By Spiro Zavos
August 18th 2008 @ 7:18am
The All Blacks black out the Springboks 19 - 0
Sooner or later, generally sooner but in this case later, the All Blacks will wreck their revenge on any team that dare to humiliate them on the rugby field.
Back in 1928 in the first Test of a historic first-ever series of All Black-Springboks matches in South Africa, the home side played the All Blacks off the park recording one of the biggest victories against the New Zealanders 17 -0.
Eighty years later that defeat was avenged in one of the great rugby Tests at Cape Town 19 - 0. This triumph represents the first time in Springboks - All Blacks Test in South Africa the home side has failed to get any points. It also represents on the biggest defeats the All Blacks have imposed on the Springboks in a series where the average difference between the sides is around four to five points.
Despite the blow-out of points by the end, the Test was a close-run thing for the first 70 minutes. In the seventh minute of the Test the All Blacks forced a well-taken try by Conrad Smith, who followed up a left-footed grubber kick from Richie McCaw.
Is there anything McCaw can’t do on a rugby field? He single-handedly out-played the previously impressive Springboks back row. So effective was his digging for the ball after making the tackle, his lineout catching, his mauling, his tackling and his running that Schalk Burger was replaced with 20 minutes left to play. Burger looked morose and defeated (as well he might have been) sitting with the substitutes.
Not once was McCaw penalised, a tribute to his foraging skills and an indication that at least one referee (Matt Goddard) has finally worked out that McCaw’s genius allows him to make plays at the break-down that are beyond other players, with the exception perhaps of George Smith on one of his great days.
The newish Springboks coach, the verbose and overly-emotional Peter de Villiers (an Eddie Jones clone in many ways), has tried to develop the expansive, running game of the Springboks. This is a good thing as with the pace the side has with its loose forwards (especially Pierre Spies, the best athlete playing rugby?) and on the wing with J.P.Pietersen and Bryan Habana, the Springboks have the potential to be the most lethal of all counter-attacking sides.
But. De Villiers has overlooked the necessity, when he plays his tall, fast backrow of Spiers, Burger and Juan Smith, of getting players to the breakdown to re-cycle the ball to the fast forwards and backs standing out wide.
It’s a bit like opening instructions in the ancient recipe for rabbit stew: ‘First catch your rabbit.’ If you want to play the expansive game you first have to control the ball on your phases. This means putting players into the rucks and mauls, if the opposition is contesting them and if one of the opposition is Richie McCaw. The All Blacks won 12 turnovers, and forced four long arm penalties for shots at goal when the out-numbered and over-whelmed Springbok tried to kill the ball that McCaw had grabbed in the tackle.
As it happened Daniel Carter missed all four penalties in the swirly, flukey Cape Town breeze. Percy Mongomery also missed two very kickable penalties, even though Newlands is his home ground.
Without going into another debate about the experimental laws variation, these events proved that there are long arm penalties under the ELVs: that the ball is in play for incredibly long periods of time making that play as exciting as it is possible to imagine: that the skills of all the players have to be of the highest quality with props tackling wingers and making breaks along with the loose forwards: that Test rugby as a physical contest is enhanced by the stresses of having to play more rugby in the 80 minutes: and that control of scrums and lineouts remains a paramount need for a team to be successful.
In the foreplay before the Test I got the sense that the South African authorities were revving up the emotions of the crowd and their players in an attempt to ensure that Percy Mongomery’s 100th Test (the ninth centenary of Tests by any player and the first by a Springbok) was a memorable and winning occasion.
As the television pictures came up (mercifully from NZ television) you could hear the ground announcer coaching the crowd to use their drums to disconcert the All Blacks and encourage the Springboks. Then there were shots of the Springboks in a long, prayerful huddle in their dressing room (Peter FitzSimons who dislikes sportsmen calling on God to help their cause has another arrow to fire against this practice now).
Then the Springboks kept the All Blacks waiting on the field. Then Percy Montgomery came out alone to roars that people said exceeded anything Newlands has ever heard. Then they turned off the mikes for the All Blacks haka so that it looked as if the NZers were lip-synching their ritual.
All this psychological pressure is fine - if it affects your opponents rather than the perpetrators. Unfortunately for the Springboks, it affected them more than the All Blacks, who seemed to revel in their ‘unsmiling giants’ role.
