By Spiro Zavos
August 21st 2008 @ 12:36am
How the Wallabies can beat the Springboks
Bob Dwyer, the coach of the 1991 Rugby World Cup winning Wallabies and a Waratahs coach with a terrific winning record in South Africa, used to tell his players to concentrate on playing well rather than on winning the match.
If they made their tackles, converted the line breaks into points, played for each other, didn’t do stupid things and adhered to the game plan, if they played well in other words, then the result would look after itself.
This Dwyer notion that the performance creates the result has led me to the belief that there is no point in predicting a result (we are having the game to find this out, after all), but that there is great merit in analysing what the Wallabies have to do to defeat the Springboks in South Africa.
A successful method can be repeated for further successes.
Mindset:
The Wallabies have to have the mindset that they can win in South Africa. Admittedly this is difficult when the last victory in South Africa was eight years ago at Durban when Stirling Mortlock kicked a conversion from the sideline for a 19-18 victory. Mortlock is still an integral part of the Wallaby side, now as the captain rather than the goal-kicker. And the Test is being played at the ABSA Stadium at Durban.
So the winning belief should be there.
But is it?
This is what Stirling Mortlock said about the appalling away record of the Wallabies: “I don’t think South Africa is as much a bogey to us as simply a reality that the ‘Boks play much better at home than they do overseas … much like us, really.”
This is true but I’d have preferred Mortlock to have said something like this: “The All Blacks beat the ‘Boks last Saturday. So this notion that South Africa is something of a laager for the ‘Boks just doesn’t hold up. We’ve beaten them at Durban in my time with the Wallabies. There’s no reason, if we play as well as we can, that we can’t do it again.”
On thinking about the poor away record of the Wallabies and the Springboks since professional rugby started up (except in Rugby World Cup tournaments), I’m beginning to think that there is something in the argument that the haka gives the All Blacks an advantage in away games.
With the ritual of the haka, the All Blacks just before the Test begins make their claim that the ground belongs to them, and not to the local opposition.
Somehow Robbie Deans and his brains trust have to come up with a similar psychological ploy to transfer the ‘ownership’ of the ground from the Springboks to the Wallabies.
Singing ‘Waltzing Matilda’ does it in Australia. Something is needed out of Australia.
Tactics:
Keep play moving and try to get a fast game going against the Springboks. You don’t engage them in a close combat, attrition game. If you do, they’ll get you sooner or later. They have a massive tight five - less so without John Smit and Bakkies Botha, admittedly - and a huge, athletic and rough back row.
At Perth, George Smith played a blinder and won virtually every ruck and maul after the tackle, in much the same way that Richie McCaw did at Cape Town.
The Springbok forwards, who couldn’t get to the rucks and mauls in numbers, were reduced to playing the ball on the ground in an effort to slow play down (and correctly penalised for this by referee Matt Goddard).
The Springboks like to play a rush defence and like to put defenders between runners to set up interceptions and breakouts. With Bryan Habana out, this tactic is less likely to be successful, although Jean de Villiers is an intercept pest.
So the Wallabies need to control their passing, and adopt the tactic used successfully by the All Blacks of the kick-over-the-top and chip through.
The Springboks don’t play with much cover.
They like to establish big hits at the advantage line. There is space often wide, as there was when Matt Giteau did a couple of diagonal kick-passes, and even more space behind the front line of defence.
Challenge the Springboks lineout:
The lineout has been the trump card of the Springboks in the Victor Matfield era. But this season, with unlimited numbers allowed in the lineout, it’s been a different matter. The All Blacks are double teaming Matfield, even when a short lineout is called.
As a consequence, the old dominance has gone.
Also, the All Blacks mounted several rolling mauls at Cape Town (were you watching, Brian Moore) and the Springboks didn’t seem to have a clue how to stop them.
Have a steady scrum:
The Wallaby scrum is improving, mainly because they are concentrating on steadiness rather than dominance. The Springboks use the 5m scrums to launch hard-to-stop backrow moves. The Wallabies need to try and prevent being in this position, and if they are, to present a steady scrum so that their backrow can react to the coming backrow move from the Springboks.
Apply pressure through an offensive-defensive game:
The more skillful Springboks are among the older players and they are reaching the stage in their career where they resent the really hard but fair tackle.
The All Blacks at Cape Town rattled Butch James (admittedly, the tackle was slightly late), Fourie du Preez (a possible shoulder charge) and Percy Montgomery, who will come on as a reserve with high balls and a strong chase.
The result was a series of blunders, mainly involving kicking out on the full.
More pressure can be applied to the Springboks by making the game an expansive and open one. One of phases at Cape Town lasted three minutes. The Springboks tight five, particularly, looked stuffed from about the 60 minute mark.
The Springbok backs aren’t into rucking and mauling (unlike the All Blacks) and if the Wallaby backs play like loose forwards at the breakdown (Berrick Barnes is good at this, as is Stirling Mortlock), turnovers will come.
The occasional kick-and-chase from such turnovers could have the Springboks in all sorts of trouble.
Take points from drop goals:
No one has worked out yet that forcing a short arm penalty near the opponent’s post should often be turned into a gift three points. Take the scrum and set up a dropped goal, with the backs 10m apart from it.
