By Andrew Logan
August 26th 2008 @ 12:49am
The Springbok maneaters fail at rugby
In the African movie The Ghost and the Darkness, which chronicles the hunting and killing of the man-eating lions of Tsavo in 1898, engineer John Patterson discusses his attempt to kill the big cats with hunter Charles Remington. “Have you ever failed?”, asks Patterson. Replies Remington, “Only at life.”
After last weekend’s victory to Australia, a similar answer could describe the Springboks attempt to kill off the Wallabies.
Did they fail? Well, only at rugby.
It was evident to all who watched, including the booing home fans, that this Springbok team lacks confidence, regardless of the denials from the coach.
They failed to convert pressure into points several times during the Test against Australia, made more than a dozen handling errors, kicked aimlessly, lost a number of their own lineouts, and missed fourteen or fifteen tackles.
Perhaps, these stats could have been excused as just a team having a bad day. But the instances of foul play tell the real story.
When you look back at the last ten years of Springbok Test matches, it becomes clear that South African teams lacking confidence in their ability inevitably resort to playing the man.
In 2001, French coach Bernard Laporte criticized English referee Chris White for not being harder on the Boks after three players were sin-binned for foul play during the French victory. Mark Andrews particularly was cited for headbutting Fabien Galthie.
France won 20-15.
In 2002, a horror November Test at Twickenham contained the following laundry list of offences: third minute, Robinson punched by Krige after late tackle; tenth minute, Dalton punches Dawson; twelfth minute, Fleck punches Cohen; twentieth minute, Robinson hit off the ball by James; twenty-third minute, Labuschagne sent off for late shoulder charge on Wilkinson; thirty-fifth minute, Krige penalized for a late hit on Hill; fortieth minute, James punches Dawson.
After half time, if possible, things get worse.
Forty-first minute, Wilkinson out of game after James shoulder charge; fiftieth minute, Greef knees Back; fifty-fifth minute, Krige headbutts Dawson; fifty-eighth minute, Krige knocks out his own man Pretorius with a swinging arm intended for Dawson; sixty-first minute, Greef concedes penalty try following dangerous tackle on Christophers; sixty-ninth minute, Krige elbows Johnson in retaliation for being held in a headlock (perhaps justifiably, given Krige’s game up to this point); and finally in the seventhy-fourth minute, AJ Venter headbutts Richard Hill in the face.
Clearly not focused on rugby, the Springboks are defeated by England 53-3.
In 2003, two Springboks were charged with foul play following a match that Australia won.
Robbie Kempson shoulder charged Toutai Kefu while his back was turned, and Wallaby hooker Brendan Cannon was bitten and then eye gouged by Bakkies Botha.
Botha was suspended for eight weeks, Kempson for four. Australia won 29-9 and Australian coach Eddie Jones branded the Springboks a “f**king disgrace.”
Of course, Springbok fans argue that their team is no dirtier than any other, but at least one insider suggests otherwise.
In his book Springbok Rugby Uncovered, former Springbok communications manager Mark Keohane said: “Since 1992, the Boks have done themselves no favours when it comes to being branded the thugs of Test rugby. The facts are damning. In the decade since readmission, the Boks have been involved in at least one match a year marred by fighting or ill discipline. During this time, Bok players have been sent off, cited and suspended for indiscretions ranging from punching to biting to kicking to swearing at the referee.”
He goes on to say, “The Boks are not necessarily dirtier than any other side, but they must be a lot dumber as they always seem to get caught. Statistics from 2000 to 2003 attest to Bok brutality. In forty one Tests leading into the 2003 World Cup, the Boks had twenty players yellow carded and two red carded for ill-discipline. The opposition in these forty one Tests lost only ten players to yellow cards.”
So what? The Boks are prone to foul play on occasion. That’s not really news is it? Nup.
The interesting part is the correlation between the Bok’s confidence and the amount of foul play they mete out to the opposition. That is to say, the better they feel they are playing, the less they play the man and vice versa.
The drubbing by England in 2002 was accompanied by what can only be described as carnage. At the other end of the scale, during the 2007 World Cup victory, a squeaky-clean South Africa conceded only three yellow cards for the tournament, which incidentally went to Francois Steyn, Bryan Habana and Juan Smith – hardly a trio of enforcers.
When the Springbok team’s ability to play constructive, positive rugby disappears, they appear to lose confidence and start trying to bash teams out of the game. The on-field violence acts as an indicator of how much confidence they currently have in their rugby.
Last weekend, feeling threatened at home and having been soundly beaten by the All Blacks just a week before, the Boks came out at Durban lacking a clear match strategy, and minus two of their strike weapons in Bakkies Botha and Bryan Habana.
As the lost opportunities mounted up and the errors increased, the Springboks began to play the man.
CJ van der Linde threw himself forward into a ruck to headbutt Sam Cordingley. Butch James’ tackles drifted higher and later. Van der Linde again was noted by a linesman for shoulder charging a stationary player caught in a ruck. And finally Schalk Burger reeled out of a ruck pursued by a cranky George Smith, whom he had grabbed on the testicles.
Smith could be clearly heard on the referees mike chastising Burger. “Well, if you want to grab my balls, then of course I’m going to blow up. That’s not your go, Schalk – you’re a better player than that.”
