which is pleasing. I thought Benn Robinson was good in the loose as well. For a smaller man he competed very well. SA’s defence was very good but a big motto in the NH is that you need to earn the right to go wide. Australia were worringly lax with their player distribution in the first half. If Australia had forwards running from deep, and mixed it up with pick and drive then they might have unsettled the defence more. By and large Australia played into SA’s hands.
The AB’s will test Australia in a different way, and perhaps the game should see a lot more skill. I would say that the AB’s would be favourites BUT who can underestimate the NZ knowledge of Deans?
Sam Taulelei said | July 21st 2008 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Thanks Jerry, I forgot about Rustenburg in 2006.
Homer I still think the All Blacks will be favourites but unlike the last four years under Henry when I was always confident of a NZ victory and by a clear margin I will be happy with just a win now. The scrutiny on the Wallaby scrum is over the top, the change I can see this year in my limited knowledge is that when the Wallabies concentrate on scrummaging and not trying to outscrum their opposition they look good. The NZ scrum didn’t become world beaters overnight it took all of 2004 before they came of age and then 2005 to establish their credentials against allcomers. Every team is capable of putting down a few good scrums in a game, what you want is consistency under pressure. Good to see the Wallabies challenge the Boks where they thought they would be stronger, that’s been a hallmark of both Henry’s and Deans coaching styles.
LeftArmSpinner said | July 21st 2008 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Lets reacquaint ourselves with rugby. It is a very difficult game to play well against quality opposition, and even harder at test level between teams with rankings 1 and 3 and for 80 minutes.
There are a lot of moving parts that need to sychronise. We spectators can be at fault of forgetting this and being too critical as a result.
The first half was a good example of this. The Wallabies midfield struggled to get on the pace of the game.
Maybe it was the week off and/or the new rules. The gear box seemed to be missing the synchro. Burgess appeared inaccurate, but it was not all his fault, forwards were in the way and Giteau and Barnes didnt or couldnt get them out of the way.
Observe that it happened but dont expect anything much more then appreciate and applaud it when they get it right.
The beauty of the game was the wonderful try that the same stuttering wallabies scored at the end of the 1st half. everything synchronised.
Giteau’s penalty kick was a beauty, getting them a lineout within range.
The lineout call was tactically correct, the throw was accurate, the Wallabies jumpers didn’t jump, it caught the Boks napping, Burgess went to the front of the lineout to distract the Boks, Smith took it straight and hard and timed the pass to Hynes beautifully, Hynes ran a great line at pace, making 18 of the required 26 metres, the clean out was quick, Burgess cleared quickly, Elsom and Sharpe put it thro quick hands while running straight, (and none of the dreaded cut out passes that slide defences love) Giteau and A-Cooper drew the last defenders and Tuqiri held the ball tight and went in straight, low and hard.
By my calculation, 13 of the 15 (only the centres were not involved) had an active part in the try.
Beautiful!
mudskipper said | July 21st 2008 @ 10:32am | Report comment
LeftArmSpinner…. a good summary of the Tuqiri try…The Wallabies out thought and out played he Boks during that attack… Good coaching, you can see what added depth George Smith bring to the team… he was playing like he was still playing out in the Manly centres with his brother Tyrone….
Harry said | July 21st 2008 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Great description of a great try leftie and how good was the stable scrum for the second and then Mortlock putting the Boks best back defender on his backside on the way to the line.
I disagree with all thiose saying the skill level was low on Saturday. The intensity was extremely high, particuarly the SA rush defence and handling/execution mistakes were really remarkedly low given that pressure.
Peter K said | July 21st 2008 @ 11:20am | Report comment
I think people are not giving enough credit to the Wallaby attack.
Everyone says the Boks had great defence.
Yes it was visibly powerful and a lot of big hits were made.
However they missed 21 tackles, and made 51. Missing more than 1/4 tackles means the defence was well beaten by the attack, very well beaten.
The Riddler said | July 21st 2008 @ 11:23am | Report comment
I am a tad worried that Tuqiri the Crab made a reappearance on Saturday night. There were plenty of occasions where he had the ball and instead of using his pace, power and nimble feet to run down the line, he started running infield (or should I say cross-field, he wasnt even running defence opening diagonals). This made him easy to defend and also compressed the midfield creative options, which in turn led to a number of the disjointed plays.
Compare this to Hynes style of play and the difference is marked. When Tuqiri did stay out on his wing, the attack had width, caused the defenders to be stretched as they had to mark up, and led to his try.
Hopefully he can be reminded again what a winger is supposed to do - and not mimic a crab as often did during the S14.
Mark H said | July 21st 2008 @ 11:44am | Report comment
That was a test match. Im glad it wasnt a one sided affair. Tough and in your face. It was great to watch.
Benjamin said | July 21st 2008 @ 9:41pm | Report comment
Peter, the Boks do have a good defence but Australia played right into their hands.
Peter K said | July 21st 2008 @ 10:11pm | Report comment
Benjamin the stats do not lie.
You cannot have it both ways, the boks missed 21 tackles, made 51. Either poor defence or a very good attack.
Benjamin said | July 21st 2008 @ 10:24pm | Report comment
I can have it both ways because you haven’t broken those stats down, i.e the majority of missed tackles may have been in the alst quarter. Also I doubt very much only 51 tackles were made. Did you see the first half? Was that a very good attack? Point made.
matty p said | July 22nd 2008 @ 12:41am | Report comment
Spiro, Mortlock came off because of a blatant shoulder charge aimed at his head by (who else?) Bakkies Botha while Stirling was imobilised, prone in a ruck. It was a cowardly and disgraceful act again from an arch-thug and I can’t believe more hasn’t been made of it.
Benjamin said | July 22nd 2008 @ 7:30am | Report comment
Peter, if the attack was so good why did the missed tackles not result in more points? I suppose that you can’t have it both ways either.
Matty, how else do you clean out a ruck then?
Jerry said | July 22nd 2008 @ 7:38am | Report comment
Benjamin - ” A player joining a ruck must bind onto the ruck with at least one arm around the body of a team-mate, using the whole arm.”
Benjamin said | July 22nd 2008 @ 7:41am | Report comment
Thems be the rules Jerry, but how many times do you see that in a game? Cleaning out a ruck is so quick that the majority of players appear simply to throw themselves into the fold, probably because referees rarely whistle for going in off feet.
Jerry said | July 22nd 2008 @ 7:47am | Report comment
Yeah, I’m aware very few people actually enter ruck’s legally in practice. But when you’re entering a ruck illegally by aiming a shoulder charge at the back of another player’s head…well, I don’t think it actually qualifies as ‘cleaning out’. Looks like John Smit was wrong - Bakkies Botha can illegally take out the other team’s captain and not get cited after all.
Benjamin said | July 22nd 2008 @ 7:53am | Report comment
True, but it’s not very PC to criticise foul play from SA so I’d be careful if I were you. I would be interested in seeing a replay but at least Mortlock is keeping schtum. What irritates me more is the little bits that Botha gets involved in like pushing the man with the ball over when a free kick has been whistled. His hands are everywhere. There’s no real hard men in rugby anymore, there’s tough men, but no hard men. That’s why he gets away with it.