In the first few minutes of the Test then the Springboks made three unforced errors which, in the hindsight of the early try, probably sealed the outcome of the Test. First, Butch James kicked off out on the full. Second, Fourie du Preez, the world’s best halfback who was over-shadowed on the day by Jimmie Cowan and his Stan Laurel looks, kicked out on the full under pressure. Third Bryan Habana, South Africa’s best on the day, took a quick throw-in on his 5m mark and the Springboks were forced to clear from behind their tryline.
The next series of phases led to the crucial first phases.
Later in the Test Francois Steyn failed to find touch from a defensive full-arm penalty. Several phases later Carter, in a quick silver dash like a kingfisher diving for its prey, scored the important second try by the posts, and converted to record 800 points in Test rugby.
The All Blacks victory has opened up the Tri-Nations. They have now played 5 and won 3. The Springboks have played 4 and won 1. The Wallabies have played 3 and won 2.
There are three more Tests to play. Two of these Tests are Springboks - Wallabies in South Africa (at Durban on August 23 and Johannesburg on August 30.)
The 2008 Tri-Nations final Test, Wallabies - All Blacks at Brisbane on September 13 could well be the match that decides who wins the trophy.
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...
(55)
sonny bill williams said | August 18th 2008 @ 8:35am | Report comment
“Then they turned off the mikes for the All Blacks haka so that it looked as if the NZers were lip-synching their ritual.”
Since when is anyone obliged to turn michropones on for the haka ?
TembaVJ said | August 18th 2008 @ 9:06am | Report comment
This was a case of SA handing it to NZ not NZ taking it away from SA. It was an average performance from NZ and a pathetic one from SA. I have not been this disappointed in the SB since that 40 something game against Australia.
The only thing I am positive about is the scrum, Beast stood up well the the front row I think, was fantastic.
vincent said | August 18th 2008 @ 9:11am | Report comment
I don’t think anyone is saying they were ‘obliged to turn on microphones for the Haka’, its more a statment of fact of what they did…turned off the microphones…
True Tah said | August 18th 2008 @ 9:12am | Report comment
TembaVJ,
agreed re: the Beast, at least the scrum was stable, and I love it when the Beast gets the ball, I remember the toi toi shimmy he did in Perth.
Imagine the Beast making a break in Durban, the crowd would go nuts…a real cult figure of the game!
Hatchet said | August 18th 2008 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Spiro, re your comment about ancient recipes and first catch your rabbit. Mrs Beatson wrote “First scratch your rabbit.”
Using the term scratch as in “an abraded area where the skin is torn or worn off .” That is, first skin your rabbit! This was amended by the publisher to first catch your rabbit.
Not that it matters in the context of this article (a very good article) as SA were catched and scratched!
Benjamin said | August 18th 2008 @ 9:51am | Report comment
Temba, SA botched their try opportunities and Carter botched his kicking opportunities. Much of a muchness really.
LeftArmSpinner said | August 18th 2008 @ 10:18am | Report comment
As time goes on, and the South Africans continue with petty gamesmanship, their opposition will see through it and see it for what it is, a sign of weakness, not strength.
Now to the rugby. Phew. Again, a brutal game, particularly in the first half when the AB’s won the game, if not on the scoreboard. I was sitting with a Boks fan, who correctly called the first try opportunist and who sighed with increasing frustration as the Boks missed opportunities and came so close to scoring throughout the game.
He was still confident that while the score remained 5-0, the Boks would prevail.
His confidence slipped when Carter broke the deadlock with his try through the heart of the Boks defence. And from this point, he realised that the game had already been won after 30 minutes.
I was happy because, again, we saw great rugby. Physical, skillful, and complete rugby.
As for the ELV’s being accused of turning rugby into League, nothing could be more from the truth. League is now 6-7 passes per six tackle set. Rugby is now 3-4 passes per phase.
Congrats to AB’s for a wonderful game of rugby and for bashing up the Boks for the Wallabies. It will make the Wallabies job easier but probably not until the second game, (the Boks 3rd real game in three weeks) on 30th August at Ellis Park.
