By Spiro Zavos
April 23rd 2009 @ 2:50am
The Springboks should maul the Lions
Auckland, July 9, 2005. Lions squad during the minutes silence before the British and Irish Lions v All Blacks third test at Eden Park, Auckland, New Zealand. AAP Image/Geoff Dale
The bookmakers, wealthy gentlemen who literally put their money where their mouth is, have given big odds against the British and Irish Lions averting a 3 – 0 Bokswash in the coming Test series.
It’s hard to go against the bookmakers and predict anything other than the Springboks giving the Lions a severe mauling.
But if there is any coach in the United Kingdom who can bust the odds against the Lions, it is Ian McGeechan.
McGeechan has a superb record for the Lions as a player and a coach.
He was a shrewd, smooth-running centre for the 1974 Lions when they won the series against a Springboks side that was inhibited, morally and intellectually, in a rugby sense, by the enormity of the apartheid system.
He was coach in 1989 when the Lions defeated the Wallabies, and in 1997 when an inept Springboks side, coached by an even more inept Carel du Plessis (one of the greatest Springboks as a player), was defeated.
The Lions’ victory in 1989 gives a strong clue as to the type of game McGeechan favours, and the players who he has selected for the 2009 trek through South Africa.
The Lions defeated the Wallabies at Sydney to keep the rubber open with dubiously thuggish tactics.
My colleague on The Sydney Morning Herald, Evan Whitton, described the nature of this victory in the memorable line that infuriated the British media contingent: “The scum also rises.”
There is more than a hint that these tactics will be revived in 2009 with the selection of the hard man Paul O’Connell as the captain of the side. O’Connell is a confrontational player who is not averse to belting the opposition or stomping them when his blood is up (which is most of the time).
It was his wild-eyed dive into a maul under the All Blacks posts that stopped the rampant Lions from gaining an unassailable lead in the opening minutes of the second Test at Wellington on the 2005 tour.
He is rather like the enforcer Martin Johnson, who McGeechan selected as captain in 1989, even though he’d never captained a side.
McGeechan said he wanted someone imposing to stand beside the Springboks captain when the coin was being tossed.
To my mind, this is McGeechan-talk (he can make tough things sound like apple pie wisdom with his lovely Scots accent) for warning the Springboks that the Test series will be attritional rugby rather than the flamboyant rugby played by the Lions up to the McGeechan era.
English critics like Stuart Barnes have bemoaned the fact that there is not a great deal of flair among the 37-strong squad. However, this misses the point.
The McGeechan way, going back to his successful stint as coach of Scotland, is a boots and all approach to winning. So this is likely to be a fiery series.
My reasons for going with the bookmakers and believing that that the Lions will struggle to win the Test series is based three factors.
First, South African rugby is at one of its high points. Most of the Rugby World Cup winning players are still around. And they have set themselves, according to Victor Matfield, for this Lions series.
Aside from a flaky coach, Peter de Villiers, and a lack of depth in the first five-eighths position, there are great players, especially in the loose forwards, that will enable a terrific side to be put on the field.
Second, the itinerary has been constructed in a way that difficult for the Lions to cope with. The Lions are shunted from altitude to sea level for first six matches of the tour, the first Test at Durban and a Wednesday match. Then the tour ends with two Tests at altitude at Pretoria and Johannesburg, just in case the Lions win at Durban.
Third, the Lions have a history of being notoriously factionalised.
It was the English players who rebelled against Graham Henry in Australia in 2001. Some of the Welsh players sulked under Sir Clive Woodward in 2005, something that has happened on most Lions tours.
McGeechan has tried to rein in the Welsh factionalism by having Warren Gatland as an assistant coach. But the non-selection of Ryan Jones, the captain of Wales, will not be taken well by the Welsh contingent.
One of the reasons why no fewer than ten Irish players, including O’Connell, have captained the Lions is that the Irish are generally regarded as being able to get on with the Welsh and the English, who generally can’t get on with each other, even when they are playing for the Lions.
But all this theorising.
There is history to be made one way or another by McGeechan and his squad. The first game starts at Rustenburg, in the heart of Afrikaner country, against a Royal XV on May 30.
Let the Lions roar!
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
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...
(117)
jools-usa said | April 23rd 2009 @ 3:41am | Report comment
Spiro,
O’Connell is a wimp compared with Buccas (?) Botha.
Should be a great tussle.
Jools-USA
Knives Out said | April 23rd 2009 @ 4:21am | Report comment
“The Lions’ victory in 1989 gives a strong clue as to the type of game McGeechan favours, and the players who he has selected for the 2009 trek through South Africa.”
I very much doubt it. If the ball was slow the 1989 forwards mauled it, and if it was fast they rucked it, hence a compromise was reached between the Scottish and English forwards. Given that rucking is now illegal and given that the maul is essentially redundant, it would take a serious leap of logic to argue that any ‘type of game’ played in the 1980s would have any modicum of relevance to the coming tour. Perhaps this statement has an inherent cynicism to it and implies that the Lions will attempt to ‘biff’ the Springboks, in which case a blood bath could be expected when one recalls the rather criminal behaviour of the South Africans in the most recent 3N.
I do wonder why there is absolutely no reaction nor analysis to the actual Lions squad. A cycnic might suggest that Mr. Zavos isn’t actually familiar with the players, beyond throwaway lines like the reference to Paul O’Connell, a man “who is not averse to belting the opposition or stomping them when his blood is up”, that is. If anybody misses the point it isn’t Stuart Barnes, it is Mr. Zavos. The very valid point made by Barnes is that the Lions will not win a series with a basic game plan. Certainly, that fact will not be lost on McGeechan who was never a ‘boots and all’ coach, which is a lamentably sad, inaccurate comment. McGeechan has always been a liberal coach, so to speak, and this has been reflected in his successful teams: 1990 Scotland, 1997 Lions, 1998 Northampton Saints,1999 Scotland, London Wasps 2006.
I save the best until last. The Irish have been chosen because they enjoy the ‘craic’, because everybody likes the Irish? Stunning.
“One of the reasons why no fewer than ten Irish players, including O’Connell, have captained the Lions is that the Irish are generally regarded as being able to get on with the Welsh and the English, who generally can’t get on with each other, even when they are playing for the Lions.”
pothale said | April 23rd 2009 @ 4:47am | Report comment
What are you on about in the last para about the Irish, KO? It doesn’t make sense. To me anyway.
Knives Out said | April 23rd 2009 @ 4:56am | Report comment
That is a direct quotation from the above article. Apparently the Irish are employed as captains because they are happy, jolly fellows. No stereotyping there then.
pothale said | April 23rd 2009 @ 5:32am | Report comment
Well it’s only a theory stereotype – according to Spiro.
But Spiro also thinks he’s been selected cos he’s a hard man and a thug who likes to get into fights. Betcha he drinks like a mad Paddy as well. And curses too, begorrah.
I’m curious how, according to Spiro, he also “stopped the rampant Lions from gaining an unassailable lead in the opening minutes of the second Test at Wellington on the 2005 tour.” How do you get an unassailable lead in the opening minutes of a match, exactly? Hopefully the Lions will adopt that tactic on the tour.
I’ve also seen him described as a ‘gentle giant’ who got preferred over the fiery O’Driscoll. [Snigger.]
However, according to Jools, he’s a wimp. Well compared to Buccas Botha anyway. Maybe he’s related to Bakkies Botha.
And according to the NZ Herald, O’Connell deposed the failed Lions captain, Brian O’Driscoll, who managed to get himself injured in the first five minutes of the tour and whinged about it for two years afterwards.
Having checked the record, there have been 10 Irish captaincies, 10 English, 9 Scottish and 4 Welsh in the Lions history. The Welsh must only have been warring with the English in certain years then.
Love it. No doubt there’ll be plenty more in the coming weeks.
The great thing is that everyone says they’re going to lose 3-0. Spiro and Stephen Jones have obviously been conferring since they share the same view. Nothing better when a Lions team is being told it doesn’t have a chance.
By the way, Spiro, is the Royal XV that the Lions are playing on May 30 the same as the Highveld XV that they’re playing at Royal Bafekong Stadium in Rustenberg on May 30? Or maybe that’s a local nickname?
Just theorising…….
Knives Out said | April 23rd 2009 @ 5:47am | Report comment
The more I read the more confused I become. Apparently the Irish captains (Ciaran Fitzgerald aside, I would imagine?!) get on with everybody BUT apparently player division isn’t a problem. The problem is that certain national players have not got on with certain national coaches, not with certain players. So who cares whom the captain is if the coaches are generally the problem? The much maligned 05 tour had an Irish captain and also a Welsh coach, after all. Surely that would have made a difference? Oh well, I have learnt something new today: the Irish are great guys and the Welsh sulk.