For his part, Burger looked sheepish, as if he too knew he was better than that.
The signs were all there of a team frustrated and lacking a clear direction, in contrast to their opponents the Wallabies, who had the direction, even though they weren’t always able to execute consistently.
Much of the early kicking was aimless, Cordingley’s service was scattered, several passes were pushed when the ball should have been held, and the Wallabies missed seventeen or eighteen tackles – meaning that for every 3.5 or so successful tackles, they missed one outright.
But they still managed to deliver by sticking to the plan and patiently working through the rough patches.
Horwill and Smith made crucial steals on Springbok ball, Stirling Mortlock scored a magnificent solo try, Rocky Elsom generally worked as though he was being paid by the metre.
Matt Giteau delivered his best kicking performance yet in general play, and importantly the Australian set-piece was solid, even allowing several steals on Springbok lineout ball.
What can we expect in Johannesburg?
The Boks are down and rattled. They have conceded two Tests in a row at home and have a coach who doesn’t inspire, or articulate, confidence.
Their replacement “form fullback”, Conrad Jantjies, had a shocker, the week after their centurion Percy Montgomery also had a barry and got hooked. Aside from Tendai Mtawarira and Adrian Jacobs who kept their team in the game, there were few Boks who inspired much confidence.
The likely return of the ghostly Bryan Habana may not be enough to stave off the darkness.
The Wallabies will have confidence after their win, and can still field a winning side, thanks to Robbie Deans’ willingness to give game time to his bench.
Most importantly, they have learned a valuable lesson through the foul play which reveals the fragility of the present Springbok psyche.
The time to be anxious about the Boks is when they are playing rugby – not when they are playing the man.
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...
(75)
ohtani's jacket said | August 26th 2008 @ 1:32am | Report comment
I agree with all of this, which is why I mentioned that it could get ugly in Johannesburg.
The Boks don’t like losing, least of all to Australia. They should really put a hiding on the Wallabies in Johannesburg, but it’s difficult to see where that type of performance will come from. Deans has to tread a fine line between going for another win and losing some players. It’s an odd thing, since they don’t really go head hunting against the All Blacks. There’s the usual off the ball stuff, but I reckon they view sides like the Wallabies or England as being below them to be honest.
Benjamin said | August 26th 2008 @ 2:01am | Report comment
OJ, how can you consider a team who beats you easily for 7 years as below you? More likely they knew that they were that superior that they descended into incandesecent rage. The heavyweight champion of the world doesn’t bite people because he is that much better than the opposition. The opponent bites the champion because he cannot match his skill or quality. Hence SA erupt when they are on the end of a score. Unless of course as you suggest… SA only think NZ fit to be their opponents.
Even in the recent Barbarians v England game there was some awful behaviour from Wannenburg.
ohtani's jacket said | August 26th 2008 @ 2:32am | Report comment
Well Benjamin, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but none of the sides in world rugby like England.
ohtani's jacket said | August 26th 2008 @ 2:37am | Report comment
My point is, however, that since readmission the Boks have struggled to break away from the Craven era, IMO. They still believe in the old world order.
Benjamin said | August 26th 2008 @ 2:51am | Report comment
OJ, could you point out to me what that has to with anything? I think that says more about other sides to be honest. Must be that post-colonial chip on the shoulder.
Also… what you are suggesting about SA is not logical at all. You cannot take beatings off a single team for 7 years and think you are better than them. That is just silly. The fans may believe in the old world order but I doubt a player who has had his head stuck up his arse for 7 years still would.
Nelson Wilbury said | August 26th 2008 @ 3:07am | Report comment
its also worth noting that all of these incidents, with the exception of the french test, were in the rudolph straulei days, probably the lowest era in springbok rugby… ever…
springbok discipline improved markedly under Jake White…sadly, like many of the other standards set in this era this seems to be slipping again under PDV….
ohtani's jacket said | August 26th 2008 @ 3:10am | Report comment
Nobody likes the English rugby side and nobody wants to lose to them. Certainly nobody thinks the English are better than them. Call it a post-colonial chip on the shoulder or English arrogance, it doesn’t make much difference. I doubt very much that South Africa think England are a better rugby nation than them.
Benjamin said | August 26th 2008 @ 3:28am | Report comment
No. I imagine they thought it was just a coincidence that they were so easily dealt with for nearly a decade. You should notice that I was dealing in past tense. It is patently clear that your claim that SA only reacted to violence with teams they thought below them is nonsensical.
What a sad way to be. Having said that, from reading the Roar it would appear that nobody likes SA either, so I suppose that’s life. Realistically you could say that nobody likes the NZ side either, and that’s why there was such glee when they were dumped out of the WC, but then that’s sport isn’t it. Whenever SH teams come to England the press are gracious and interested. Whenever England or the Lions have travelled to the SH there is this nasty, narrow minded, spiteful vitriol from the press and public. It’s sad that England would feature so heavily on the SH mind and yet the average man in London or Sheffield wouldn’t t hink twice about any SH rugby teams.
Nelson Wilbury said | August 26th 2008 @ 6:42am | Report comment
there is a lot of nasty , narrow minded and spiteful vitriol directed towards the springboks in this thread and yet your average man in south africa wouldn’t really care about rugby…full stop
Benjamin said | August 26th 2008 @ 7:08am | Report comment
Point it out then.