Mark said | August 18th 2008 @ 10:21am | Report comment
Temba, pity Monty didn’t get his win, but I’m surprised at the negative comments. The game was played at one heck of a pace with a great skill level except for a couple of errant kicks by SA. SA were disallowed a couple of tries (correctly) by the officials, but it was still a great game to watch. SA shading NZ in the scrum, fairly even in the lineout, & NZ gaining the edge in the loose. Both midfields had a real go although this had to be one of the worst games from Butch I’ve ever seen, & what was with Habana doing the quick throw so close to his own goal line ??? The look on Monty’s face after he’d cleared it said it all. At 5-0 after 60 mins it was still anyones game, for the game to only be decided in the final 5 mins is normally the sign of yet another SA NZ epic. In fact I ended up watching the game twice, mainly as I was munted by the second half on Sat night & after reading the comments re: baised ref’s (yet again) I wanted to watch the the way the game was controlled. My call, the ref did a pretty good job given the pace of the game, but that’ll just upset a fw people won’t it.
Based on what I saw this weekend, I’d have to pick SA to take both games off the Ozzies as their physical approach was just brutal, but for 1/2 a foot on the line (how the heck did Barnes spot that) and an unneeded obstruction the result could’ve esaily been the other way around. Especially as Newlands seems to be impossible to land penalties on.
Farmer said | August 18th 2008 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Very enjoyable reading. Great article.
Not only were the mikes turned off, but the crowd united to drown out any noise with a collective recital of drum playing for the 60 seconds of the haka. Why was I not surprised by this behaviour.
The scoreline was distorted by the rare sight of Danuiel Carter missing goals he would normally kick. Imagine what the score would have been if he had his normal success rate. On the other hand the last try was a freebie intercept for the AB’s.
McCaw was exceptional. These last 2 games he has shown how far ahead he really is and how important he is to the All Blacjk team. The break seems to have refreshed him no end.
Mark said | August 18th 2008 @ 10:48am | Report comment
Spiro - once again a great article.
Farmer - I was impressed with the way the SA fans united with their drums to drown out the haka. The challenge was responded to, maybe this will become SA’s version of ‘Bread of heaven’, I prefered it to ‘Waltzing Matilda’ but then again any song about a rustler who tops himself is never going to be a favourite of mine . Turning the mikes off was a bit petulant but only detracted for the television viewer.
LeftArmSpinner said | August 18th 2008 @ 11:14am | Report comment
mark, it also showed the Springbok management to be petty and scared. It is not funny. It is sad.
more Subtle, more effective and the best warfare is to smile back at the opponent who has just tried to murder you with a thunderous tackle.
Otherwise, a great game!!!
Mark said | August 18th 2008 @ 11:18am | Report comment
LAS - I remember the Irish test a few years back where the Irish came right up to the AB’s smiling at them during the haka, if memory serves me correctly the AB’s scored in the first couple of minutes as the Irish response got them pretty fired up. If it continues can you imagine teh rep the SA grounds will get, they’re already partisan, but beating drums by 60 or 70,000 fans, THAT’s an atmosphere.
stuff happens said | August 18th 2008 @ 11:56am | Report comment
The All Blacks were fantastic and completely out thought the ‘Boks, whose tactics were bizarre.They kept playing frantic rugby when what they needed to do was try and slow the game down and kick for position, which is the one thing Butch James can do well.
I’m afraid that by 1/2 way through the 2nd half I decided that the ‘Boks tactics were just dumb.They were in a hole and just kept digging. They had no playmaker and poor leadership.
Bruce Rankin said | August 18th 2008 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Spiro,
An excellent analysis as always - thank you.
Given Hatchet’s comment above on your “ancient recipe for rabbit stew” comment, I can’t resist a bit of mischievious pedantry: I believe the original quote was from Mrs Beaton’s cookbook - but her recipe was for jugged hare - hence her famous quote “first catch your hare.” Others of far greater culinary talent may wish to correct me…. so be it!
Best wishes.
ohtani's jacket said | August 18th 2008 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
I think it’s extremely generous to call it a great Test or the All Blacks’ performance anything more than matchwinning.
Admittedly it was the type of Test NZ have lost recently, so to defend like that and then take our opportunities was a huge positive. We’re starting to play better rugby in that respect, but I’m tired of watching backlines struggle in the Tri-Nations. As the Test dragged on, I kept thinking it was like watching a 1970s All Blacks/South Africa Test.
Everyone keeps saying how the ELVs keep the ball in play for longer, but this just leads to fatigue and a higher number of mistakes. The only game where it led to greater rugby being played was the Super 14 final.