Knives Out said | April 23rd 2009 @ 5:48am | Report comment
Hang on, Pothale. I nearly missed this beauty:
“To my mind, this is McGeechan-talk (he can make tough things sound like apple pie wisdom with his lovely Scots accent)”
That must be some wisdom given that McGeechan actually has a Yorkshire accent. Oh my goodnes.. Nothing like a geography lesson to start the day.
pothale said | April 23rd 2009 @ 6:03am | Report comment
Ciaran – where’s your f*cking pride – Fitzgerald is a great bloke in my view. Nothing like a army captain to keep the rank and file in order. Those English and Welsh squaddies are always bickering.
Nick_KIA said | April 23rd 2009 @ 6:21am | Report comment
Why do you guys bother to read Spiro – you obviously don’t like his stuff.
Just theorising…
pothale said | April 23rd 2009 @ 6:36am | Report comment
Good theory, Nick.
You might have something there. Except. Spiro writes some wonderful stuff and I’ve said so publicly on this forum.
Knives Out said | April 23rd 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment
There’s nothing like a stunning inaccuracy or ten to get the fingers typing, Nick. Anyhow, I do tend to ignore the work of Mr. Zavos but the Lions pulls the strings of every British rugby fan’s heart. Rugby deserves better than wild, broad stabs in the dark.
Pothale, obviously you have a different theory to me..
pothale said | April 23rd 2009 @ 7:41am | Report comment
Yep I do. But then my heart strings aren’t being pulled. Must be a British thing – you old romantic melancholic you.
Nick (KIA) said | April 23rd 2009 @ 7:59am | Report comment
I haven’t done it, KO, but I suspect if I counted up all the posts to all of Spiro’s articles on Roar by different correspondents, you would score in the top few percent – your definition of ‘ignore’ is different to mine!
Having said that I enjoy your posts generally – informative and well written, keep it up!
Knives Out said | April 23rd 2009 @ 8:16am | Report comment
Thank you, Nick. How very kind, but I have to disagree with you about my ability to ‘ignore’. I don’t recall having anything to say on recent posts of Mr. Zavos? Maybe on anything to do with the ELVs further back? You might be right, maybe I’m just chilling out in my head rather than in reality.
sheek said | April 23rd 2009 @ 10:36am | Report comment
The Lions employed aggressive tactics in 1974 & 1989, because there was a perception the opposition at the time – Boks in 74 & Wallabies in 89 – had players who weren’t keen on the “rough stuff”. Indeed, the 89 loss to the Lions did coach Dwyer a favour.
He dropped some of his long-serving ‘peace-loving’ players for others who had an ‘edge’. In any case, it gave him the opportunity to introduce ‘fresh blood’.
The Lions of 2005 failed miserably, because everyone went batty with SCW’s theory of “mass troops”. Never before has the equivalent of a sporting army descended on a country. I truly hope it is never repeated. It was a farce. Don’t blame O’Driscoll. Chief dunce in the whole pathetic episode was SCW himself.
I don’t know why the Lions have never been more successful. Unfortunately, too often, the total sum has been lesser than the individual parts. Perhaps, getting English, Welsh, Scots & Irish to gel is more difficult than we realise. The Lions SHOULD have beaten the Wallabies in 2001, for instance.
Anyway, whatever the faults of the Lions, it is a great concept, with a grand history & tradition. I trust it will continue for many more centuries?
In the interim, it would help if the Lions could take at least one test off the Boks!
stuff happens said | April 23rd 2009 @ 10:37am | Report comment
The real question is this. Will O’Connell belt a ‘Bok forward before or after he’s belted Gatland? Next question:Which would give him greater pleasure?
McGeechan seems a great bloke – everyone repects him and he says he’s picked the squad on form only, unlike Woodward’s appalling ‘05 embarassement . For instance, I’m sure he’d love to have Ryan Jones at his best in SA but the guy’s form has been heading south for months – so he’s not there.
I suspect the Lions will get the front five and outside backs right. But the back row will be a real challenge for them and the ‘Boks are so strong there.Their halfbacks will have to stand up and be counted too. Phillips has seemed to be in neutral since his injury.I’m sorry neither Hook nor Cipriani made it to give us a little excitement, but I can’t believe the Lions will survive the tour with only two fly halves.
And yes Pothale the first match is against a ‘HIgh Veld XV’ We can guess what that’s all about. ‘Welcome to South Africa’ – BANG – and keep the ambulances on standby!
Colin N said | April 23rd 2009 @ 10:51am | Report comment
“The real question is this. Will O’Connell belt a ‘Bok forward before or after he’s belted Gatland? Next question:Which would give him greater pleasure?”
That is indeed a great question. I don’t know if you saw the press conference upon the announcement of the Lions squad, but Gatland was asked a question regarding his relationship with O’Connell and he rather stuttered through the answer to the say the least. What was even better was O’Connell’s reaction or facial expressions during Gatland’s answer. He smiled, but it was hard to grasp whethe it was ruthful, or he just simply saw the funny side of it.
pothale said | April 23rd 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
Rumour has it that O’Connell’s response to Gatland to put his ego on hold, helped confirm O’Connell as captain in Geech’s mind. Doesn’t take shit from people and happy to dish it out in response.
Stuff happens – opening matches tend to have that BANG quality. I’d say it’s unlikely any of the Heineken Cup finalists will play that day, though, seeing as how they’ll only have played 7 days previously and travelled a fair bit. But Geech has said every player will have played at least two games before the first Test.
Am now trying to figure out which games I’ll go to. The first Test which might give Lions their best opportunity for a win. Or take a punt and say it’ll be 1-1 and go to the third. Decisions, decisions – it’s all too much to take.
Any bets on whether all the original 37 will still be fit to travel by end of May, or will back-ups have to be put in place? I’m betting on at least two getting crocked and have to pull out.
ohtani's jacket said | April 23rd 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
How do you gain an unassailable lead in a Test you lost 48-18?
Keith said | April 23rd 2009 @ 11:21am | Report comment
OJ, I was thinking that as well.
This is from the article, about O’Connell’s part in the 2005 Lions massacre.
“It was his wild-eyed dive into a maul under the All Blacks posts that stopped the rampant Lions from gaining an unassailable lead in the opening minutes of the second Test at Wellington on the 2005 tour.”
The unassailable lead would also have been claimed in the opening minutes.
I’m backing the Lions in this, but more because I want the Springboks to lose than anything else.
stuff happens said | April 23rd 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment
Pothale, I always think the touring side just has to win the 1st test in a 3 test series.If the Lions lose this they’ll need to SOS Suzie the waitress!
They play 6 matches in the three weeks leading up to the first test – by then we’ll know who is what as they say! I hope the Lions have at least two ‘enforcers’ in this group.
Good question about injuries before they leave home.Plus injuries on tour.Plenty of chances for those disappointed ; it’s much easier to ship people in and out of SA from UK than say NZ or Aust.
Puredaycent said | April 23rd 2009 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
“The Lions defeated the Wallabies at Sydney to keep the rubber open with dubiously thuggish tactics.”
Spiro you must have missed the second Australia v Lions Test, in Melbourne 2001!
Mart said | April 23rd 2009 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
More to the point – does Spiro get paid every time he recycles th phrase “scum still rises” as it seems to appear an awful lot ! Otherwise I agree, it’s hard to see the Lions getting anywhere here unless they gel very fast. Chilcott was on the speaking cicuit at the last Aussie tour and said that the Lions tour he did was best bonding of any side / squad he’d played with since management threw them into a (closed) pub at the start of the tour with open tab and told them to get to know each other. Oddly enough lots of “historical differences” disappeared rather rapidly after that….
Brendo said | April 23rd 2009 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
KO – i imagine the Irish as well as the British get behind the Lions team. Certainly was the case in Australia back in ‘01.
Isn’t it common knowledge that the Welsh dislike the English?
sam a said | April 23rd 2009 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
Wow – eleven of the the first fourteen posts are two poms whinging. How very surprising, and such a constructive and positive addition to a debate.
Moving on however, I’m very much looking forward to this tour. Looks like a pretty decent squad they’ve got together, hopefully the boys stay injury free until the tour kicks off and put up a good fight against the bokkies. Just one problem – I don’t know who I’d most prefer to see lose! Can’t wait till the next one here in 2013.