Jerry said | August 26th 2008 @ 8:03am | Report comment
“It is patently clear that your claim that SA only reacted to violence with teams they thought below them is nonsensical.”
I wouldn’t say it’s nonsensical - merely illogical, but then on field violence is often illogical. The Boks, even in the period from 2000-06 when they couldn’t buy a win from England, probably never really believed English rugby to be better than South African rugby. When they couldn’t beat them on the pitch they tried to beat them UP. It’s no real surprise that often the most obvious examples of SA thuggery tend to happen when they’re losing handily on the scoreboard (see the matches vs Aus & the 50 point drubbing from England listed above).
Historically the Boks have dominated England and Australia - it seems that they react to losing to those teams poorly. NZ seem to be largely (though not 100%) immune to this reaction and it may be because as OJ points out, the AB’s are the traditional main rival of the Boks and there’s a long tradition and rivalry which may make losing easier to accept.
Benjamin said | August 26th 2008 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Jerry surely nonsensical lies next to illogical on the ‘talking wrong’ chart?
My theory is that SA resorted to violence against Australia because they thought Australia could be open to intimidation. Players like Vickermann and Rathbone might add a subplot to that.
SA only resorted to violence against England once, when they had Labuscagne sent off. Therefore I think that as an isolated incident that illustrates that SA knew they couldn’t intimidate that England pack.
OJ didn’t mention NZ being SA’s traditional rivals - he simply said SA probably viewed Australia and England as below them. Hence my boxing analogy. If SA reacted with violence every time they were tested or beaten by a time ‘below them’ why has there been no incidents of violence against France and Ireland. France have given SA some tonkings since 2000. Logically if you are a player like A.J Venter who had been involved in those losses to England, over a 6 year period how could you think them below you? The only answer is arrogance or ignorance but I think that’s a bridge too far. Surely it would be far easier to react more spitefully to your long term rivals?
LeftArmSpinner said | August 26th 2008 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Great article Andrew. For me, the Boks are the classic bully in the playground. They have the physical presence and like to intimidate opponents, either thro the players or the crowd.
Bullies, despite the outside appearance, are weak inside and lack the discipline necessary to behave properly. Teams coached by savvy, observant coaches, take the game to the Boks, physically but legally. The Boks don’t like this, go missing and as the game slips away, they resort to foul play. Further, the team spirit vanishes and is replaced by a group of individuals.
In the case of last Saturday, the Boks had been missing since being bashed up by the AB’s the week before.
I find it even more interesting that a team that joins in prayer before and after games, are school yard bullies on the field! Another sign of a fundamental weakness. Their behaviour is hardly Christian or inspired by a higher power. For the record, I am a practicing Christian!
Andrew Logan said | August 26th 2008 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Interesting theory Jerry which I agree with in part. I think the reason is also that NZ historically have had extremely hard forwards and some pretty tough backs, and most teams, including the Springboks, tend not to mess with them. Australia and England have rarely had the same level of physical intimidation across a whole pack - usually it is just a sprinkling of hard men eg Poidevin, Ofahengaue, Skinner, Johnson, Moore etc.
Re the Boks not trying it on against the All Blacks, the following YouTube clip is interesting if a little sensationalist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLuCVJunTRQ
Cheers…
Benjamin said | August 26th 2008 @ 8:34am | Report comment
Andrew, the England pack of the late 80s to early 90s; Rendall, Leonard, Moore, Dawes, Probyn, Chilcott, Dooley, Ackford, Bayfield, Johnson, Teague, Skinner, Winterbottom, Clarke, Rodber, Richards was by far the toughest in Europe and on par with anything in the SH. That is why the Lions packs of 89 and 93 were largely English. This changed when the SH teams had a definite physical advantage during the mid to late 90s, but from 2000 until 2006 it is fair to say that the England pack was second only occasionally to NZ. And NZ’s resurgence only begun around 2004. That is four years of uninterrupted forward domination from England. Your theory about intimidation is also undermined by the lack of violence from SA toward NZ during NZ’s powderpuff years of 2000-2004.
Jerry said | August 26th 2008 @ 8:34am | Report comment
“If SA reacted with violence every time they were tested or beaten by a time ‘below them’ why has there been no incidents of violence against France and Ireland.”
There have been against France - see Andrew’s summation above for the 2001 match. Against Ireland? Well, they’ve only lost one game against Ireland in recent years and probably directed their anger at Honiss for his blunder in letting a try be scored after telling Smit to talk to his players.
Really, I don’t know. It’s not an exact science and I’m not saying my theory is 100% provable fact - they don’t do it every time they’re losing, and often will do thuggish antics when winning (but then no team won’t have some thuggish antics at some point in the last few years). It’s just a theory, but I’d imagine that there may be more ill will aimed towards England than France due to colonial history - it’s no secret that England’s former colonies like to beat England at sports and when that’s not happening? As for Australia, well SA play them more often than they do France so I guess there’s more opportunity for the game to detoriate into the gutter.
Benjamin said | August 26th 2008 @ 8:48am | Report comment
That elbow shot on So’oialo is outrageous. 6 month material.