Simple.
One of the reasons why England were so successful in 2002/2003 was that Jonnie Wilkinson always took the dropped goal option if they’d been inside the opposition 22 for some time and had nothing to show for it.
The Springboks had twice as much time inside the All Blacks 22 at Cape Town than their opponents. They ended up with nil points.
Not once in that time did they attempt a drop goal.
The All Blacks attempted two drop goals towards the end of the match, when the Springboks were expecting them. Both were charged down.
These goals should have been taken in the first half when the All Blacks had a five point lead and just could not get any more points. Take the gift three points when the opposition isn’t expecting them to be taken.
Play the referee:
Most referees, subconsciously and not deliberately, tend to favour the home side. The Wallabies have to get the referee on side with them, psychologically. Richie McCaw did this last Saturday by pointing out ever so politely that the referee had made a mistake of law in ruling a drop out on the New Zealand 22 when Butch James kicked over the All Blacks’ tryline.
You could hear Goddard and McCaw almost joke about how the referee had got the law wrong.
And later on when Matfield came to query a decision by Goddard, McCaw was able to wave him away, acting as a sort of protector of the referee.
The point about the referee is important because the Springboks have for several years got away with numerous illegalities at the ruck and maul. Their loose forwards, too, tend to tackle high and get away with this illegality because they start the tackle on the shoulder and move their arm across to the head.
Point this out to the referee when it happens.
It’s important to do this so that the crowd can be taken out of play.
In South Africa, more than most other countries, the crowd is the sixteenth player for the Springboks. When the team and the crowd are as one, the Springboks are virtually unbeatable.
So challenge their illegalities, get early points, and take away the energy of the crowd from the Springboks.
Finally, the mentality of the Springboks is that might is right. They like to dominate and bully.
It was noticeable at Cape Town, for instance, that the All Blacks stood up to them when tempers flared, without throwing punches.
This is important.
The Springboks like to provoke the opposition into doing something stupid. But if the opposition is stalwart and unyielding but disciplined, they often loose their composure.
In every Test this season Robbie Deans - who has a good record in South Africa - has come up with an interesting new play to disconcert the opposition. The Springboks are particularly vulnerable, I’ve always believed, to a new play.
They are the Spartans of rugby. If you play them at their own game, they will invariably win, especially on their home soil.
But if you confront them with something slightly different, in tactics or a special play, they don’t react particularly well.
So for the Wallabies to beat the Springboks, they have to play well and take the Springboks out of their comfort zone by challenging them intellectually and physically on defence and on attack - which given the record of 8 eight years of Wallaby defeats, is easier said than done.
–
Enjoy this article? We encourage you to send it to a few friends and spread the word.
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...
(74)
Benjamin said | August 21st 2008 @ 12:53am | Report comment
Why do Australia need a psychological ploy to beat South Africa? Rugby is a simple sport and its essence lies in determination. Crying out for a psychological ploy perfectly illustrates the attitude that has led to the various Australian deafeats in SA. What the Australian team needs is a 15 man determination that they will come first in every single collision and every single contest across the pitch.
Although SA are on the rebound from a home defeat this is possibly the best chance that Australia have had for an away victory in years. Confidence is low, Matfield seems bewildered by his duties, the lineout was poor - and SA have no substitute lock, the fly half is horror movie material, the outside centre channel is under-powered and the back three have never played together as a unit before. If Australia can keep calm, play percentage rugby and win their personal battles then this is a great opportunity to take the 3N to the wire.
ohtani's jacket said | August 21st 2008 @ 2:22am | Report comment
South Africa have never lost consecutive Test matches at home in the Tri-Nations, so Australia will have to put their bodies on the line and throw everything at them.
Deans’ record in South Africa is only 11-9 in Super rugby, so my advice is defence, defence, defence. South Africa may have been awful last weekend but they counter attacked and had some genuine try scoring opportunities. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Wallabies fall back on old habits — dominating possession and defending the fringes around the ruck. They’ll try to shut down the backs and prevent any good ball going wide. Deans talks about playing what’s in front of you, but these players were reared on ball retention.
A couple of points about last weekend’s Test. The All Blacks didn’t rattle the Boks into mistakes. The first kick-off was out on the full and the next kick was over the deadball line. I don’t think that had anything to do with the haka either.
South Africa vs. New Zealand is a little different from SA vs. Australia, particularly at Cape Town where a section of the crowd support the All Blacks. The Boks buy into the All Black mythos, while it’s fair to say that they don’t rate the Australians.
You know exactly what you’re getting from the Boks. They’ll try to smash the Australian scrum, commit greater numbers to the breakdown (if they have any common sense) and bash their way to victory. If they do this as a unit and not one off runners, they’re dangerous. Their backs are useless and will only score if the Wallabies make a mistake on attack. So it’s really a question of not submitting to the forward pressure.
If the Wallabies don’t buckle, they can probably score off overlaps. I think they do a far better job of creating overlaps than the All Blacks as they have better spacing in their backline. They’ll need to be strong at the set pieces and get good ball at the ruck, however.