TembaVJ said | August 18th 2008 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
OJ one All Black played a phenomenal game, the rest including Carter was average. The endless list of mistakes by the Saffers handed them an easy victory with a cherry on top. McCaw and the South African mistakes won the game for NZ. It wasn’t a great match it was a great performance by a great player and a poor response from the world champs.
I thank my lucky stars that the All Blacks didn’t repeat the Wallaby performance or the score would have been in the 50ies - 0.
Jerry said | August 18th 2008 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
Temba - I think that’s overly harsh on the rest of the forwards. An ‘average’ pack doesn’t get 65% of the ball and it wasn’t only McCaw turning the ball over, it was the entire pack getting there in numbers with precision and driving the Boks off the ball. Other than Sommerville (at scrumtime and in terms of impact by the Beast) and perhaps Hore (shaded by Du Plessis around the pitch/probably a tie in terms of lineouts) the remaining AB forwards dominated their opposit numbers.
In the backs, there wasn’t many standouts in terms of attack or line breaks but Muliaina and Smith stepped up with a precise game plan. As for Carter, other than his poor kicking at goal he had a very good game - controlled kicking, big defence (eg his big hit on Spies when McCaw missed him from a scrum) and of course a well taken try.
ohtani's jacket said | August 18th 2008 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
Jerry,
I agree that our pack played well, but it’s kind of scary that it all hinges on McCaw to give them direction. I’d like to see McCaw rested for the Samoa Test myself.
As for Carter, if he hadn’t scored that try it would’ve been a repeat of his last performance at Newlands. I wish he’d stop taking drop goal attempts. We were either going to win in Cardiff with a try or be held out. Forget about it. He almost coughed up a match turning try.
LeftArmSpinner said | August 18th 2008 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
you guys are hard markers. it was a very exciting game of rugby, with physicality beyond human proportions. Sure the back lines didnt fire much but AB and Boks have got weaknesses there at 12. As I have said elsewhere, just wait til Tahu is at 12 for the Wallabies in both attack and defence.
in the meantime, just enjoy the ride!!!
LeftArmSpinner said | August 18th 2008 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
BTW, what happens to the AB’s when McCaw is no longer around. He plays in a very combative, physical position
vincent said | August 18th 2008 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
Obviously did not help that Burger went missing on the day! Curious option too was putting in Conrad Jantes on the wing rather than a specialist winger…I sitll believe starting Percy Montgomery was a sentimental gesture….
Mark said | August 18th 2008 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
LAS - I’m with you, sometimes you can only play as well as the opposition allow you to. Hence the ’semi-structured’ game we saw on Sat night. I thought it was a great game to watch & matched what I’ve come to expect from NZ vs SA, hard, fast, incredibly brutal, sometimes firey, & close right until the end.
As for McCaw…we’ll have to wait & see who’ll cover for him won’t we.
USRugbyFan said | August 18th 2008 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
The Boks don’t have a weakness at 12, they just need to not play Jacobs there.
zinny-fan said | August 18th 2008 @ 9:40pm | Report comment
The longer the game went on, the more I wondered if Carter had kicked the Blacks out of it.
Although the AB’s seemed dominant, it looked like only a matter of time before the Saffa backline would blow the 5 zip lead away with a couple of quick Habana tries.
Composure won the game, which is great to see for a developing side.
Great game, exciting to say the least.
westy said | August 18th 2008 @ 9:55pm | Report comment
Finally saw tape of game. Very good article and good constructive posts discussing the game….always a pleasure to read
sonny bill williams said | August 18th 2008 @ 11:01pm | Report comment
vincent but the implication is that turning off the microphones is bad sportsmanship. im inclined to think miking up the haka has only been done recently, and for the benefit of tv viewers ( it was never done, say, in the days of buck shelford), and i tend to think this trivializes it. i dont think south african tv ever started miking up the haka. just bothers me that the haka is on the one had, sacred , and oon the other hand, no one seems to mind that it has become more and more of a showbusiness gimmick over the years…..
otherwise, thought saturday was a great advertisment for the elv’s. The AB’s were impressive at the breakdown,commiting lots of bodies and contesting rather than fanning out across field. by removing the risk of a full arm penalty the elv’s have made the breakdown more of a contest and the all black’s superior technique at the ruck allows them to exploit this. it also opened up space out wide, and the boks made more line breaks than usual but had no finishing. the ab’s were excellent defensively (cover defence and on the goal line) and absorbed all of the bok pressure, which magnified the pressure and created more mistakes.
it’s going to be an interesting week leading up to Durban….