Jerry, I recall the 2001 match and specifically Laporte’s reaction but France have gone to SA and drawn and won and there has been no problems, likewise when England did the same there was no reaction. Anyhow, like you say, it’s not an exact science and I think there is a validity in SA playing Australia more and perhaps over the pasy few years, seeing areas to attack. I have to say though I think I would honestly quit watching England or Ireland were I ever to see some of that SA v NZ material.
Andrew Logan said | August 26th 2008 @ 8:49am | Report comment
Benjamin - allow me to borrow a line from Jerry…”It’s not an exact science and I’m not saying my theory is 100% provable fact”.
It is also interesting to note that SA violence is not limited to other teams - they occasionally have a go at each other. eg AJ Venter was suspended for four weeks in 2004 for headbutting Robbie Fleck during the Super 14.
Benjamin said | August 26th 2008 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Andrew, I do recognise that but I would disagree with England not having intimidating members across the pack during the aforementioned periods. I think SA’s rage against England can be limited to that one game at Twickenham for the reason that SA knew they could not intimidate or dominate that English pack, allied to their sense of ‘injustices’.
In 2001 Japie Mulder broke Barry’s cheekbone with a high tackle. Spot the irony there.
Heavy Things said | August 26th 2008 @ 9:35am | Report comment
I agree toatlly with you Andrew but this style of rugby is not only limited to the international arena. It is still common practise for the lower grade club rugby man to throw the odd loose punch and in their senior years they can probably be excused for the odd late tackle due to the fact that they are a few yards slower than they once were.
hayden said | August 26th 2008 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Benjamin - are you seriously saying that Stephen Jones, John Reason, Mick Cleary etc are examples of ‘ gracious, interested ‘ press? SJ in particular has the market cornered on vitriol.
Benjamin said | August 26th 2008 @ 10:09am | Report comment
And Mr. Zavos matches Mr. Jones word for word.
No Hayden, I am not saying that which is why I avoided specific names. It is easy to drag up controversy-seekers from any countries. The point I was making was that the headlines, TV programmes and fans in the SH have always been outrageously OTT in their anti-Englishness whereas magazines like Rugby World lap up any visitors to the UK and opposition players are given an easy ride. There is certainly nothing in the British press to match the ‘Orcs on Steroids’ tripe or ‘Dad’s Army’ nonsense or even the Jonny Wilkinson voodoo doll cut outs published in a certain Australian publication. People like Stephen Jones have their own columns but newspaper responses are polite and dignified and there are never silly headlines like ‘Is That All You’ve Got?!’ etc or the frontpage thug accusations of the Lions in 1989.
stillmissit said | August 26th 2008 @ 10:14am | Report comment
SA playing violently is a great disappointment to me. I played 1st grade there for 2 seasons during the aparthied days and although they played hard they played fair and the quality of the guys I played with was amongst the best people I met during my rugby days. NZ, where I played for a year was very violent in fact the games were planned violence with lists of opposition injuries you should step on etc.
It seems to me that SA has slipped in the quality of the people playing the game. Bakkies Botha was the dirtiest test player I had seen until he cleaned his act up under White and his game improved markedly.
SA needs to set some example for the players to follow and I would start by banning V D Linde for a year. If you have no standards to your play, any homicidal maniac with muscle will make it to the top. Hard men are rarely brutish in my experience and NZ now has hard men and SA a couple of brutes.
I would like to see SA change.
True Tah said | August 26th 2008 @ 10:21am | Report comment
Benjamin,
the publication you are referring to is the Daily Telegraph, re: the Wilkinson voodoo dolls.
it is sensationalist crap which appeals to the lowest common denominator, they are a really strong league newspaper and also starting to focus on futbol, and dont mind sinking the boot into rugby and AFL in particular.
Jerry said | August 26th 2008 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Re the ‘Orcs on Steroids’ comment.
I’m not really sure why this is considered to be particularly insulting - it wasn’t an actual accusation of steroid abuse, all the article was saying was that the English pack was very big, hard and a bit ugly. The only bit that could really be insulting is the ugly bit, but if that’s insulting then every tight forward in the game has been insulted in the press since the dawn of time. It’s pretty tame compared to the other stuff you listed from Aus papers or some of the vitriol from the NH - the gleeful schadenfreude from Stephen Jones and Alastair Campbell in the Times following the All Blacks loss in the 1/4 for instance, or Jones childish insistence that Jerry Collins is a one dimensional player.
I’m not saying some NZ papers haven’t baited NH rugby (Chris Rattue of the Herald seems to want to carve a reputation as the Stephen Jones of NZ) but that particular phrase seemed fairly innocuous to me.
The Pot said | August 26th 2008 @ 10:35am | Report comment
Logan’s Law of Rugby Writing.
1. A nice little throw to pop culture to open. Surprised Mick Douglas and Val did not get a mention.
2. Make rugby point succinctly citing various historical incidents from past years that nobody remembers. Not random, merely selective.
3. Throw challenge out to proud people(s) and suggest they need to spend some time in front of a mirror
4. Blow wind up Elsom
5. Inspire debate from the Roaries.
Nicely done again Loges.
I cant shake the feeling that the Boks are trying to do what we are. Throw it around, open it up a bit.