Benjamin said | August 21st 2008 @ 3:19am | Report comment
The logic that people are using to justify a SA win this weekend is the exact logic that people were using, myself included, to justify a SA win last week. It just might be that they are not actually a particularly good team. The Boks have not given one good, consistent performance in any of their tests under PDV. To that extent the old adage, an idiot is somebody who utilises the same routine and expects different results, is appropriate when backing the Boks. I am not expecting anything from them this weekend. Also, nobody expected NZ to lose twice in a row. The form book has been ripped up this 3N, and therefore the underdogs, Australia, must be the favourites this weekend. Having said that, it is also quite plausible that like SA’s victory over NZ, Australia’s victory over NZ was also a false dawn. Who knows?
Jerry said | August 21st 2008 @ 8:25am | Report comment
Spiro - a technical point of law:
“No one has worked out yet that forcing a short arm penalty near the opponent’s post should often be turned into a gift three points. Take the scrum and set up a dropped goal.”\
I’m sure people have thought about it - but then looked at the laws and realised it’s illegal.
From Law 9 - “The team awarded a free kick cannot score a dropped goal until after the ball next becomes dead, or after an opponent has played or touched it, or has tackled the ball-carrier or a maul has been formed. This restriction applies also to a scrum taken instead of a free kick.”
You’d have to set up a ruck or maul before you could attempt a drop goal so there’d be no 5m offside line. A team could try a quick play where the 8 takes the tackle and feeds it back quckly, but it wouldn’t be as simple as the halfback feeding the first five for a simple droppy attempt.
LeftArmSpinner said | August 21st 2008 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Spiro, as much as your article makes sense, I dont think you can expect the Wallabies to digest all of that in the heat of battle. For me, the key is to bring physicality to the game. As you say, the Boks are bullies, and particularly the much vaunted Burger. Give him some of their own medicine at the breakdown and in the tackle and they will implode.
The Wallabies need to implement a plan to exploit the rush defence in the backs. They know it is coming but, historically, fail to exploit it.
Benjamin said | August 21st 2008 @ 10:19am | Report comment
You can’t expect the Wallabies to digest what? Do you thing Australia are planning their game on Deans or Spiro? If us, the general public, can work out a generic game plan to beat SA then I’m sure the Australian xv can cope with it.
Btw, how is Burger a bully? I can’t recall any specific incidents of foul play that he has been involved in. He is hardly a Bakkies Botha.
Peter K said | August 21st 2008 @ 10:36am | Report comment
Jerry - Glad you pointed out the restriction on drop goals from a free kick.
What I don’t understand is why they do not attempt a drop goal from normal scrums (knock-on etc) in the 22 with the defence 5 metres back.
Makes it even easier to drop back into the pocket , plenty of time and an easy 3 points.
Mark H said | August 21st 2008 @ 10:53am | Report comment
Its simple, beat them at the breakdown, shut down half and 5/8. Attack at every op.
gavin said | August 21st 2008 @ 11:08am | Report comment
I have to agree with Ben and Mark H
Simple, basic 15 man rugby played well with little mistakes
Bob Dwyer has the Randwick mentality. No ELVs required to get a running game from the Randwick crew. Good forwards too
This statement ” Also, the All Blacks mounted several rolling mauls at Cape Town (were you watching, Brian Moore) and the Springboks didn’t seem to have a clue how to stop them.”
AH! this is interesting. Again, makes the ELVs look silly. All Blacks playing tradition forward play and it comes off. Sadly the Aussies with be told NOT to do this as they want to demonstrate ELVs
I hope Deans works out as coach. I would have been happy with a couple of more Randwick players and a Randwick coach, that would supply a mix of France. Barbarians, Randwick rugby. Watch the tackling though!
Keep it traditional and 15 man rugby. Basic stuff played well
Mark H said | August 21st 2008 @ 11:30am | Report comment
Gav,
You dont have to play old school to also have ELVs. They just alow you to expand your attacking options. Simple footy is all thats needed. Id liove to watch but im going to be in the middle of bloody no where.
Does anyone know an online sports chan that Id be able live feed into?
Big Kev said | August 21st 2008 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Benjamin, you wrote “It just might be that they are not actually a particularly good team. The Boks have not given one good, consistent performance in any of their tests under PDV.” Which is a fair point but a bit innacurate as they Boks were not a particularly good team under Jake White either. Remember the Boks came last in the past 2 tri-nations and have a very poor record against the top 5 rugby countries. Yes they won the RWC, but who exactly did they beat? Argie and England… ha ha, dont make me laugh! They even struggled to beat Tonga and Fiji. They got lucky and they are about to be found out.
gavin said | August 21st 2008 @ 11:40am | Report comment
I hope yer right Mark H. I can see you are right in fact, but really, these ELVs have been allegedly designed to make a more free flowing game and there is criticism the traditional forward play will suffer.
I think Deans will take his marching orders from O’Neill who wants the ELV’s shown off. That means traditional forward play will be avoided, even if they can and need to have greater forward involvement.