Knives Out said | April 23rd 2009 @ 6:54pm | Report comment
Brendo, the UK players encounter each other so much these days that there isn’t any real dislike. I can’t speak for individuals obviously, but the famous documentary following the 1997 Lions shows that there certainly isn’t a consistent historical problem. The Welsh nation probably hates the English nation but somehow I would expect more from professional rugby players.
Sam a, obviously you like your coverage bland, incorrect and antagonistic? Although, I’m not sure how highlighting an inaccuracy can be construed as a whinge? Are you an Australian by any chance?
Stuff happens, I think the SA front row is the weakest part of the team. Mtawarira got absolutely stuffed on the recent tour.
Diom said | April 23rd 2009 @ 7:12pm | Report comment
I have to defend O’Connell here from the accusations of thuggery. He is not a violent or dirty player. He makes fair, hard tackles, and yes he can loose his cool, but he puts all that energy into FAIR rugby. It seems like an ignorant and ill-informed statement that was made just because he is a big strong aggressive player.
Ruckingisfun said | April 23rd 2009 @ 7:45pm | Report comment
Knives – aren’t half the Scots, welsh and irish teams from England – but found a long lost grandparent somewhere
Knives Out said | April 23rd 2009 @ 7:52pm | Report comment
Ruckingisfun, apart from Nathan Hines, Simon Shaw and Riki Flutey I’m pretty sure the players are all domestic. What’s your point? That if they’re all English they shouldn’t argue?
pothale said | April 23rd 2009 @ 7:52pm | Report comment
Sam a – “eleven of the first fourteen posts are two poms whinging”
It’s called slagging in these parts. And I ain’t a pom either. If you’d bothered to read the posts you might have worked this out.
Anyway, leaving that aside – when you say it looks like a pretty decent squad they’ve put together – what do you like about it?
pothale said | April 23rd 2009 @ 7:58pm | Report comment
Ruckingisfun – I’m deadly curious – where on earth did you get that half-baked rumour about half the Scots, Welsh and Irish teams being from England? I’m laughing here.
Spiro Zavos said | April 23rd 2009 @ 8:16pm | Report comment
Puredaycent, the Sydney Test was in 1989.
The Lions were on fire at Wellington in 2005 until Paul O’Connell virtually cost the team another try with his wild dive into a maul, right under the All Blacks posts with the ball coming back to the Lions. The final score was a blow-out but those of us there knew that if the Lions had scored again after their opening scores, the All Blacks would not have come back.
For the record, I love watching the Lions play. They have created a brand that has excited world rugby for decades. Their tours are invariably memorable, one way or another.
Most importantly, the Lions supporters, of whom there will be 50,000 in South Africa, are the best supporters in the world. They were superb in Australia in 2001 and superb in New Zealand in 2005. They will be the same again in South Africa.
If only the team had the same class as its supporters.
Everyone is picking a Springboks series win. I gave my reasons why this should happen in my piece. But I also pointed out that Ian McGeechan has a tremendous record with the Lions. If anyone can defy the predictions he is the one coach in the Europe who can do it. He has picked a team that is tough and experienced. The choice of the captain suggests to me that he is going to meet the Springboks forward fire and power with as much fire and power as British and Irish rugby can muster.
This sets up an intriquing series.
Mart said | April 23rd 2009 @ 8:34pm | Report comment
Agree with you here Spiro….I went to all 3 of the Lions tests in Aus in 2001 and they were by far the best rugby occassions both on and off the pitch I’ve had the pleasure to attend. Great rugby, great fun before and after the game. Agree too about Geeks….if anyone can he can but I suspect this is a bridge too far. I can almost believe the Lions forwards might reach parity but the backs seem to lack the flair to win it (rather than defend an onslaught). Mind you, I said the same in 97 when some inspired “who are they ?” choices came up trumps (e.g Tait). What the Lions will badly need is a match-turning moment like Gibbs deliberately targeting Os Du Randt on the last Boks tour in one of the Tests, running straight at him and barrelling him onto his derierre. You could almost see the Test won (and lost) in that moment. Wonder who – if anyone – will step up to perform some bit of magic in this series ?I’ll be interested to see who starts any argy bargy this time around – this is indeed a tough and streetwise bunch of Lions but I seem to recall some very underhand or questionable blows against them in recent tours too (the kicking to Lions knees in pre Test games in 97 which resulted in at least one Test player being ruled out of the tour, the takeout off the ball of Richard Hill at a pivotal moment in the 2nd Test in 2001, the spear tackle on BOD in the first minutes in 2005…). And, yes, that schedule is a killer (unless you’re a UK travel agent…)
pothale said | April 23rd 2009 @ 8:35pm | Report comment
Spiro – thanks for the clarification. However, as I and others pointed out, you were the one who said “from gaining an unassailable lead in the opening minutes of the second Test at Wellington on the 2005 tour.” How could there have been “opening scores” prior to O’Connell’s “dive”, if it was only in the opening minutes of the Test?
I agree that he has picked a lot of grunt and firepower in the squad – however, like warriors of old picking the weapons at their disposal, one can choose to wield a broadsword in a number of ways, and also combine it with lighter, more deadly blades at the right time to go in for the kill. McGeechan has those weapons at his disposal. It remains to be seen what de Villiers chooses to bring to battle with him. Lets hope it’s not the Black Knight in heavy armour bestride a wooden horse.
Guy Smiley said | April 23rd 2009 @ 8:48pm | Report comment
I think the problem with the article is more to do with the title – the piece is actually a compliment of sorts but the headline is a bit of a sledge, so they don’t work together.
As for the tour, it will be almost impossible for the Lions to take it out. Last time they were in SA there was a total of 13 games, only 10 this time round. Last time they played 2/3 tests at sea level, this time only 1. And last time the Boks had no goal-kicker – they outscored the Lions in tries but couldn’t keep the scoreboard ticking over.
It’s a kind of rule of thumb that Lions only win 1 tour out of every 3 so they are due but it will be very hard. In Australia on 2001 Graham Henry was not a popular choice as manager and the squad never really gelled, even them they only came one Austin Healey quote short of a series victory. In 05 Woodward mucked it up royally but even with God himself running the show they couldn’t have beaten the peerless 2005 ABs. Dan Carter’s performance in the second test was glorious.
McGeechan’s brief is to pick hard, fast players with a sprinkling of mongrel (hence Quinlan over Croft) and the X factor of getting the divergent personalities to mix on and off the field, even when faced with the disappointment of non-selection.
Where it gets really interesting is when you look at the squad who are the players who will rise from relative obscurity to take the bull by the horns and become a true Lion. In 1997 Tom Smith, Paul Wallace, Jeremy Davidson, and John Bentley were no-names in SA but effectively won the series for the Lions by using their brains as well as their braun.
Cannot wait!
Knives Out said | April 23rd 2009 @ 8:54pm | Report comment
Mart, I’m becoming increasingly peturbed by the generic Australian references to South African forward ‘power’. The Springbok pack looked very weak during the Autumn/Spring tests. In all three tests the scrum was badly beaten and SA never gained much percentage. I’m convinced, therefore, that the biggest men from four nations will have an even greater effect. It is up to SA, therefore, to gain parity in the scrummage and not vice versa. Where SA should shine is in the lineout and at the breakdown. The SA back row, Smith especially, are masters at slowing the ball down. I suspect this is why McGeechan has picked ball carriers such as Rees, Hines, Wallace and Powell. With such a strong SA defence it will be vital to break the gain line time and time again. Personally, I think McGeechan has made a big mistake by ignoring lineout technicians like Rory Best, Nick Kennedy and Tom Croft. He has picked two kicking fly halfs and left the aforementioned players in Europe. No ball = no win.
Pothale, I’d just drop it. It’s equally confusing how anybody could imagine that the 89 tour has any relevance to this coming tour or how Paul O’Connell is prone to stamping and ‘belting’ people? Go with the flow.
Viscount Crouchback said | April 23rd 2009 @ 11:10pm | Report comment
What a peculiar article – over-critical and over-generous in equal measure.
The Lions certainly have done some thuggish things in the past, but they’ve also had some frightfully thuggish things done to them. Indeed, the history of Lions touring is one of their star players being “softened up” by local hard nuts in the warm-up matches. If the Lions have developed a hard edge themselves to deal with such tactics, then few would begrudge it.
(It’s a remarkable litany of incidents, by the way – from Doddie Weir having his knee caved in by a South African provincial player in 1997 to Nathan Grey deliberately taking out Richard Hill in 2001 to the O’Driscoll incident in 2005, and plenty more besides).