However, we are doing this with a coach that is assisting the players to do it incrementally, carefully. Considered even.
We are also coming from a place of nothing to lose.
The Boks are coming from a place of everything to lose, in an environment that cannot accept losing.
When it is their number 1 and they have 4 time the amount of players we do…
The pressure they are under to perform is more significant. When confrontational men (who can forget the Boks vs Blacks couple weeks ago - ouch!), start getting put under the hammer, backed into a corner and have the screws tightened on them, why are poeple surprised when they revert to what they know and why they were picked.
To be confrontational.
Last year, for the first time during the ARC, you heard in common commentary language, the term, “Collision Zone”.
No kidding.
Deans has discussed the first need in Test Rugby plenty since taking over.
Confronting the collision zone and fronting up to the physical contest.
So far, we have been able to do that on a more consistent basis than any time over the last 5 years.
The players who are standing up are those that can cope with the physical, but have the skills to bring something a little more. Elsom. Smith. Mortlock. Giteau. Barnes. Hynes.
Rugby is breathing heavy again.
With that comes pressure.
With pressure comes the opportunity for real men to stand up.
Fascinating stuff.
Bring on Saturday night.
Peter K said | August 26th 2008 @ 10:38am | Report comment
Benjamin - When the Wallabies lost the QF 12-11 to England the media was in a fenzy sticking it into the Wallabies, and very much OTT, smashing them etc. They overlooked it was by 1 point and could of lost it on the kick. Certainly not gracious press, in fact the epitomy of being a bad winner which I find the English press often is.
The Boks have reverted to kind with constant illegal physical play. What is a joke is the ref doesn’t even try and control them, and then the citing commisioners do not go through the game and cite some very clear examples.
As the video shows the Boks can be very thuggish against the AB’s. I think the media and fans make far less of it than other countries so it does not stay part of the inherited memories as it were. They see the Boks as hard, great rivals and do not want to tarnish that memory with the thuggish aspect or even think thats just rugby no big deal.
My theory is that if you went through every game of the Boks against the tier 1 nations you would probably not get a meaningful statistical deviation of thuggish acts by country. Botha is like that against everyone. James is like that against everyone.
They eye gouged and elbowed the AB’s in that clip but we remember the Cannon eye gouge etc.
Benjamin said | August 26th 2008 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Tah, the point remains that it is very much a SH trait. The recent glut of rugby autobiographies from Leonard, Back, Hill, Dallaglio, Johnson etc all make the point that they were shocked by the press in the SH, that it all seemed largely personal and rather OTT.
Jerry, I’m not implying that the ‘Orc’ story was that insulting but it is a famous incident that is part of a general trend in SH reporting. Jones’s comments have been largely restricted to his online blog and at the Times it seems that he is being slowly phased out in favour of Stuart Barnes. For what it’s worth I’m not the biggest fan of Jones. Sometimes I agree, but mostly he is seeking attention for the sake of it, unless he really means what he says which just illustrates how out of touch he is. However you could argue he is the mirror image of Spiro, ‘The British Don’t Understand Rugby etc’… but I still read his articles. Regarding the NZ loss, I think that was glee motivated by an upset, as opposed to NZ failing.
Whenever the successful England team of the early 00s travelled to the SH the press was unrelenting, and it has always been that way, from the English tour to Australia in the 70s to contemporary rugby.
Benjamin said | August 26th 2008 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Peter, the British presss is not OTT simply because rugby is such a minority sport compared to football. I can tell you that English rugby only ever makes the front page of the Times supplement. Football dominates evrything. Even the front pages occasionally.
I have all the world cup clippings so I’ll check out the Australian game reportings tomorrow. I very much doubt it would be a patch on the SH press though.
Furthermore, I’d be intrigued to see how the English press are bad winners, when was the last time England won anything?
Jerry said | August 26th 2008 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Regarding the NZ loss, I think that was glee motivated by an upset, as opposed to NZ failing>>>
I’ll have to disagree on that - if they were happy about an upset victory they’d have talked about how the tournament had come to life and was wide open. They didn’t, it was all “NZ arrogance has come home to roost, McCaw’s a cheat, poachers, good riddance, chokers etc”. It was petty, mean spirited stuff (and quite why Alastair Campbell is considered qualified to write on rugby cause of one Lions tour as support staff is beyond me).
I agree that the SH press can be just as petty though.
mudskipper said | August 26th 2008 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Springboks always play the man…I can’t remember them not, Jake White slowed it a little in the RWC year but that’s all. The Springboks think it’s apart of the game…Schalk Burger putting the squirrel grip on George Smith is deplorable…and should have been put on report just to publicly humiliate the guy even if it couldn’t be proven. Bakkies Botha thuggery is unsportsmanlike. The CJ van der Linde head but on Cordingley should have been immediate red card. I would be ashamed if any Wallaby played like that and would rather they not be chosen to represent my country…
Adding further to the conversation, the Springbok fans booing of their Captain and Coach after the match was just disgraceful. What was even worse was later at the press conference both De Villiers and Matfield said the booing was acceptable due to the loss. They didn’t have the courage in staying it was disrespectful to the Springboks jersey…Have they no pride in themselves and their team colours?