The Wallabires are being made the harlem globetrotters of rugby as a demonstration side. So it appears anyway
After all, it’s no sport anymore. It’s a business, they tell us.
ohtani's jacket said | August 21st 2008 @ 11:44am | Report comment
I can’t believe De Villiers chose the same back row, but be that as it may, if the Wallabies think they can win on the back of the All Blacks winning last week, they’ll get smashed to kingdom come. Gotta put the tackles in first and do the hard work.
gavin said | August 21st 2008 @ 11:46am | Report comment
All the more reason to use Tahu
Spiro Zavos said | August 21st 2008 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Jerry, thanks for putting me right on the short arm penalty/scrum/drop kick scenario. Actually it would be easier to take a tap and set up the drop goal from it. So which team is going to make a habit of taking the easy 3 points, the way England did when Clive Woodward had Jonnie Wilkinson dropping goals when they were on attack and hadn’t got points from their domination.
Incidentally, on the matter of the players trying to remember a game plan under the pressure of the Test, Eddie Jones once told me that he prepared a 30-page game plan before Tests.
‘You surely didn’t give that to all the players,’ I said to him.
‘You’re right,’ he said. ‘The players involved in taking the team around the field, George Gregan, Stephen Larkham, the forwards lineout caller and a few others got the 30 pages. The others got a one-page summary.’
Peter K said | August 21st 2008 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Spiro - You cannot take a tap and then take a drop goal off a free kick. A tackle or maul must take place first.
The easy drop goal would be off a normal scrum with the defense back 5 metres.
Jerry said | August 21st 2008 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
Peter -
I think Spiro was saying take a tap, hit the ball up to set up a ruck and then go for the drop-goal. It would be easier than trying a drop-goal after opting for a scrum as all the forwards would be free to blast over the ball when the runner was tackled (and it would remove the chance of the scrum ball being upset). But yes, as you say, under the ELV’s taking a drop goal from a regular scrum is significantly easier. I guess a lot of teams back themselves to try and exploit the extra 5m of space if they get an attacking scrum in in or close to the 22.
I think Carter has been struggling with drop-goals in the TN largely cause they don’t seem to be coming from set plays, other than the one in the dying moments of the Dunedin test when everyone knew it was on. It seems he often looks at taking one if there’s nothing else on, rather having the team structure a play towards giving him a good look at the posts and time to put it over - though it’s pretty clear that such tactics just don’t come easy or natural to the AB’s.
gavin said | August 21st 2008 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
does a coach need to write a 30 page summary ? Crikey. Jones shold have known better coming from such a successful Shute Shield side and they way tey played the game
stuff happens said | August 21st 2008 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
I can’t predict the outcome of this game at all. I was wrong last week big time although for the earlier TN matches I was pretty good.
I can’t make out de Villiers. A coach who makes ’smart arsed’ remarks all the time is fine if you’re winning but it will wear very thin if the ‘Boks lose this weekend - I think privately they must be under great pressure.I suspect they will try and ‘waste’ the Australians . This is their chance for redemption. If they fail this week there will be big changes for the test next weekend and calls for the head of the coach..
Last week Matfield looked like a tired athlete, much as I admire him,out of his depth as capitano and too much travelling and playing without a break.(Now that I’ve said that he’ll probably play the game of his life!)
I was also bewidered ( as I mentioned before), that the ‘Boks didn’t change their tactics in the 2nd half - they kept digging the hole.I think they just expected to win.
The other problem is that I don’t know what to make of Australia either, who blundered with their back row selection in Auckland and didn’t change during the match until it was way too late. Why? When did Australia last lose 8 lineouts in a test to anyone? How good is the Aust scrum? I still think without George Smith the pack looks ordinary.
Ah well ,as Spiro implies that’s what the game is for - to point me in the right direction - at the moment I ‘m confused.
gavin said | August 21st 2008 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
Smith Dunning and Elsom are the only real consistent talent in the pack. The rest are mediocre. I have never known an OZ pack to be selected on merit instead of connections
It is typical of coaches not to makes changes till late. Bringimg Tahu on with 5 minutes go go is infuriating
ohtani's jacket said | August 21st 2008 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
None of the sides are playing great rugby, it’s a matter of playing winning rugby.
The Aussies get two cracks at it. If they can’t force a split then I’d put real question marks over how good a coach Robbie Deans truly is.
Harry said | August 21st 2008 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
We need a bit of luck, and, more importantly, belief.
Spiro like you I was dismayed by Stirling’s words - fine player though he is, I’ve noticed he constantly justifies poor performances and losses with a defeatist mindset. And its not all down to the need to be fluent in sportspeak banalities.
Giteau and Palu are 2 players in particular who always seem to play better against SA than NZ so I’m hoping they lift for this one. Obviously we are overdue a win in SA.
Hugh said | August 21st 2008 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
The rule against drop goals being taken from free kicks or scrums taken in lieu of free kicks doesn’t apply to scrums after knock-ons, does it?
There are plenty of knock-on scrums awarded in the appropriate zone.
gavin said | August 21st 2008 @ 2:07pm | Report comment
I tik it’s important to remember while at Canterbury, Deans had a well balanced team free of interstate politics, unlike the Wallabies when it comes to selecyion. Deans deals with what he is given.
You can’t turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse and Deans will find this out the hard way, dealing with a prima dona front row, selections and politics he has no control over.
Deans had a dream start and I’m not saying the wheels have fallen off yet, but we really must learn to choose a team properly, without fear or favour. It is my view, most Queenslanders in the side aren’t worth a crumpet, as they are not a running rugby State to the degree NSW are
Deans will learn the hard way it’s a different psychology here
LeftArmSpinner said | August 21st 2008 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
OJ, negative nelly!!!! What is great rugby at test level????? The first half of last week’s game was great rugby, and only 5-0.