But Mr Zavos is over-generous when he neglects to state the most obvious reason why the Lions will lose: European rugby just isn’t that good. Peter Bills (the Independent columnist) is correct: the Lions will discover a quicker and more skilful game, and they won’t be able to live with it.
P.S. I’m not sure about any English-Welsh conflict. It’s a nice story, but most of the factionalism in the past few tours has occurred when midweek players (of every nationality) have become disgruntled at what they perceive as an inflexible selection policy. Players hate the thought of merely making up the numbers. The best way of judging whether a Lions team is going to do well in the Tests is to watch how they go in the midweek games leading up to those Tests. If there’s no visible esprit de corps, then sell, as the brokers would say.
jools-usa said | April 23rd 2009 @ 11:58pm | Report comment
Pothale:
Wasn’t knocking O’Connell as he’s a great lock, just don’t agree with Spiro saying he, (or any Lions forwards), are as
tough as the Boks – especially Botha, Matfield, Berger, Beast. etc.
But, apart from that, we know Lions have individual talent to burn, but do they have the cohesion or
inner-desire of the Boks?
Jools-USA
Knives Out said | April 24th 2009 @ 12:11am | Report comment
Again, here’s more of what I find bizarre… ‘as tough as the Boks’… I must have been watching a host of different games last year.
Viscount Crouchback said | April 24th 2009 @ 12:13am | Report comment
Jools,
The Lions don’t really have individual talent to burn. There are some decent strike runners in the back three, and some decent beef up front, but the halves look extremely one-dimensional, and Brian O’Driscoll has seen better days (his best moments nowadays tend to come from a yard out).
And the best footballers in Britain – Tom Croft, James Hook, Danny Cipriani and, at a stretch, Mike Blair – have been left behind in favour of stodgier options.
I have no idea if the guys will get on with each other. My hunch is that the parochialism that makes Munstermen so formidable in club competition might prove their undoing in a Lions environment.
pothale said | April 24th 2009 @ 3:32am | Report comment
Viscount
The Boks don’t really have individual talent to burn either. There are some decent strike runners in the back three, and some decent beef up front, but the halves, and particularly fly-half looks dodgy. Brian O’Driscoll did okay against the French from more than a yard out, but luckily there’s more than him playing on the team.
The best footballers in Britain? Croft is a standout player and a surprise he’s been left behind. The incessant drooling over players like Hook – who wasn’t even one-dimensional in his last few games – confounds me. Cipriani? Even Stephen Jones his greatest supporter in media, didn’t even suggest that he should be on the plane. Mike Blair? – even Danny shove-in-the-back Care has done better this season.
The squad gelling question is a valid one. You take the opposite view to me which is that Geech purposely chose a tranche of Munster players who already know each other inside out. They will form a nucleus around which the team will hopefully bond. It strikes me that the inevitable pre-tour negativity, the SA sledging commentary (witness de Villiers subtle ’surprise’ that O’Connell was picked and not O’Driscoll as captain) and the widespread assumptions that this will be another whitewash tour for the Lions will play into the Munster grudge mentality perfectly. There’s no better person than O’Connell to take that sense of grudge and nurse it into a strong fury and match-winning conviction right across the team. The opening matches will tell us a lot if that is succeeding.
Knives Out said | April 24th 2009 @ 4:37am | Report comment
“The Boks don’t really have individual talent to burn either. There are some decent strike runners in the back three, and some decent beef up front, but the halves, and particularly fly-half looks dodgy. Brian O’Driscoll did okay against the French from more than a yard out, but luckily there’s more than him playing on the team.”
I considered that exact response, Pothale. I resisted, however. Shame on you.
pothale said | April 24th 2009 @ 5:07am | Report comment
Shameless is me middle name, sor. I’ve decided as part of a new writing policy, I’m going to receive generalisms, re-package them and return with gusto. Much better fun than wasting time trying to decipher them.
PS I did the tot for you. I won. Nyah, nyah!
Knives Out said | April 24th 2009 @ 5:25am | Report comment
Mr. Zavos seems to make a living from it (Oooh… ), so I think it’s a good call. Certainly easier than trying to actually articulate anything remotely accurate about European rugby.
I saw. Congratulations to you sir.
pothale said | April 24th 2009 @ 5:56am | Report comment
Am curious, KO. Does writing on a regular basis form part of what you do for a living? You can tell me to piss off if you want.
Knives Out said | April 24th 2009 @ 6:12am | Report comment
No, certainly not more than anybody else sat behind a PC. Surely my poor grammar and prose makes that abundantly clear? Why do you ask?
pothale said | April 24th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
In the great swimming pool of blog life, you write closer to the deep end than some of the others who scrabble around in the toddlers bath waving their armbands frantically.
Knives Out said | April 24th 2009 @ 8:13am | Report comment
Is that a compliment or are you implying I’m a lifeguard accredited blogging fascist?
pothale said | April 24th 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
Ooh aren’t we touchy?
It was more a sideways-crabbing back-pat as opposed to a full-on paeon of praise that might have embarrassed you.
Keith said | April 24th 2009 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Get a room
pothale said | April 24th 2009 @ 8:55am | Report comment
LOL – Nice one Keith! It’s alright, I’ll be grumpy again tomorrow.
van der Merwe said | April 24th 2009 @ 9:17am | Report comment
Pothale, the halves? Your point about fly-half is fair, but as for scrum half? Du Preez is undoubtedly one of the best currently going. O’Driscoll is a classy player, though never the same again after Tana tried to send him to China. A center pairing of de Villiers and Fourie, if Peter overcomes his prejudices and selects it, would certainly be better than anything the Lions can put out in those positions.
Ben C said | April 24th 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
The SA forward pack is pretty big and will dominate the lineout but I am not sure it will perform so well in the scrums. The SA front row seems to be heading (to its misfortune) of the Australian model of mobile front rowers who play like extra flankers rather than scrummagers first. This worked in the Tri-Nations but may not work against the Lions. On the other hand SA swept the last NH tour. McGeechan is better than de Villiers, although no where near as entertaining.
The biggest weak link for SA is probably at No 10. F Steyn can be a headless chook on occasion. It might be a closer series than people are expecting. I wouldn’t be surprised with a 2-1 outcome, split along the sea-level/high veldt matches.
Nick (KIA) said | April 24th 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
I’d hope De Puppet will pick Ruan Pienaar, if he’s not injured, at 10. He’s probably the best 10 in the SH, if not the world (current Archilles Injuries excepted), IMHO.
F Steyn won’t be 10 I wouldn’t think – might get a go on the bench. The Saffers would be better with M Steyn at 10 than F Steyn.
van der Merwe said | April 24th 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment
Baxter and Dunning play like a flanks?! Anyway, this attempt to paint Beast as some kind of updated Lawrence Sephaka just won’t work based on the evidence. I’m curious, how does a weak scrummager pull off a tight head almost every week?
Thankfully, Ben, Steyn is probably third in the pecking order, behind Pienaar and James.
sheek said | April 24th 2009 @ 11:41am | Report comment
Dear Viscount Crouchback,
Welcome to The Roar. It’s nice to have royalty, especially of the inbred imbecile type. And I say that in the nicest way.
In fact, I’ve put your site on my favourites. First impression, there might be some usefully informative & amusing reading thereof.
Viscount Crouchback said | April 24th 2009 @ 11:55am | Report comment
“You take the opposite view to me which is that Geech purposely chose a tranche of Munster players who already know each other inside out. They will form a nucleus around which the team will hopefully bond”.
That’s rarely worked in the past when it’s been England players forming the nucleus. I think it’s generally a bad idea to take too many players from the team of the moment. They arrive feeling slightly disdainful of everyone else – see England players in 2001 – which, naturally, enough, gets backs up. Of course, this won’t be a problem if Mr Zavos is right and all Irishmen are innately sweet, lovable creatures who can get on with anyone.
The Bok props aren’t great, but I’d be interested to see Lee Mears or Jerry Flannery packing down against the beast that is John Smit. Mears and Flannery are weak scrummagers. Rees is better, but his throwing can be jittery, so it’s going to be a trade-off. I think this weakness at hooker could really hurt the Lions.
The idea that the Boks aren’t tremendously talented is a conceit peddled by people trying to be sophisticated. What arrant nonsense. The two most stunning performances identified by Robbie Deans in the last southern season were both by South Africa – the beastings of Australia and England. That’s not to say they’re unbeatable, but the idea that a bunch of British and Irish players who have been out-classed nearly every time they’ve ever played Tri Nations opposition can go down there and turn the Boks over on the high veldt seems to me unrealistic.