“We are want we do most often…”, my favourite Robbie Deans quote. Perhaps the honourable men in South Africa need to stand up and say something…
Arky said | August 26th 2008 @ 10:54am | Report comment
Players need a game plan to to play to - and they need to believe in the plan. If they don’t believe in the plan then they have little else to rely on except their own interpretation of what is in front of them. A player without the focus of a plan will most often be distracted and go looking for something else - or in this instance trouble. Under their current coach, and without many of the senior players from recent years the Boks are rudderless and going nowhere and unfortunately for them the negativity associated with foul play will only take them further down. And I suspect when we see players like Schalk resorting to negative tactics the downward spiral will continue for some time…. When we see positive play and positive leadership come to the fore it will mark the bottom and the beginning of the way up again.
Benjamin said | August 26th 2008 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Jerry, Campbell is not a rugby journalist. He writes on varies things for his paper on a weekly basis. He is not assigned to one sport although football is his preference. To that extent he is best ignored. Other than that, I still have the cuttings so I’ll have a look tomorrow.
I think it’s an understatement to say that the SH press can be just as petty. There are only two papers in England that take rugby seriously. I’d love somebody to be able to get Matt Burke’s opinion on this.
Skipper, if the fans don’t boo how else do they make their feelings known across such a large scale? They aren’t booing the jersey, they’re booing the incompetents who are degrading it. What is the difference in that and booing or protesting a political decision?
OldManEmu said | August 26th 2008 @ 11:57am | Report comment
Great article Loges. Your central theme, teams resort to the biff when they are not up to the contest is well made. The best teams in contact sports are those that speak softly and carry a big stick. To mangle the metaphor further, tough guys dont warn you, they just give the ambulance driver directions.
My impression of the Boks is that they like to talk up their toughness and physicality, but really they aint so tough - not in the true sense. Compare them to the ABs who rarely carry on with such rot, but if a stink is on, they are all in. Remember Cannon’s thunderbolt to the snout of Mealamu - little Kev had every right to wake up in the dressing sheds, but not only did he keep his feet, he punched on together with five of his team mates. Pretty sure Canno would have that time over again if he could. The Wallabies had bellowed before the game that they were going to stand up the ABs. Well they lost the fight and the match. You dont see many teams take the ABs on with dirt, and it is rare that the ABs resort to filth either.
I am not so sure the Boks are lacking confidence as suggested by Loges. Brains yes, but not confidence. I think what they lack at the moment is leadership. The absence of Smit as skipper and White as coach has left a big hole. It is all very well to talk up how much you hate the opposition and how you are gonna murder them (for starters) but the real crunch comes when you need someone to take the ball up into the teeth of the defence - that was Smit’s specialty - a great player and leader.
This all said I am not certain that The Boks are gone..it was only a few weeks back that they won in NZ. They won the World Cup less than 10 months ago. The nucleus of the great side is there. I expect the Boks to go to ground this week, to batten down the hatches, and launch another brutal assault come Saturday. I cant see them playing so badly again. They are proud proud people, and great for world Rugby I reckon.
Boks by 12 I say with regret.
Peter K said | August 26th 2008 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
If we lose Vickerman and Elsom I doubt we can match the intensity needed at the breakdown. Horwill can, McMeniman can , need 1 more and it isnt Mumm or Sharpe.
If we do then we will win again, and the Boks will be even more thuggish especially with Botha back, I wonder who he will try and maim this time.
ohtani's jacket said | August 26th 2008 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
South Africa’s attitude towards England and the Wallabies was just a theory, one that Jerry expanded upon.
It could be BS, but considering that South Africa have beaten England five times in a row what happened earlier this decade isn’t relevant anymore.
LeftArmSpinner said | August 26th 2008 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
The Pot, (the mind boggles) You wil find running rugby difficult if you ignore the fundamental components of such a strategy. You need a clever, ball playing 10 (and probably a ball playing 12 too), you need a 7 who plays on the ball, (Waugh, McCaw, Smith) and a ballplaying 15 is also helpful. Skill levels, particularly passing and catching, are different.
SA should be congratulated for making the change. However, they, not just PDV, have failed to assemble the necessary components, maybe with the exception of the catching and passing that they showed several times last Saturday. Fitness levels also need to be improved. The Boks are playing James and Matfield after full seasons in Europe. Their tanks are empty and they are occupying important positions!!!
Ball playing players have the individual skill to make something happen and the judgement to choose when to run, kick and pass. The decision making is so much more important!!! Get the decision wrong and it will cost dearly.
Finally, every player needs to be patient and confident in eachother and the strategy.
LeftArmSpinner said | August 26th 2008 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Old Man Emu, brilliant, priceless, comment. “Tough guys dont warn you, they just give the ambulance driver directions.”
My best contribution is such one liners is on the topic of whether one should plya in the backs or the forwards
“Why push the piano when you can play it!”
Peter K said | August 26th 2008 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
LAS - What do you call the guys who hang out with the rugby players? Backs!
mudskipper said | August 26th 2008 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
Yes, Backs are one set away from supporters…
JohnB said | August 26th 2008 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
Seems to me the right to bag the backs and their masculinity took a hell of a hit when the Tuigimalas and Lomus of this world started becoming a lot more common (said as someone who mostly played in the forwards, and wouldn’t be too keen on marking a Mahe Nonu, to take but one example)! Still a tough grind in the forwards, but more and often bigger collisions in the backs.