We have had wonderful rugby played aggressively and at pace throughout the 3N. Each team has asked serious questions of their opposition, tactically and physically.
You don’t get MULTIPLE phases of perfect, sweeping backline play and fast ruck ball in this sort of company. The skill required is too high and the defences too skillful and committed and good to do it consistently.
You need to look at the game as a whole, not as a series of individual phases. What occurs in the last qtr is directly related to what happened in the first three qtrs, as evidenced in last week’s game.
Each week is another instalment in the overall tournament. The ebbing and flowing of the fortunes of three evenly matched teams. Even the previously “bankable” AB scrum, the Wallabies lineout and the Boks back row have been given the once over by the opposition!!!!
Equally, there is the theatre of new guys coming through (Burgess, the beast, Kahui), guys with S14 form not showing up consistently (Palu, Burger,) and old blokes like Mortlock or Matfield, about to struggle.
Mortlock is not a truely inspirational captain and wont be around for the next RWC. Lets move on now.
Finally, Be grateful!
LeftArmSpinner said | August 21st 2008 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
Gavin,
Forget the conspiracy theories.
Deans and O’Neill are not that stupid. You don’t buy a dog and bark yourself. Deans has been given and taken full control of selections and tactics. Hynes has been a revelation, setting up the Wallabies best try of the year. Horwill is now in permanent fixture and has scored multiple tries. Barnes is not far behind, a very good ball player, given his inexperience.
Hugh said | August 21st 2008 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
Agree re Mortlock - there’s really little evidence that he’s an inspirational leader at all.
The wallabies having won only one meaningful OS test (ENG - 2004) since 2001, yet being able to beat the best on home soil, suggests (to me at least) that Neither Gregan or Mortlock have been at all “inspirational.”
ohtani's jacket said | August 21st 2008 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
How did Deans have a dream start?
Surely a dream start is winning an away Test.
I don’t mean to knock the guy, but I don’t think he’s mastered the art of Test match selection yet. With the Crusaders he was all about “give me the players who’ll play the team game”, but at Test match level you need to develop world class players not your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.
For this reason, I think he needs a Super 14 season as selector. He can try new things on the end of year tour, but there’s not the benefit of a Air NZ Cup style competition to start shaping those ideas.
If he wants players to switch position, it’ll be interesting to see if he gets the full support of the Australian Super 14 coaches.
ohtani's jacket said | August 21st 2008 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
LAS,
The ELVs don’t allow for great rugby and these extended Tri-Nations with their ridiculous scheduling isn’t helping matters either. That’s no more negative than what we’re seeing on the pitch.
Peter K said | August 21st 2008 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
Gavin - Horwill and Vickerman are consistent performers in the pack as well.
Dunning isn’t. He always has the right attitude but some games scrums poorly, misses tackles and drops the ball in pick and drive. He is hot and cold.
As to Qld’s -
Moore I would replace with Polotua
Horwill I would keep
McMeniman I would keep
Barnes is inconsistent as a playmaker or kicker and his greatest strength is his defence offers little in attack I would strongly be thinking about using Tahu last 30 mins there and see how he goes
Hynes is going great keep him.
On the other hand when Greg Holmes is fit I would replace Robinson with Holmes.
Peter K said | August 21st 2008 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
OJ - What I have seen under the ELV’s is better than the style used last year leading into the RWC. Also better , far better than the final of the RWC.
gavin said | August 21st 2008 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
yes Peter you’re right. I forgot about Vickerman. He is first class. Haven’t made my mind up yet re Hoewill. I thought he took the foul play from the French too easily. He should have belted the bloke.
Polutua I would have in
Actually, you’re right about Hines too. Barnes one of the few QLDrs I like
Playing Taho for longer would be good for him and us I think
LAS says
”
“Gavin,
Forget the conspiracy theories.
Deans and O’Neill are not that stupid. You don’t buy a dog and bark yourself”
I wish I could forget the conspiracies. WOOF WOOF (grin)
Justin said | August 21st 2008 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
Lets belt out Waltzing Matilda! That will get the boys fired up
gavin said | August 21st 2008 @ 5:09pm | Report comment
standard rugby song will do me No reason why England supporters should monopolise ’swing low sweet chariot
Anything is better than that dread Waltzing Matilda especially when “manufactured” by sponsored and sung by that dreadful J Williamson. God, has that man have no respect for humanity ?
Peter K said | August 21st 2008 @ 5:31pm | Report comment
I would MUCH rather we sung Queen’s ‘We will rock you’
Look at the lyrics below , so suitable for rugby
Aah
Buddy you’re a boy make a big noise
Playin’ in the street gonna be a big man some day
You got mud on yo’ face
You big disgrace
Kickin’ your can all over the place
Singin’
We will we will rock you
We will we will rock you
Buddy you’re a young man hard man
Shouting in the street gonna take on the world some day
You got blood on yo’ face
You big disgrace
Wavin’ your banner all over the place
We will we will rock you
Sing it
We will we will rock you
Buddy you’re an old man poor man
Pleadin’ with your eyes gonna make
You some peace some day
You got mud on your face
Big disgrace
Somebody betta put you back into your place
We will we will rock you
Sing it
We will we will rock you
Everybody
We will we will rock you
We will we will rock you
Alright
ohtani's jacket said | August 21st 2008 @ 6:18pm | Report comment
Peter,
The only Tests where the backs have contested were Dunedin and Sydney and to a lesser extent Perth.