Add in the difficulties of the itinerary, the teething troubles itrinsic to any scratch team, the patent weaknesses in selection, and you have to say that this looks like a hopeless expedition.
Sam Taulelei said | April 24th 2009 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
Viscount, welcome to the Roar, and well said.
Nick (KIA) said | April 24th 2009 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
+1 for the ‘Count. Should be great entertainment though.
Are we going to be able to see the games in Aus does anyone know?
Ben C said | April 24th 2009 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
VDM
To put the inveerse back to you, are you saying Baxter and Dunning play like scrumaggers? Australia had an unhealthy tendency for a while to pick props for mobility rather than scrummaging prowess. Dunning doesn’t fit that mould but think back to the days of Bill Young and Al Baxter under Eddie Jones. Eddie coached scrums for 8 minutes on the basis that is the total length of scrummaging in a match. Whatever he picked his props for, it wasn’t for winning tightheads.
I haven’t seen the Beast play much this year but last year I thought his potential high but his application flaky. I will defer to your greater knowledge if he has picked his scrummaging and general play up. How do you feel about Smit at tighthead? I am not convinced even though he has played there in the past.
van der Merwe said | April 24th 2009 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
I wouldn’t say they play like scrummagers or flanks, to be honest, Ben…
Smit was almost immovable against Gethin Jenkins last year (especially when he had Botha pushing behind him) and successfully nullified Woodcock when the Sharks last met the Blues. So, he could do a lot worse. Besides, it’s not like BJ Botha and van der Linde are exactly powerhouses themselves.
Worlds Biggest said | April 24th 2009 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
I can’t wait for this tour even as a neutral observer. I think the Lions wont mind one bit being written off in most quarters. That was the case in 1997. The odds are definitely with the Yarpies who I think will win the series 2-1. I think the Springboks are a good team but certainly not a great team. They have a very strong pack ( all World backrow ) but for some reason there scrum may be a bit vulnerable. Who is going to play 5/8 ??. There is no standout. McGeechan will work very hard to ensure the entire squad is happy and install the spirit back into the squad which was missing in 2001 and completely non existent in 2005. McGeechan has shown has hand with the selection of certain players to follow his method of bludgeoning the other team. It will be a great series.
ohtani's jacket said | April 24th 2009 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
I’m still trying to get my head around the unassailable lead. You could’ve given the All Blacks a 14 point handicap and they would’ve won that Test.
Sam Taulelei said | April 24th 2009 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
Yeah OJ I originally didn’t want to bite at that big cherry either but I disagree with Spiro that if O’Connell had scored at that moment it was all over for the Blacks. The Lions would have had their tails up for sure but the difference in quality of those teams was significantly in NZ’s favour and they would have still won that test – not by the same margin but a win all the same.
Knives Out said | April 24th 2009 @ 6:20pm | Report comment
van der Merwe, my South African friends are the first to admit that Mtawira got completely stuffed on the spring tour, specifically by Murray. The SA scrum that I saw versus Scotland and England was one of the weakest SA scrums I can recall.
–
Viscount, actually Lee Mears is renowned as a good scrummaging hooker. Why would you say that he isn’t?
Nobody is saying that SA doesn’t have talent, but two wins against a severly depleted Australian side and a severely callow England side does not improve upon a whole season of very poor games. If you find yourself guided by a conceited comment like the one Deans made then I can only suggest that you don’t actually watch much rugby, which I think is consolidated by your next statement:
“a bunch of British and Irish players who have been out-classed nearly every time they’ve ever played Tri Nations opposition”
Perhaps you’d like to expand on this rather broad and perplexing comment?
Btw, there were no player problems in 01. The only problem was with the coaching – Henry and Robinson. So I’m not sure what you mean by suggesting the English players were disingenous?
stuff happens said | April 24th 2009 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
Hey,Knives Out – it wasn’t a ’severly depleted Australian side’. It was the best we had at the time and it was the biggest defeat in Australian rugby history! The other point worth mentioning is that one week before Australia won a test!
SA also played a great test against the AB’s in Carisbrook having looked ordinary the week before.
So, all this means (I think) that it depends which ‘Boks team comes out to play on the day. When they’re at their best I agree with the Dingo – they have the best overall squad in the TN in my view. The problem, as others have mentioned, is the entertainment which passes as coaching by PDV sometimes.
With six games in 3 weeks before the 1st test ;long way to go.
I agree with you that Viscount doh- dah’s derogatory comment about the British & Irish teams are silly.
By the way I like Bismark Du Plessis as a hooker.He’s not big, but he’s fast, strong and gets up everyones nose just like Brian Moore used to.
van der Merwe said | April 24th 2009 @ 7:41pm | Report comment
Knives, Knives, your friends are probably racists. In all seriousness though, I’m willing to admit that he came off second best in the games you mention, but a “stuffing” is pushing it too far. Actually, considering that Mujati came on after five minutes in the Scotland game and Bismarck’s brother played for most of the duration against England, they didn’t do too badly. It’s not as though they were continually driven off the ball and penalized for collapsing. The atrocious van der Linde – Steenkamp effort in the opening game of the Tri Nations was far worse than anything on this tour. There’s a reason Peter doesn’t care for either player.
Viscount Crouchback said | April 24th 2009 @ 8:09pm | Report comment
“Viscount, actually Lee Mears is renowned as a good scrummaging hooker. Why would you say that he isn’t?”
Where on earth did you get this notion? Mears punches above his weight, sure, but the guy is tiny (5′7″). The deterioration in the English scrum since he replaced Mark Regan at hooker has been startling. The English scrum is no longer an attacking weapon – even though, in Sheridan and Vickery, England have two of the best props in world rugby.
Mears is a big problem at scrum-time, but the England coaches have obviously decided that his fantastic throwing-in and his skills around the park make him worth selecting ahead of the bigger, but callow Hartley.
“Nobody is saying that SA doesn’t have talent, but two wins against a severly depleted Australian side and a severely callow England side does not improve upon a whole season of very poor games”.
This is simplistic. The performance at Twickenham suggested that the Boks, at their best, are streets ahead of anything the British and Irish can currently offer. Even in their two home defeats in the 3N, the Boks looked pretty good. They could quite easily have beaten the All Blacks in Cape Town and the Australians in Durban. That they didn’t was more down to poor game management (and a terrible coach) than any serious deficiencies in the players. These guys are the World Champions, let’s not forget.
“Perhaps you’d like to expand on this rather broad and perplexing comment?”
Did you actually watch any of the Autumn games? The northern hemisphere record was 1 win out of 10 games against the Tri Nations teams. Ireland have never, in their entire history, beaten the All Blacks. The current Irish players have never won away against the 3N. Nor have the Welsh. The English were spanked by every 3N team they played in the Autumn.
“Btw, there were no player problems in 01. The only problem was with the coaching – Henry and Robinson. So I’m not sure what you mean by suggesting the English players were disingenous?”
Again, you are comically misinformed. There were all sorts of problems on the 2001 tour.
- The WRU banned any of its coaches from ever touring with the Lions again such was the furore amongst the Welsh players at being overlooked by their national manager (Henry). The ban has since been relaxed, but the angst at the time was real.
- Matt Dawson was almost sent home from the tour for writing an article critical of Graham Henry.
- The English players, understandably, were peeved at the poor conditioning of the Celts. The tour came at a time when England were streets ahead of the other northern nations in almost every respect.
The 2001 Lions were a genuinely talented bunch. By rights, they ought to have won that series against a pretty mediocre Australian team. That they didn’t was down to terrible coaching and a real lack of spirit. This 2009 bunch might not have the same talent, buit if they can get the spirit right, then they’ll at least give themselves a chance.
Ben C said | April 24th 2009 @ 9:11pm | Report comment
VDM
Fair point.
Viscount
“England coaches have obviously decided that his fantastic throwing-in and his skills around the park make him worth selecting ahead of the bigger, but callow Hartley”
And Australia exports their crazy view of scrummaging to the Northern hemisphere as well. Eddie Jones to the backboard. Write out five hundred times: “I will pick a front row that can scrummage, lift at the lineout and hurt people at the breakdown rather than on the basis of mobility.”
stuff happens said | April 24th 2009 @ 11:22pm | Report comment
VIscount your pedigree is looking decidedly shaky.”The 2001 Lions were a genuinely talented bunch.By rights, they ought to have won that series against a pretty mediocre Australian team.”