Sam Taulelei said | August 19th 2008 @ 1:24am | Report comment
My first impressions of this test match was that the All Blacks were hanging on to it by the skin of their teeth until the 65th minute when their patient buildup of pressure finally resulted in some points. I agree with Zinny-Fan and I was convinced that with every penalty and drop kick attempt missed by Carter the match was being setup for one of Habana’s trademark intercept tries or a length of the field runaway try from a turnover to win the game for South Africa.
The final scoreline flattered NZ and doesn’t reveal the struggle this game actually was.
Many have already commented on NZ’s courage, composure and staunch defence as well as the skilful play of Richie McCaw but I was also impressed with South Africa’s scrummaging, which was more consistent, and the Boks looked dangerous with the ball in hand and threatened to score on several occasions.
It’s evident to me that the scrum is becoming more and more important under the ELV’s than ever before. It is of far greater advantage for a team to win the scrum feed than lineouts which is the opposite objective to playing under the old rules. It is no coincidence that the only games NZ has won so far in this Tri Nations are the games where we have won the majority of scrum feeds.
In the first half NZ were dominating the first 20 minutes because there were 11 scrums – NZ enjoying a 9-2 advantage. There were only 3 lineouts and NZ had won 1 against the throw. Some of that scrum advantage was due to inaccurate kicking from the Boks when they kicked too long, but the rest was caused by the pressure the All Black forwards were exerting at the breakdown with their better technique and greater numbers.
I watched the game again and South Africa’s best period of the game was in the first 20 minutes of the second half, which was when they achieved parity in scrum feeds with NZ. This makes sense, because the ball is in the field of play for longer periods of time there are more occasions for a scrum to be called which allows the team in possession to control the game by either launching an attack or kicking the ball back into the opposition half turning teams around, which Carter was doing beautifully. Preventing the ball from being kicked out on the full if it’s carried or passed back into the 22 has unintentionally created more kicking between the 22 metre lines and if you have a skilled flanker like Richie McCaw who can force the turnover it almost becomes a disadvantage for the opposition to be in possession of the ball.
Overall there were 27 scrums in the match; NZ winning the scrum feed 16-11 and only 17 lineouts with NZ also enjoying an advantage 10-7 so the Boks were always struggling to impose themselves on the game. The Boks didn’t help themselves with the number of unforced errors that crept into their game but apart from the scrums they were under pressure from NZ in virtually every other aspect. SA fans will no doubt disagree with me and feel hard done by with many of the refereeing decisions that went against them - which I would have agreed with until I watched the game again but this time dispassionately.
The problem for SA is that their advantage of possessing big, tall, running loose forwards in abundance is negated to a large extent under the ELV’s because it’s strengthened the need for the traditional flankers role or fetcher as they like to call it, with the ball being in play for longer periods. Playing a specialist ball winner is so crucial now and NZ is extremely fortunate to have the best in the business in McCaw and they are certainly a very different team when he’s not playing. It won’t get any easier for SA in the next fortnight with the challenge from George Smith and Phil Waugh. Peter de Villiers will need to get his loose forward selections right and the Boks will need to be more accurate at the breakdown as a team if they want to continue their run of success against Australia at home.
Like other comments I have been very critical about the lack of penetration in the All Blacks backline attack during the Tri Nations but upon a second viewing of the game I noticed that the All Blacks deliberately kept it very simple. They either turned the ball back inside to Nonu to get them over the advantage line and quickly recycle the ball or passed from hand to hand using the width of the field trying to stretch the Boks from side to side. It was a very patient and gradual attack rather than the rapier-like strikes we’ve come to expect from NZ and in hindsight considering our recent history against the Boks, who have consistently proven to be the most difficult defence for NZ to break down, this more controlled approach has been more effective against their rush defence, opposed to our natural desire to spread the ball wide quickly. We didn’t concede any intercepts, which Jean de Villiers and Habana usually profit from and we’ve been guilty in the past of playing too loosely and pushing too many 50/50 passes.
A result I didn’t expect from this NZ team and very encouraging signs that Graham Henry is in the process of building a fine team. It could have been a different game if Bismarck du Plessis hadn’t ignored his support and passed the ball, or if Montgomery had kicked those penalties, or if Habana hadn’t put a foot in touch but every match is full of what ifs and if only’s. In a test match like this where there are so few opportunities you only have to nail a few to get the result.