The All Blacks rightly figured they can’t win Tests playing that kind of rugby and have gone all conservative. The only difference between the All Blacks and the World Cup finalists is a slightly more mobile pack and a much more gifted first five. I didn’t agree with this earlier in the season, but if Dan Carter is injured this will be the worst All Black attack in God knows how long.
When the ELVs were about to be trialled, myself and others mentioned that it wouldn’t be long before coaches found a way to get around them. The ELVs are supposed to be about possession, but Henry has cleverly manipulated it so that the All Blacks avoid possession.
So while I like some of the features of play under the ELVs, I dislike the style of play and I don’t believe the rugby is any better than non-ELVs rugby. I sincerely hope that the Aussie backs prove me wrong over the next fortnight, but as it stands, I don’t think this is the effect Macqueen & Co. had in mind.
Aside from the new coaches and new faces, has the rugby been better this year than 2006 or 2007? If it hasn’t changed for the better then the new laws aren’t working. .
Peter K said | August 21st 2008 @ 6:29pm | Report comment
OJ I think the style is better when I consider ALL teams not just the AB’s.
The rugby itself has been with one qualification.
Like all world cups there is a generational change and great players have retired or now play in europe.
The replacements have not been the same quality so the rugby quality drops a little bit.
Examples are Larkham, Latham for Australia.
For AB’s McAlister is sorely missed, the centre spot is a weakness.
So if I take into account the players are not as good then the ELV’s are delivering better rugby.
Jerry said | August 21st 2008 @ 6:57pm | Report comment
OJ - “Henry has cleverly manipulated it so that the All Blacks avoid possession” is not correct - the All Blacks had 52% of the possession in Auckland and 60% in Cape Town.
ohtani's jacket said | August 21st 2008 @ 7:02pm | Report comment
You say McAlister is sorely missed, but Nonu is playing to a game plan. He admitted to such in the press. The reason he doesn’t (try to) kick is because he was told not to. Sam pointed out how they’re using Nonu in that great post he made about last week’s Test.
Anyway, I don’t want to sound like someone who’s miserable when the All Blacks are losing and miserable when they’re winning. Australia have the best backline and I hope we see something out of it.
Sledgeandhammer said | August 21st 2008 @ 7:10pm | Report comment
Gavin etc to suggest the ELVs aren’t working because the all blacks are playing a traditional game is buying into the anti elv bullshit. The great scare campaign re the elvs was that rugby would never be the same. But it is still rugby, still has the same structure and can be played expansively or not - up to the individual team or coach. The ELVs never promised to make rugby more attacking or lead to more tries. They promised to ensure the ball was in play longer, referees had less influence on the game (less penalty offences) and the game was simplified for players and spectators alike. They have achieved all of these, and I think lead to a better game.
If you don’t believe me go back to the original source - the IRB, and read articles by people like Macqueen who were on law group, instead of relying on second hand interpretation.
gavin said | August 21st 2008 @ 7:14pm | Report comment
The ABs were lucky SA failed to capitolise on the chances they had. SA murdered a couple of tries
gavin said | August 21st 2008 @ 7:18pm | Report comment
I hope you’re right
Benjamin said | August 21st 2008 @ 8:49pm | Report comment
Big Kev. I fully agree.
Dublin Dave said | August 21st 2008 @ 9:32pm | Report comment
So the ELVs could lead to a great increase in the number of dropped goals, eh?
Oh the irony of it.
I must admit, I favour the introduction of the 5m offside line at the scrum because it can give the attacking backline more space to play in, space that has been denied by the law changes in the mid 1990s. But it makes perfect sense that a team with a half decent kicker would take 3 points on offer from a scrum anywhere in the 22, especially if there is an enforced gap of about 20m back to the defensive backs. (5m +5m + approx 10m for the scrum itself)
Of course it all depends on the number of scrums that will be awarded, that is “real” scrums as opposed to the “optional” scrums following the award of a free kick. (Did somebody say something about making the laws simpler?) Am I right in thinking that there will be fewer of the former under the ELVs because so many of the laws have been changed to free-kick as opposed to scrum offenses?
Or is it all so complicated that nobody could be bothered to count?
mudskipper said | August 21st 2008 @ 10:01pm | Report comment
Dublin Dave… you need to read the blog a little further my Northern friend…Our esteemed master Spiro is mistaken, the play, a drop goal before first phase has passed after a short arm penalty is against the rules…. Just goes to show the new rules are well considered by great rugby minds… Dave give up come towards the light and the future, its a happier place…
Peter K said | August 21st 2008 @ 10:08pm | Report comment
Good news.
Team named.
Elsom and Horwill are fit.
Also Dunning starts ahead of Baxter. Vickerman starting too. McMeniman on bench ahead of Mumm.
We have named about our hardest pack available except Waugh for Smith, but Smith being soft is ok since he can do the scavenging so well.