Harry said | August 26th 2008 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
Peter K I watched Mumm closely during the S14 and his baby-face and nice name are deceptive, he doesn’t shirk the tough stuff and is as hard in the contact as Vickerman, Rocky, Horwill. Plus he’s a good ball carrier with deceptive speed, so al-in-all I have confidence he can do the job.
Peter K said | August 26th 2008 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
Harry - IMO Mumm has not carried his S14 form into intl’s. I agree that at S14 level he did really well.
In his few chances at intl he has not, I compare him to Horwill who is comparable in experience and Horwill is way ahead in terms of impact, intensity, physicality etc.
I just hope Elsom is not suspended, which would be a joke, and McMeniman can take Vicermans spot. Mumm on bench.
Big Kev said | August 26th 2008 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
Peter K, I hope Rocky is not suspended but expect he will be. It’s pretty dangerous pulling down a lineout jumper in the air and Matfield was actually hurt. Being fair he should get 1 week and CJ 8!
Peter K said | August 26th 2008 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
What Rocky did happens in every match and normally only deserves a penalty or yellow card. When was the last time you saw someone red carded for pulling someones arm in a lineout, he didn’t take his legs out or anything. Being fair he shouldn’t be suspended since it is not a red card offence.
Matfield may have been injured elsewhere, he didn’t go off right then that I recall.
mudskipper said | August 26th 2008 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
Rocky Elsom’s arm went up and over Victor Matfield’s while competing for the ball. Matfield initially caught the ball then lost it, when the players went down Rocky’s arm was tangled with Matfield’s. Elsom wasn’t holding or pulling Matfield down at the time. It was more a technical foul which the Wallabies were penalised for anyway than deliberate foul play on the man. However Victor fell very awkwardly…it didn’t look good…Rocky might get off. It was nothing like CJ van der Linde barefaced head but on Cordingley…
I’d like to see Schalk Burger’s squirrel grip on Smith go to the Rugby tribunal and to get a week on the bench and the back page of the SA newspaper…
Monty String said | August 26th 2008 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
ANDREW -
If we start applying the Ghost and the Darkness to rugby, I think of Bernie Larkham as the ghost - the way he’d vanish through defenses - and the darkness would have to be the medieval pall Oz rugby was under during the Jones reign.
Sheek is one of the few posters who responds to your movie references – in fact, he has a post talking about his preference for watching Stalag 17 rather than the Boks/Wallabies game. Personally, I combined the two. I thought William Holden’s midfield kicking was outstanding, but Otto Preminger definitely deserved a yellow card for his sledging of Irving Berlin.
As for the Ghost and the Darkness – Bill Goldman wrote the script, and he famously said that nobody in Hollywood knows anything. The same could be said for whoever thought that the ELVs were all rugby needed to bring it up to speed.
mudskipper said | August 26th 2008 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
Actually a more apt punishment for “Squirrel Burger” would be picking up trash in the Johannesburg Stadium car park this weekend…
Big Kev said | August 26th 2008 @ 3:45pm | Report comment
see the Elsom incident - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hCiW11pW-f8
he clearly pulled Matfield down while he was in the air.
LeftArmSpinner said | August 26th 2008 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
big kev, or should I say little Kev. What is the world coming to???? He pulled him down a bit, was penalised. Lets move on!!!!
Particularly when Steyn wasn’t cited for his late and dangerous tackle on Mitchell or Burger’s constant off the ball illegal play.
Let’s not sanitize the game completely and lets keep it consistent!!!!!!
Big Kev said | August 26th 2008 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
LAS - yup I guess the penalty was sufficient…. am happy with that
ohtani's jacket said | August 26th 2008 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
Seen worse, but I can’t imagine Elsom will get off.
Peter K said | August 26th 2008 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
Matfield has a groin strain, unlikely that Elsom caused it, maybe Burger did practising his new tackle tackling technique!
stuff happens said | August 26th 2008 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
I’ve just read through all this and quite frankly don’t know what all the fuss is about. Sat’s match wasn’t particularly violent - a couple of incidents , but then most matches have them.I also don’t believe the ‘Boks are any more ‘violent’ than say the AB’s , perhaps less subtle.
Anyway forget it - great victory Australia, but perhaps worth remembering that the ‘Boks looked as tactically lost ( again) as Aust did against the AB’s in Akl.
If we are to believe what DIV says the ‘Boks have some major problems. They are in the process of taking the side that won the RWC in France and which many of us on ‘the roar’ thought had the best squad for the TN and turning them into lost goats, if not sheep. Quite an achievement.
Interesting TNations.
mudskipper said | August 26th 2008 @ 4:58pm | Report comment
So is Victor Matfield out with a groin strain for the Jo-burg test?
Worlds Biggest said | August 26th 2008 @ 5:23pm | Report comment
Clearly Van Derlinde should be suspended for his head butt on Cordingly, I assume he is facing the judiciary like Elsom ?. Bakkies Botha did the same thing to Mortlock in the Perth match but didn’t get cited. Mind you the Tri Nations judiciary is about as credible / effective as the NRL one. As Loges mentioned everyone else does the mongrel stuff but not blatantly in front of the ref or for everyone to see. Martin Johnson was the master at getting away with it but not so his fellow 2-rower Grewcock. I would love to see the Wallabies get a win at Red Neck Central - Ellis Park.