Beating the world champions 19-nil in their own backyard is a great feather in your cap and I’ll happily take that score, regardless of what the critics say about NZ’s performance.
Benjamin said | August 19th 2008 @ 1:41am | Report comment
To be fair Sam, I don’t think any critics, at least in the UK, have been anything less than very positive about the NZ performance.
Temba, it isn’t that hard to congratulate another team. It is all rather disingenuous to suggest that SA threw the game away. When people commented that SA only beat NZ due to a piece of individual skill rather than a team performance the various SA ‘roar’ contributors jumped down their throats. And as Jerry’s statistic illustrates - NZ pack put in a good team performance. Smith, Muliaiana and Cowan let nobody down either.
ohtani's jacket said | August 19th 2008 @ 1:46am | Report comment
Stephen Jones wrote some strange things about the Test.
Great post Sam. May I ask whether you’re happy with this new style of rugby we’re playing?
Sam Taulelei said | August 19th 2008 @ 1:48am | Report comment
Benjamin
I agree the UK press have been very complimentary, I was referring more to the contributions from some Roarers.
Benjamin said | August 19th 2008 @ 1:51am | Report comment
Sam, no surprises there then.
OJ, I think there’s some merit in what Jones said.
ohtani's jacket said | August 19th 2008 @ 1:56am | Report comment
I agreed with him for the most part, but I couldn’t understand this bit:
“The contrast between the sides was massive. New Zealand are nothing special. They hardly offered anything in attack and Dan Carter, who missed five kicks at goal, is these days nothing more than a serviceable player with the odd decent flash of brilliance, but New Zealand’s tactical aware-ness and basic skills were on a different planet, and their defence was outstanding.”
Are we nothing special or on a different planet?
And why does he comment about the breakdown when he clearly understands nothing about what goes on?
Sam Taulelei said | August 19th 2008 @ 2:01am | Report comment
Hey OJ
To be honest I’m a bit like yourself in that I’m still not convinced with the intended impact of the ELV’s and I want to see more penetrative attacks from our backs and less kicking but I believe that everyone is still learning about how you can play rugby under the ELV’s and at the moment this game of forceback is an unintended consequence of rule changes. I believe that Graham Henry is learning quickly about how to exploit them and we all know the quality of Deans as a coach. I’m waiting for someone to take the lead and innovate and I hope like hell it’s not the Wallabies - but at the moment it’s like when Australia pioneered their sequenced phase play in the late 1990’s and everyone thought that was the only way to play the game. Everyone thinks that kicking the ball back and forth in the hope that someone makes a mistake is the best way to play the ELV’s and it better bloody well not be as there is far too much talent around the world and I want to see wingers scoring tries and more teams counterattacking. Maybe we’ll see something special in Brisbane with everything on the line.
Benjamin said | August 19th 2008 @ 2:06am | Report comment
His comment on Carter seems… well, rather peculiar. But then he maintained for two weeks running, and I imagine that he still would, that Collins was an average player and that he was never big enough for the top level.
I do see the contradiction. I think he is differentiating between doing the basics superbly and being able to do more than that. I think the suggestion is that they were’nt sublime, as they have been in past years, and thus could not offer much more - which is baffling, because doing the basics well is all that is required to win games.
TembaVJ said | August 19th 2008 @ 9:06am | Report comment
My Words were it was an “average NZ performance” Benjamin the list of mistakes made by SA was enough to let many other teams in the world beat them. I never said it was a terrible performance by the AB, it certainly was not anything near the showcase in the match before against the Wallabies. Yes defensively they where spectacular and so was McCaw. I have congratulated them and have no problem in do it again but in the end of the day 46 mistakes by the boks would have given that game to many other team. So before you hang me in your posting, realize that I am a disappointed Bok fan and that that perforce was pathetic. There is nothing more I love then a good game against the All Blacks, I enjoyed both the games in NZ so it does not really support the picture you are painting of me. But a thrashing against a group of headless chickens playing school boy rugby is not my idea of a great game.
Monty String said | August 19th 2008 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Sam - Some perceptive points as usual, but what dismays me is your thought that the opposition having the ball could be the other team’s best option.