In the backs Micthell not that great, but AC will be back next game. Tahu on bench is a plus as long as he gets decent time on the field.
All in all the best team we have selected.
gavin said | August 21st 2008 @ 10:19pm | Report comment
It’s Tahu Time…
Dublin Dave said | August 21st 2008 @ 10:26pm | Report comment
mudskipper
I’ve passed all my “how to suck eggs” exams thank you very much.
I KNOW there is a difference between “real” scrums and “optional” scrums. Indeed, I referred to it in my post and wondered whether anybody has counted how many of the scrums in games played under the ELVs fall into each category.
The former, you can drop a goal from and it will be much easier now that the back lines have to be so far apart. The latter, you cannot drop a goal from.
Frankly, if you get so confused reading my post, what chance has a befuddled captain, particularly one playing in the forwards and getting his head banged around for 70 odd minutes, of making a match deciding decision late in the game?
“Scrum under the posts. Great. Let’s drop a goal and win it.”
“Er, are you sure skipper? Is this a real scrum or an optional one?”
Simplified laws my backside.
Peter K said | August 21st 2008 @ 11:18pm | Report comment
Dublin Dave - The law regarding not being able to drop goal from a free kick has not changed, it is like this under current law.
It’s just there are more free kicks, and the scrum is back 5 metres under the ELV’s.
mudskipper said | August 21st 2008 @ 11:28pm | Report comment
Dublin Dave…love your miss guided passion…however I’m pleased you have now read the blog… I hope you catch the only test match worth watching this weekend on the planet… Wallabies vs. Springboks with ELVs….Its not easy but some are prepared to have a go for the betterment of others…and I hope you enjoy an additional 15 minutes of more ball in play under the ELVs…should prove to be a good game…
Dave if I have miss read your statement my apologies nonetheless perhaps you should phrase it a little more succinctly…it’s frankly muddled…
ohtani's jacket said | August 21st 2008 @ 11:46pm | Report comment
Jerry, those percentage counts don’t take into account the number of kicks in play.
The All Blacks look to retain possession when they have a territorial advantage. That might be winning rugby, perhaps even high percentage rugby, but it’s how we’ve always criticised England for playing. The All Blacks under Henry have shown a willingness to counter attack and score from turnover ball or in broken play. Now we’re trying to crack the defensive line from the 22 and I can’t say I’m particularly keen on it.
As for the ELVs, the ball being in play for longer has led to nothing but players being out on their feet. I don’t need to point about the refs & the breakdown, it speaks for itself. The idea behind the ELVs was that the team in possession decided how they wanted to play the game, yet the free kick sanction is KILLING the options not creating them.
Benjamin said | August 22nd 2008 @ 12:01am | Report comment
OJ, I assume that Henry is guiding the team in that direction for various reasons. The ELVs are in their infancy and so it will take a while for the international teams to develop their true style.
I agree with you about the ELVs. Personally I don’t think there is much enjoyment to be had from watching a game that resembles a game of park rugby between ten year olds. The game seems to have become far more of a free for all. If you are running around for 80 minutes then that will detract from the skill levels, and I think Henry’s game plan is a natural adjunct of that, until at least there is a definite consensus on the ELVs. I would say the autumn tours would be a better indicator of how teams are developing under the ELVs but then the UK international teams will not have played under them yet so potentially the games could be a complete mess.
mudskipper said | August 22nd 2008 @ 12:15am | Report comment
OJ and Ben…Will any of the northern tours be played under the ELVs?
I hadn’t thought about that hitch… time for the IRB o stand up I would think…
Dublin Dave said | August 22nd 2008 @ 12:36am | Report comment
Peter K and Mudskipper,
OK. Let me try to be a bit more concise and lucid.
Although I support the ELV which has a 5m offside line at the scrum, I do think it would be an irony if this leads to more drop goal attempts from attacking scrums thanks to the greater time afforded the kicker because the defence is now further away. I would guess that this was not the intention of the law drafters, but maybe my opinion is being skewed by thinking of another Australian of my acquaintance (make that OUR acquaintance PK
) whose opinion of the dropped goal is that it should be routed out of the game like mice out of a pantry.
What I was trying to get at though is what is the likelihood of there being more or fewer attacking scrums from which such a score might be attempted. I know that the existing restriction on attempting dropped goals from a free kick carries over into the new laws, meaning that an attacking team may not drop a goal from a scrum formed in preference to taking a free kick.
I would guess that most scrums awarded to an attacking team inside the 22m line would traditionally have come from the breakdown. eg ruck forms, ball doesn’t emerge, attacking team gets put in. Or defending side tries to maul ball upfield, they get tied up and sealed off, unable to use it they lose it. I understand that under the ELVs, free kicks are now awarded instead of scrums in these situations.
Other “offences” producing scrums like knock ons and forward passes are, I suspect (I don’t have stats–I’d be surprised if anyone does) more likely to be incurred by attacking teams than defending ones. If you’re inside your own 22, you are less likely to throw an extravagant pass than you are to play safe. So the opportunities for attacking scrums inside the 22 from which a drop goal may be attempted may be fewer. We’ll just have to wait, see and count.