A mediocre Australian side – really! How about a side with Matthew Burke ,Herbert, Joe Roff, George Gregan, John Eales, Owen Finnegan, Kefu & George Smith.
We haven’t had too many sides that were better!
Colin N said | April 24th 2009 @ 11:40pm | Report comment
That 2001 Australian side had the reputation of having one of best defences around I believe.
Mears is a good scrummager. The problem is that he is too small and Sheridan is too big, there’s no balance in that England from row. Along when Stevens was playing for Bath (before he was banned) and with Flaman at 1, Bath had one of the best scrums in the Premiership. It’s still not too shabby now. I’m not sure what to make of Jenkins is a scrummager, I think he’s good, but there are better. Against most GP sides, the Cardiff scrum struggles (it happened to do quite well against Gloucester last week), but it doesn’t help Jenkins when he generally has imcompetent scrummagers beside him.
Knives Out said | April 24th 2009 @ 11:51pm | Report comment
van der Merwe, Murray had Mtawarira in all sorts of bother. I agree that the scrum was solid against Wales, however but I do think that England had the upper hand. I completely agree about van der Linde. He’s a shocker… with 60 odd caps. It’s a shame that Heinke is injured. He’s a tough cookie.
Incidentally, Jenkins isn’t perceived as a scrummager in the UK. There’s a rumour that he’s a reluctant scrummager.
–
Viscount:
(i) You think that because Mears is small he is a poor scrummager? And you have the front to imply that I’m ‘comically misinformed’. That is an embarassing statement. As is the suggestion that Sheridan and Vickery are two of the best props in world rugby. Sheridan is an inconsistent scrummager, as has Vickery – their talents lie in their loose work, lineout lifting and mauling. The best English scrums have always contained Rowntree, Thompson and White. You may – but I doubt it – recall the 32-16 English victory at Twickenham where White compared the SA forwards as boys against the English men. You’re talking about front five play and it is lamentably clear that you simply don’t know anything about it. The English scrum in the WC was solid, no more. The English scrum is currently weak, yet you somehow think this is down to the loss of Mark Regan? I suppose it’s just a coincidence that the England scrum only faltered when Borthwick became a regular starter. A hooker is only as good as his props and noboby with any rugby knowledge would currently place either Sheridan or Vickery in the top cannon of test props. Would you like to debate scrummaging with me? I’m willing to accomodate you if you would like to.
Mark Bakewell:
“Lee has always been a very good thrower at the lineout, and he is a very good scrummager”.
(ii) “These guys are the world champions”.
THAT is an overtly simplistic view. Feudal even. Prior to the WC SA had a very poor record. During the WC they played some great rugby, avoided playing a country that was then ranked in the top 5 of the IRB rankings and then won the tournament. Good for them. They then had another poor 3N and a bad Spring tour. Same old South Africa. It is a weak logical conclusion to somehow assume that victory in a 7 week tournament equates to greatness. SA have been as bad under PdV as they were under White pre-WC. Talk about blind faith. SA may have the ability to do it but they never do. Case closed.
(iii) “Did you actually watch any of the Autumn games? ”
I certainly did. You on the other hand apparently did not. It’s all rather easy to state how many games the SH won but let’s not forget that SA were rather fortunate to beat Wales and Scotland. I’m sure van der Merwe would be adult enough to admit that. Let’s also not forget how fortunate Australia were to beat Italy and France. I don’t recall them doing too much to beat England either. Apart from the England v SA test neither Australia nor SA showed any attacking intent, invention or originality. To that extent it is evident that there is a huge gulf between them and NZ. Let’s also not forget that the SH teams had been in camp for 20 weeks prior to the tour. Like you, I could paint in similar broad strokes and compare the inexperience of that England team (Kennedy, Croft, Care, Cipriani, Monye, Armitage – how many caps?) with the rubbish that Rudolph Straueli used to take on tour but I won’t.
Ireland have won in Australia btw. Please get your facts right. You might also like to recall the rather fortunate escape that those talented Wallabies had prior to the 3N. But, hey, why let reality get in the way of a broad, inaccurate and badly put together argument?!
(iv) “Again, you are comically misinformed. There were all sorts of problems on the 2001 tour.”
Not with the players there wasn’t, which is probably why you have failed to develop that ‘point’ beyond making two weak references to Graham Henry and an incorrect allegation that the English players (I wonder whom?) were peeved with the unfit Celts.
Don’t waste my time.
–
Stuff, that has always been the way with SA. But I don’t equate potential with excellence. I agree about du Plessis. He is a wonderful physical athlete. My only problem is that he overplays his hand and often seeks contact too much. He could be a great if he remedies that.
Knives Out said | April 25th 2009 @ 12:05am | Report comment
Anyway, back to the actual topic of the thread. The bookmakers don’t actually have SA as big favourites. They’re 2/5 and the Lions are 7/4, not even 2/1. To put those odds into perspective Australia were 1/8 favourites to beat England in the 07 WC QF. Clearly they are not fully committed to a Lions white wash.
pothale said | April 25th 2009 @ 1:29am | Report comment
hmmmm. Lots of spats in my absence.
If Viscount is still crouching around, would he care to state where he lives and what his experience of either ( both) NH/SH rugby is? We all know each others so it would be useful to know that as a starting point.
Separate from that, since it’s being used as a criteria in arguments in this thread (and others but let’s stick to this one) the most recent NH tour by the SH teams is becoming misleading in my view. Misleading in the conclusions that people are drawing and making consequent assertions about the innate superiority or inferiority of various teams.
I agree that there were not that many victories by NH teams over SH teams, but let’s look at the facts about individual teams.
The All Blacks visited and beat all and sundry, including Aus in the 4th re-run of the Bloodyslow Cup. They put out a second string team against Scotland and beat them handsomely. No quibble. They beat Ireland and the other UK nations – some more convincingly than others. Full credit to them.
That’s where I draw a line.
SA put England to the sword, though KO would have doubts about the superiority of their scrum on the day. Then they played Scotland and came up against Messrs Ford and Murray and found the going a lot more tough. They scraped a victory with cliche ‘minutes to spare’. Next they played Wales and were outplayed for the first half, and came back in the second. Certainly not an easy match by their account or in the view of a lot of SH commentators. Then they went home – pleased with themselves not to have lost a match – and asserting their confidence as WC champions.
Australia kicked off by losing the match against NZ. They went on to play Italy and were bloody lucky not to get turned over. Next they played France, and largely thanks to a massively mis-firing French out-half, were handed victory from the jaws of defeat. Next up was england. They beat them. Convincingly. Next up Wales. They lost. Convincingly.
Setting aside that individual analysis of the SH teams’ performance as opposed to the en bloc view that the SH simply came, saw and conquered the entirety of the NH, the reality is that the Lions have a strong component of Welsh and Irish players, against whom the Boks have uncomfortable memories of the Welsh, and have no recent assessment at all of Ireland and their players, except knowing that they won the 6 Nations Grand Slam this year and a core tranche of the team are current H Cup European champions.
All of that doesn’t strike me as scenario where the Boks figure they have the Lions number, know them well, and are in a position to comfortably contest and beat them.
The Boks coach, de Villiers, in a recent interview with BBC, went out of his way to lament the absence of recent familiar beaten foes in the English, Scottish and Welsh captains, and tried to query the presence of the one component of the Lions that he does not know, and perhaps fears, for their ability to create a much stronger and skillful team from the four nations.
I’m happy to wait and see what happens on 30 May in the Royal.
Roll on the tour.
Knives Out said | April 25th 2009 @ 1:47am | Report comment
That’s a rather dignified and accurate analysis, Pothale. I’m on a half-day today so I raise the inevitable early doors glass of chilled lager.
I have to add, I don’t seek one of those boring jingoistic discussions that seem to crop up all too regularly, but I have noticed that quite a few ‘Roarers’ were left largely unimpressed by the direction, or lack thereof, that Australia had taken during the Autumn. The same applies to my SA drinking buddies. Following the Wales and Scotland tests they were all predicting that SA would be walloped by England, and look what happened. The point is that a result can often mask over long-term deficiencies. England were comparatively fortunate to win in NZ pre-WC 03 but that was ingored because they had finally won in NZ. Over the past 5 years the Springboks – by their own standards – have been unimpressive. That isn’t being disrespectful, that’s a fact. The only bright spots have been the 04 3N and the 07 WC. Therefore, it is somewhat optimistic to suggest that they could be favourites to’maul’ the Lions. I believe that is reflected in the odds offered by the bookmakers.
pothale said | April 25th 2009 @ 2:04am | Report comment
KO, enjoy the lager. I’m quaffing a bottle or two of rose in the sunnier climes of Italy at the moment, so I don’t feel jealous. Or guilty for that matter.