I think back to the roaring days of rugby. When players like Zinzin, Cullen, Jeff Wilson, Campo and Horan had the ball, rugby was exciting because players like that had possession.
Hoping to produce a mistake with an up-and-under from your own 30 or 40 is negative rugby, and I’m not a fan of the tactic. I’m sure you’re not, either.
Incidentally, have you noticed that the ELVS have made the ref the star of the show?
Last point: if you have any influence with the NZRU, get them to ask Dan Carter not to attempt droppies in traffic. You might also ask Brad Thorn why he didn’t play on Saturday. But don’t stand too close to him.
Benjamin said | August 19th 2008 @ 9:16am | Report comment
1. This was a case of SA handing it to NZ not NZ taking it away from SA.
2. OJ one All Black played a phenomenal game, the rest including Carter was average. The endless list of mistakes by the Saffers handed them an easy victory with a cherry on top. McCaw and the South African mistakes won the game for NZ.
Nobody is trying to hang you, nor paint a picture. Offering objective congratulations isn’t that difficult.
TembaVJ said | August 19th 2008 @ 9:25am | Report comment
No you are right its not Benjamin, Congratulations to the All Blacks, its no easy job holding the world Champs to nil at home, there is no other team who could of done that.
Sam Taulelei said | August 19th 2008 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Monty
Conceding possession to the opposition is what the Crusaders have been doing successfully for the past few seasons but you have to be extremely accurate in your tactical kicking and work at the breakdown to apply pressure and the two constants for both sides is McCaw and Carter but it’s not my favourite aspect of the game under the ELV’s.
Benjamin said | August 19th 2008 @ 9:33am | Report comment
There you go Temba, everyone’s happy now. Onwards and upwards, there’s always a game next week.
Mark said | August 19th 2008 @ 9:45am | Report comment
In Temba’s defence, I think he feels similar to the Kiwi supporters after Sydney…..& the Boks made some seriously out of character mistakes.
Sam I agree, it was nerve-wracking & there were two SA tries stopped by the officials, one for obstruction & one for the foot in touch.
OJ - this kick back is fraught with danger, the theory is you wait for the oppositions mistake, what happens if they don’t make one ?? Wallabies have beaten NZ b4 by making less mistakes when NZ focused on forcing the turnover/penalty.
Still think the Boks will beat the Wallabies, currently NZ = 3/5, Aus = 2/3, SA = 1/4. Gotta say it looks like Brisbane might be the decider. Who would’ve thought it ?
Sam Taulelei said | August 19th 2008 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Mark I agree and that is where the All Blacks tactics differed against the Wallabies in Auckland. They didn’t wait for the Wallabies to make mistakes, they forced them into errors by kicking the ball out more often and kicking to the corners more instead of just down the middle of the field and attacking them at the lineout.
To control the game and dictate the pace of the game, you need to win the majority of scrum feeds as the ball is in play for a lot longer and with the number of free kicks awarded and the ball being moved around the entire field more often, it’s much harder to impose your tactics on a game. It’s noticeable that after struggling to dominate the breakdown in the first 6 tests, the NZ forwards are displaying much better technique, committment and numbers in support of McCaw.
ohtani's jacket said | August 19th 2008 @ 10:51am | Report comment
I’m not sure what to make of the All Blacks.
Eden Park I thought was pragmatic. Newlands was any number of things, but it was a win. We seem to have gone conservative. Didn’t Henry say he’d rather not win the World Cup if it meant playing this kind of rugby? Under the ELVs, the All Blacks are playing closer in style to the World Cup finalists than people would like to admit. Sure we’re winning with tries instead of penalties, but the style of play is the same.
Perhaps Henry sees this as the best way to win Tests in rebuilding mode. Winning certainly seems like the priority. Maybe he’s conceded that we have a limited side? Surely he can’t continue with this backline.
Benjamin said | August 19th 2008 @ 11:16am | Report comment
OJ, I think that Henry is being conversative for various reasons;
(i) he, and all other coaches, are getting used to the ELVs… thus if in doubt… stick it up your jumper.
(ii) the ABs lost a lot of quality and players like Tuitivake, for example, are not ready for that step up in class. There is a clear divide in quality of the absent players and their replacements. This is after all a period of transition.
(iii) throwing the ball around willy nilly only helped the ABs toward their loss against Australia. Winning is key. Good pack, good kicker. Play to your strengths.