Harry said | August 26th 2008 @ 5:42pm | Report comment
Agree with that selection PeterK, although Elsom is likely to be suspended. brown into the 22 I guess then - probably another player who deserves a chance at test level after excellent Super 14 form
Andrew Logan said | August 26th 2008 @ 6:21pm | Report comment
Monty String - I hesitate to continue the movie theme for fear of encouraging my old mate Pot’s theory that I write to a set of “Logan Laws” however…if I was casting The Ghost and The Darkness, Robbie Deans would be Patterson, with Jim Williams as Samuel his offsider. Remington has to be Rocky Elsom, and the bare handed lion killer Mahina is played by George Smith. The cowardly Abdullah? Perhaps Pieter de Villiers could fill this role….after all they both spend a lot of time babbling. Peter Hines could fill in admirably for the slender, godly and loyal Angus Starling.
The lions are most aptly portrayed by Schalk Burger and CJ van der Linde, since they are both thinning heavily in the thatch and neither of the two lions of Tsavo, despite both being male, had a mane.
Of course, I sympathise with the lions on the mane front.
Benjamin said | August 26th 2008 @ 9:19pm | Report comment
OJ, it is COMPLETELY relevant because SA’s temper tantrum match occurred at Twickenham in the midst of that winning streak.
Spinner, Spiro made that error of suggesting SA were carrying battle weary troops. Matfield had a relatively easy season, as did Montgomery who had injury issues and didn’t play many games for Perpignan. Therefore the only player who had such a long season was James. And the significant point about James is that the club he plays for plays a very loose, free style of rugby, a game in which he excelled.
I’m also intrigued as to why you think PDV should be applauded for taking SA down the only avenue in which they will not be able to win, when their old style would flourish under the ELVs.
Sluggy said | August 26th 2008 @ 9:40pm | Report comment
Good article Loges.
Peter K has put a list of Bok “indiscretions” on another thread and there were plenty.
I agree that the Bokke were frustrated, probably more by their own errors than the Wallabies, some of them lost their discipline, the toys went out of the cot, and multiple instances of thuggish foul play resulted. This is, as you say, illustrative of the pattern of behaviour.
Burger throwing punches at the previous ruck while Robinson burrowed over is a good example of how going the thug route backfires because you stop playing rugby for a crucial moment or two. Rod McQueen or a like coach would have hooked, and then dropped SB, at least to the bench if not right out of the 22 for that error- he went missing at a crucial moment.
At least with Rocky Elsom sitting this one out he’ll be fit for Brisbane, and you’d expect to see Waugh on pretty early for Smith to make sure he is. On a similar note, Tahu has had harder blokes than the Boks trying to smash him for years in the NRL so expect him to start… then again so has Cross.
One last thing - wasn’t it great to see Lote get the pill without three defenders on top of him for a change?
tribalthunder said | August 26th 2008 @ 10:34pm | Report comment
why is De Viliers wanting to change the Boks’ style of play when they were the world champs a few months ago? i dont think anything needed to be changed, however the honey moon period is over and he is a marked man. Wallabies to win at altitude and restore some serious street cred again by beating the AB’s in Brisbane.
ohtani's jacket said | August 26th 2008 @ 11:22pm | Report comment
“OJ, it is COMPLETELY relevant because SA’s temper tantrum match occurred at Twickenham in the midst of that winning streak.”
England could beat them for a decade straight and South Africa would never admit the English are a better rugby playing nation. The Boks believe they’re second to no-one in the history of the game.
Dublin Dave said | August 27th 2008 @ 12:49am | Report comment
Jerry
You suggested that there is little or no violence in Ireland v SA matches because Ireland have only beaten SA once in recent years and that largely due to a contentious try allowed by ref Honiss.
Actually, Ireland have won the last two tests between the countries, both played in Dublin and the second of those being a record margin of victory.
As for tame internationals. Did you see, or hear about, the second 1998 test match between the two in Pretoria? It ended 33-0 to South Africa and by all accounts it was a bad tempered brawl from start to finish. Even the Irish papers said this was largely the Irish team’s doing because they were very concerned to keep the score down. Which they did, kinda. Around about this time South Africa had put 90+ points on Wales and they weren’t going to do that to us. Not while they still had their teeth anyway.
Seems that it’s not only green jerseys that SA and Ireland have in common, eh?
For what it’s worth, I heard former Irish lock Neil Francis talk on TV a while back about tough international opponents and he made it clear that South Africa were physically the hardest team to play against. “You always come off the pitch with your arse in a sling after playing the Springboks” was his pithy way of putting it.
Benjamin said | August 27th 2008 @ 1:48am | Report comment
Oh well, when you put it like that OJ…
Anyhow, TRIVIA TIME - I saw a question the other day that was quite beguiling, and it had me foxed for quite a period… everybody, Logan…
Who are the two players to have won both a Super rugby title and also a Heneken Cup?
Sluggy said | August 27th 2008 @ 2:03am | Report comment
Justin Marshall?