I obviously got the order wrong of the SA tour matches – dunno why I think they played England first – must have been the manner of the victory. My overall sense was that they left the UK as a somewhat pricked balloon. Maybe a somewhat re-inflated one would be more accurate one if they played England last.
Salut!
Knives Out said | April 25th 2009 @ 2:09am | Report comment
Italy, eh?! I spent this morning in Charlton. Sunny but not that much fun.
Just finished Anthony Foley’s book, as it happens. Light reading material, would have liked a bit more depth. Hopefully Quinlan will release an expletive filled tome in the near future.
Laurens K said | April 25th 2009 @ 2:45am | Report comment
I can’t wait for the Boks to hammer the Lions, then to give Aus and Nz a good and proper thumping in the 3N as well.
GO BOKKE GO
Jerry said | April 25th 2009 @ 6:56am | Report comment
Laurens – you might have to wait for both. Well, I suspect you may be waiting a long long time for SA to give NZ a good and proper thumping anyway. There’s only been one match I’d call a good and proper thumping to SA (the match in SA in 04) since readmission.
Knives Out said | April 25th 2009 @ 7:16am | Report comment
Bad news. The best Lions scrum half – IMHO – Tomas O’Leary is already out of the tour with a suspected broken ankle. Tragic for the guy. He has been in superb form of late.
pothale said | April 25th 2009 @ 8:26am | Report comment
This is indeed bad news. Along with Earls and Halfpenny, I had high hopes for O’Leary to parade his skills on a world stage as the best emerging scrum-half in the NH and I think would have been a handful for du Preez. Chalk one up to the Boks on this one. I presume Peel, Blair or Care now come into the reckoning – they won’t just stick with Ellis and Phillips. Of course they might surprise us and look at Stringer as well since he’s now going to have to step up to the plate in Croke Park in next week’s semi-final, but I doubt he’d make the grade.
It’s a suspected fracture and I hope that the news isn’t as bad as being predicted. It’s a shame for O’Leary.
ohtani's jacket said | April 25th 2009 @ 11:23am | Report comment
When has there ever been a Lions side that was predicted to win?
A Lions victory is one of the most difficult things to achieve in rugby and I mean that with all due respect to the Lions sides who’ve won and those who’ve played well. We know the odds are against them, but they’ve got a good pedigree in South Africa; better than any touring side in Springboks history. Until we see the coaching and strategies and watch some tour matches, you’re basing the whole thing on arbitrary Test matches.
And that counts for the Springboks too. They’ve won 76% of their home games this decade, with only 11 losses. It’s a tough place to win at and you have to respect that. Until we see some tour matches and have an opportunity to look at the coaching and strategies, we have no idea what sort of contest we’re in for. Will the Springboks use their backs? Will they play 10 man rugby?
It’s an interesting series and worth more discussion than it’s getting on this site.
stuff happens said | April 25th 2009 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
Poor O’Leary , just a few weeks from one of the highlights of his rugby life.I think Pothale you estimated they’d be two who wouldn’t even make the plane and one poor guy has gone already.
They need to choose his repacement carefully because Phillips is still not the real deal,in the Ryan Jones category at the moment in my view, quite fortunate to be there. Ellis I don’t know well enough.
The back row and scrum half are areas of the game the ‘Boks will believe they can/ must own.
Laurens K said | April 25th 2009 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
@Jerry -
You probably right mate. Just got a bit upset when I read some of the negative comments about the springboks from the readers.
I still don’t think many people outside SA actually understands how difficult it is for our country to have a competitive rugby team. I mean, just look at the coach!!!!!! And look at his suicidal game plan he was trying against NZ and Aus last year. Let’s face it, if it wasn’t for January’s Houdini try in NZ it would have been a disaster of a year!
Now, look at the condition of the Springbok squad. Plenty are injured, plenty are out of form, the rest look tired.
Our own captain, John Smit, does not even know where he is going to play! He is either bulking up to play prop or is just unfit and overweight!
Tell me what your opinion/s are on my comments from an aus/nz point of view?
ohtani's jacket said | April 25th 2009 @ 3:52pm | Report comment
I’m a New Zealander. What’s my opinion of the Springboks?
They’re either sensational or terrible and sometimes both in the same game. I’ve got a vague understanding of South African rugby politics, but expect them to click more often. With the loose forwards you’ve got, if they connected with the backs, you’d be absolutely devastating and rout the shit out of everyone.
It’ll never happen, but with a New Zealand coach I think they’d be unstoppable.
pothale said | April 25th 2009 @ 6:02pm | Report comment
Jaysus. Now Kearney is out of the H CUp semi-final with the mumps. He should be recovered in time for tour but could take time to get back to fitness and they don’t know if he’s possibly infected any other Leinster player.
And Jean de Villiers is likely to miss first test for Boks with suspected groin injury.
Will there be any of them left by the end of the month?
Knives Out said | April 25th 2009 @ 7:56pm | Report comment
Laurens, I think the main problem SA rugby has is poor coaching, at Super level and at test level – I extend that criticism to Jake White as well. SA looked their best when Eddie Jones was on board. I recall watching a pre-WC warm up game versus Scotland when SA looked stunning. They always broke the gainline from deep, off-loaded and played in the right parts of the field. Since then they seem just as mediocre as they did under White in 06 and 07.
I find this cat call of politics all too rich. It’s hard for Tonga or Scotland to produce a competative team, not SA. White worked with a core of players for nearly 4 years and despite his attention-seeking protestations he only had the Luke Watson issue to resolve. That WC winning squad only contained two players of colour in the starting xv.
The other problem that SA rugby has is it’s attitude to other rugby playing nations. I know people from all the major European rugby nations and they all find it hard to connect with the SA attitude. I recall the arrogant comments Jake White used to persistently make. PdV hasn’t helped either.
–
Ohtani, as far as I’m concerned, SA is coming into the Lions series cold. The wins on tour were vital but were they achieved at the expense of tangible progress? Obviously they won’t attempt the 3N brand but equally it is unlikely they would win by playing as they did on tour. I think that PdV has had 14 odd games to develop his squad, find some back up and work on various gameplans. He has not done any of that.
ohtani's jacket said | April 25th 2009 @ 11:04pm | Report comment
They might be coming in cold, but they’d have to be majorly dysfunctional for that to be an excuse.
What are the chances of PdV getting the boot if they lose to the Lions?
Knives Out said | April 25th 2009 @ 11:11pm | Report comment
Why would it have to be an excuse? It’s an observation. According to Laurens SA does well to even field a team. With regards to tactics I think SA are in the exact same place as the Lions. PdV made no long-term plans last season so one could only assume that SA are planning to do what they did on tour: kick and defend.
If PdV goes then who comes in?
ohtani's jacket said | April 25th 2009 @ 11:27pm | Report comment
Yeah, but even if they kick and defend, they’ve played that style of rugby together in the past. And convincingly or not, they did win every game on tour. The Lions will have to expose them for the poorly coached side you say they are, because there’s enough natural talent in the squad to win games regardless.
Knives Out said | April 25th 2009 @ 11:35pm | Report comment
I don’t think I’m the only person in suggesting that SA are a poorly coached team, nor do I think the Spring tour will have done them any favours whatsoever. Obviously SA at home is a different proposition but the SA natural talent tends not to make it into the team. Jaques Fourie is an excellent player. Jacobs isn’t. Bryan Habana has had a bad season but he’ll be in there. Conrad Jantjes will be in there. There’s always been enough natural talent in SA for them to be successful but they rarely have. This tour already strikes me as a repeat of 1997. I have not met on SA fan who is not supremely confident of a 3-0 victory and the only reasons people can give is: SA won the WC and have some excellent players. That just isn’t enough, and neither will the Spring game plan.
ohtani's jacket said | April 25th 2009 @ 11:46pm | Report comment
Well, it’s a bold call.
If it were the All Blacks touring South Africa, I wouldn’t be confident of a Test series victory.
I suppose there are parallels to ‘97 — aside from the whole Andre Markgraaff/Carel du Plessis debacle, but will the Lions really be as good as they were in ‘97?
Knives Out said | April 25th 2009 @ 11:54pm | Report comment
What’s a bold call? I’m not suggesting that the Lions have any divine right to win, or will win. What I’m saying is that it isn’t as clear cut as people are suggesting. SA have the talent to make it that clear cut but then they rarely do.