The return of McAlister will make a big difference and will give the back line a different dimension, as will the return of Rokocoko.
tarpo said | August 19th 2008 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
O J,
Style is nice, but this is Test match rugby where winning is what matters, 1st, 2nd & 3rd. Ask the NZ public.
ohtani's jacket said | August 20th 2008 @ 1:06am | Report comment
Certainly I’ll be happy if the All Blacks win the Tri-Nations this year, but I’ll be hoping for more dynamic back play on the end of year tour. If you’re on the front foot, dominating possession and territory, I don’t see why you can’t use your backs. We don’t have finishers out wide, but we’re standing awfully flat. It bugs me when SA and Australia run more backline moves than we do, even if they’re ineffective.
Benjamin said | August 20th 2008 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Jerry, OJ - do either of you recall having a conversation about the 6 man England scrum in the 02 Wellington test? You’ll have to excuse me but I have forgotten with whom the debate occurred?!
Jerry said | August 20th 2008 @ 10:35am | Report comment
That was me - I recall you were gonna try and find a youtube clip of it.
Benjamin said | August 20th 2008 @ 10:38am | Report comment
Really? Sorry, I must have forgotten. Anyhow, one better - I’ve just been perusing a Phil Vickery DVD (year long diary - that sort of thing), and it features the scrum. There were 3 re-sets and no collapses. Every scrum was balanced with no inch given on either side, and on every occasion Thompson and Hore/Mealamu popped up.
Jerry said | August 20th 2008 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Ah well, faulty memory on my part. What happened directly afterwards? Did the ref ping England or was I imagining that also?
Benjamin said | August 20th 2008 @ 10:54am | Report comment
IDon’t worry, I had completely forgotten until it pinged onto the screen. I have literally paused the DVD on the final scrum. I believe England do get pinged. I’ll check it out. Not a great DVD btw I wouldn’t recommend.
stuff happens said | August 20th 2008 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Benjamin & Jerry I was not around for your original discussion about the Engalnd 6 man scrum in the WLG test in 2002. I remember being gobsmacked and thought I’d never see the day etc and thinking England really can win the next RWC. Then the foll week they took the Australian scrum for a walk around Mel.
Jerry said | August 20th 2008 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
It was actually 2003. For me it wasn’t the scrums that were shocking it was that England afterwards managed to hold on to the ball and rumble up the field so easily. For most of that game the AB forwards actually edged the battle for possession, but when their backs were against the wall the English pack (or what was left of it with two men off) really stepped up.
It’s also interesting to think that only a couple of years later at Twickenham the positions would be reversed with the All Black scrum holding England despite a numbers disadvantage.
Luke said | August 20th 2008 @ 9:54pm | Report comment
boks are lacking direction and that ref did not help either side in the cause for a decent flowing match…he was a good advocate for why the elv’s desperately need reviewing and extra consideration, planning and consolidation across all referees because as it stands, ridiculous refereeing performances like Matt Goddard’s last saturday can ruin Test Rugby. Seemingly everything is up to the referee’s interpretation or at least it’s allowed to be. Goddard made some mind boggling rulings in that game against both sides for offences that just weren’t plausible nor logical in the areas of the field in which he was blowing them up. The Boks showed immaturity under Matfield, who once again showed he isn’t half the captain John Smit is, in failing to deal with it and get on with the job, the got frustrated and the All blacks kept their cool for long enough and just got the job done. But I must say I have been amazed to see as little attention on that appauling refereeing display as there has been.
Benjamin said | August 20th 2008 @ 10:04pm | Report comment
Perfect illustration of the cycle of sport Jerry/stuff happens. Such is life.
Jerry, I think the penalty was for popping up or perhaps a player offside, although that is more unlikely. You can’t hear on the DVD because Stuart Barnes is talking over the ref. So’oialo takes the ball on and get’s whistled for holding on.
The highlights are quite interesting because although I remember the backs not being great it seems that Wilkinson actually blew/ignored a handful of overlaps and one-on-ones further out just for a drop kick or two. That seems to sum the man up perfectly as far as I’m concerned. Incidentally Vickery had an amazing day, it’s a shame that he’s such a shadow of his former glories.
I also think that the NZ scrum at Twickenham Twickenham is quite appropriate for Gavin’s ‘prop’ article. Sheridan is pure power, and that day he was held/undone by pure technique which just goes to prove the necessity of experience and skill.