But here’s a prediction. Some time in the next two years there will be a major controversy involving a referee (not necessarily Mr Barnes) allowing a match winning dropped goal which was strictly illegal because it came from the wrong type of scrum.
Mark my words.
Sam Taulelei said | August 22nd 2008 @ 1:48am | Report comment
Mudskipper
The November internationals will be played under the current European laws and not the ELV’s and there is talk that the Lions tour to SA will also be played under the European laws. This is an untenable situation and the IRB will need to act strongly to unite the two hemispheres playing under the same laws. There is still no professional competition in Europe willing to trial the ELV sanctions and efforts to introduce it to the English Premiership and Heineken Cup competitions this coming season failed, although the IRB announced that it will introduce the sanctions in another competition, possibly the second tier European Challenge Cup or the EDF Energy Cup competition.
Benjamin said | August 22nd 2008 @ 2:21am | Report comment
Sam, the Guinness Premiership teams are all training under and planning for the ELVs, as are the Top 14 clubs. Why is that so if the competitions are not going to trial the ELVs? Do you know that for sure? I read the recent press about the NH rejecting the ELVs, but there has been nothing about playing under the old laws.
Dublin Dave said | August 22nd 2008 @ 2:30am | Report comment
Sam/Benjamin/Mudskipper
The confusing issue here is that, to misquote George Bernard Shaw, we have two sets of laws united by a common name. ELV means something different up north to what it means down south.
There WILL be experimental laws trialled up here at all levels in the forthcoming season, which is due to start pretty soon, and I’m pretty sure the November tests will be played according to those laws.
The crucial difference between the northern and southern ELVs is that the change of sanction from penalty to free kick for most technical offences is NOT in place here. You can pull down the maul, there is a 5m offside line at the scrum, you can have as many in the lineout as you llike and no ground can be gained from a kick following a pass back into the 22.
But if your binding is wrong in the scrum, you will still be pinged for a penalty, not a free kick.
That’s the main difference.
Jerry said | August 22nd 2008 @ 4:35am | Report comment
Dave - I don’t think the ELVs being trialled in the S14/TN affect the sanctions for scrum binding - some offences are penalties whereas some are free kicks, just like in the NH. The change in sanctions only applies at the ruck/tackle.
LeftArmSpinner said | August 22nd 2008 @ 8:06am | Report comment
Nonu is not playing to the game plan. He is not running on to the ball with any ferocity.
As regards drop goals, you forget the back row defending the kick. They are not back 5 metres. The ELV’s give the attacking team more “help” against defences. I strongly disagree that the only outcome is Players out on their feet.
The ball is in play more-More rugby for spectators to watch and players to play- better than seeing a ball boy recovering a deadball!
The game is faster: More mismatches and more exciting play-exciting play doesn’t have to end in a try.
Structure is not, in and of itself good or bad. Structure and the lack of it can be both good and bad. Consider the context!!!
The IRB is dominated by the NH, and once again, they display their incompetence in the implementation of these new rules. Incompetence. Nothing else.
Unity and hence a world code is the most critical factor to be retained. It is disgraceful that any party would play russian roulette with the code. Those in charge, at IRB and NH club level, are culpable in their incompetence, particularly with something a simple as a few rule changes.
The IRB should stand their ground against the billionaires. The billionaires have a shorter time frame (if only because they are mortal) than bodies such as the IRB. Just look at the owner turnover at EPL clubs.
Has anyone asked the players or the spectators what they want????
LeftArmSpinner said | August 22nd 2008 @ 8:06am | Report comment
AND, its Tahu time!!
Benjamin said | August 22nd 2008 @ 8:42am | Report comment
The ball being in play more is actually a misleading statistic because a lot of that is ball in air and kicking etc.
There are two reactions to the past 3N games; people like you who think it is faster and therefore better. And people like me who think that playing the game at a faster pace does naturally not equate to better rugby. That much has been evident in this 3N. A perfect illustration is the tired and pointless lob pass from JDV that led to Mealamu’s intercept try. Furthermore you are missing one of the key reasons of the ELVs - to make the game easier to ref. I certainly haven’t seen any proof of this and specifically the breadkwon has been one big free for all. I just don’t think there is any proof that the ELVs have made the game any more enjoyable to watch. In fact what the ELVs have done is highlight that a lot of players aren’t particularly skilfull. It is no coincidence that Henry has found success by going back to basics.
LeftArmSpinner said | August 22nd 2008 @ 8:59am | Report comment
BENNY, it is a bit of a stretch to blame the ELVs for JDV’s pass.
It was a high risk pass under any laws, but that pass was dumb because the context was wrong and it was poorly executed.
I suspect that it actually was due to fatigue, frustration and desperation, all of which came from the AB’s pressure throughout the game in attack and defence.
THe ELV’s allowed AB’s to apply this pressure with fast tap kicks, lineout variations, aggression at the breakdown and most importantly, the offside line at the tackle. AB’s added a good kicking game and some resilient defence when it mattered and of course, some clever and well timed attack.
So, by going back to the basics, the ELVs work well!!!! That’s fine with me. What’s all the fuss about then??????? Seems that the ELV’s allow basics play and expansive play. everyone’s style of play is accommodated!
Lets get on and play some rugby!!!!!!!!!!!!!