Aside from the coaching team, SA team still had some renowned players. I don’t think the Lions won because they were necessarily a great team I think they won because that SA side was one-dimensional and arrogant and the Lions identified this and were efficient. I am reserving my judgement until I see the tactics that the Lions use but I do believe the players they have this time are better than the 1997 group. The scrum should be strong, the lineout solid and the backs inventive. Whether or not that all comes together is another matter.
Laurens K said | April 26th 2009 @ 2:39am | Report comment
I agree with almost everything you are saying.
I have met quite a few All Blacks and NZ S14 players. Very down to earth and very approachable. Some of them even emailed me after a night on the town in Durban once to check how we were all doing!
In certain areas in SA rugby players are our Super stars, which I think does add to the arrogance factor, which is very sad, as most South Africans, Australians and Kiwis and pretty much the same people with different accents! There are exceptions, like Jaques Fourie, Juan Smit and Hulk Burger.
I do agree with the coaching though. Even look at the Cheetahs, forget about the lions and the stormers. With proper conditioning and coaching these guys will perform MUCH better. The natural number of good rugby players coming from this region is amazing. The Force started a 17 year old (O’Conner I think) and he was not just solid, we was fantastic.
I think it starts from school boy rugby. SA players depend on their natural talent to bull dose the other players. It is shocking how many SA professional players can’t even pass a ball properly to both sides! This is something you learn in primary school! This was never taught to me by the way, and I come from a serious rugby area.
Both your countries are light years ahead with overall professionalism.
SA is still stuck in the 80’s with a shitty rugby board that is all about self actualization and egos.
Most South Africans predicts that once the core players of the RWC 07 retires, it will be tickets for us and proper rugby.
If our wonderful coach, Mr Mustache, spent a bit less time worrying about politics, the color of his own skin, and campaigning for the ANC (ruling party), it might have been different.
Anyone in NZ or Aus want to send me jersey that I can support?
pothale said | April 26th 2009 @ 2:50am | Report comment
I can send you an Irish Lions one – full of tradition and history and far more relevant.
Knives Out said | April 26th 2009 @ 3:16am | Report comment
Laurens, my partner’s sister’s bf toured SA with his schoolboy team last summer and they bumped into the Springboks and apparently Butch James went out of his way to be friendly to all the kids.
Laurens K said | April 26th 2009 @ 3:17am | Report comment
Thanks Pottie!
van der Merwe said | April 26th 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
“Obviously SA at home is a different proposition but the SA natural talent tends not to make it into the team. Jaques Fourie is an excellent player. Jacobs isn’t. Bryan Habana has had a bad season but he’ll be in there. Conrad Jantjes will be in there.”
Why do you suppose that is?
Knives Out said | April 26th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
What specifically?
van der Merwe said | April 26th 2009 @ 10:11am | Report comment
The selection of those players. Why would Peter do that?
Knives Out said | April 26th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
I don’t know. Why don’t you tell me.
van der Merwe said | April 26th 2009 @ 10:40am | Report comment
No, no, I think you know, my boy.
Knives Out said | April 27th 2009 @ 12:45am | Report comment
Why don’t you act like a man and tell me? We’re both too old to be playing childish games.
Colin N said | April 27th 2009 @ 3:09am | Report comment
I think van der Merwe is implying that prejudice might be determining South African team selection.
Knives Out said | April 27th 2009 @ 4:49am | Report comment
Why not just come out and say it then? It looks conceited otherwise.
That may be the case, and it might not. If you examine the wing position there aren’t a great deal of alternatives and Habana is that good an athlete that most coaches would probably persevere with him. The same applies to full back. The only alternative 15 that I can think of is Ludik and it’s unlikely that PdV would change a squad that he has been massively loyal to despite results. Therein lies the problem: loyalty. PdV hasn’t just persevered with his black players, he has also persevered with his white players. Brussouw deserves to be selected ahead of Burger, but I bet he won’t.
Rusty said | April 28th 2009 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
Given the time available to the Bok coach he would be stupid to not use the existing combinations. Then again this is PdV we are talking about so I wouldnt be surprised if he rolled out 15 clowns, juggling knives while riding unicycles. I however expect an almost carbon copy of the Boks squad from last year to roll out against the Lions. If thats the case then looking at the positions there are some areas of concern.
Front row – The Bok front row has been on general decline for the last decade, props seem more about playing as loose forwards than turning thier opposite number inside out at scrum time. I think in the current combination they will struggle against whomever the Lions pack down. To fix this there are a couple of options, 1) use the entire Sharks front row as is – 1 of the top performers in the S14. Interestingly enough the Beast performs much better for the Sharks than the Boks. Might be something to do with the national technique or locks 2) Move Smit to tighthead, and have Bismark and Beast. From memory Smit held his own against Jenkins in the Wales match and this brings the more dynamic Bismark in to play. Backup hooker should then be Liebenberg who is probably the best scrumming hooker in SA and the reason why the maligned Stormers back gave it to the Highlanders. 3) Get the outisders in, recall BJ Botha and play Heinke v Merwe with Smit in the middle. Outside of Smit this would be our strongest frontrow
Second row – Not much to add here. Matfield and Botha are the premier locking pair in World rugby. Concerns were the start of the season form of Victor but he is playing himself back and now the lack of backup with Bekker possibly out for the series. Adequate cover for Botha with Rossouw and Muller
Back row – plenty of riches here with the biggest problem being the choice of combination. My guess is the coach will stick with the tried and trusted Burger, Spies, Smith axis. Unfortunately Burger hasnt been his usual imposing self and with Brussouw playing back to back blinders I hope he makes it onto the bench. Juan seems to be finding his ‘07 form so the blindside is covered with Duanne Vermuelen from the Stormers a great cover option. 8 – easy choice of Spies and Kankowski.
Half back – no issues. Du Preez and probably Januarie as the incumbent backup, would prefer the on form Kockott who can also kick for posts. Vermaak needs honourable mention.
Fly Half – the bane of South Africa, we either produce kicking or running 10s or poor combinations of both. I think Pienaar will be the starter and I think if given the opportunity he could be very good. Unfortunately, with current injuries and timescales, opportunity he might not have. Backups are thin, but I would plumb for Peter Grant and Morne Steyn. God forbid we see the mercurial Earl Rose running on.
Centres – Injury to Jean de Villiers is the main issue. Otherwise plenty of options on this front but given the size of the outside centres the Lions are bringing and the slippery BOD. I would pick Fourie as a defensive starter and bring Jacobs on later to do what he does best which is run into holes. Inside center, JdV or Wynand Olivier who is having a blinding season.
Wings – Habana & Pieterson will be the wingers. Even with Habana persisting on his defensive intercept dash that does his team mates no favours and drop off of pace he is still a danger man that will tie up the oppositions plans. JP has also been in good form and provides an extra boot option. Backups Nokwe & Mentz. I would have liked to have seen Chavanga this season but injuries have ended his chances
Full Back – bit interesting here as the incumber Jantes hasnt had a great season so far- solid just unspectacular. Terblanche has been a bit the same but helps create more but I doubt he will feature. So Jantes it is, I would like to see Ludick or Daniller get a second half run on
Pretty good lineup either way and there only a few matchups where I see the Lions as better. Think it will be very tight either way and a 3-0 to the Boks is being generous. The Boks should dominate the lineout and if they can get parity in the scrums it will all come down the breakdown and the refs leniency. The Lions have picked some very good dirt sniffers with Williams, Ferris & co and the Boks without Brussouw can only counter this through clearing out the rucks. Fortunately they do have the best in the business for this but as mentioned in this thread it depends if they pitch on the day. In every test last year where the Boks ran up big scores they were rampant in this area, getting qucik ball at will, As soon as this changes they seem to run out of ideas and stagnate. I’m still picking a Bok series win but at 2-1
stuff happens said | April 28th 2009 @ 4:32pm | Report comment
Rusty I agree with all this and if they play well the ‘Boks will be formidable.I hope they go for Pienaar. But as we’ve said earlier in this post the Lions are pretty much an unknown quantity as a team until the tour gets under way.
Knives Out said | April 28th 2009 @ 8:13pm | Report comment
Brussouw, van der Merwe, Ludik, Vermaak, Olivier and Metz should all be involved with the SA squad but I would wager all the tea in China that they won’t be. PdV had the opportunity to broaden his squad on the recent tour but he didn’t and now he faces the problem of a back division which is largely out of form or injured: Jantjes, Habana, Jacobs and Pienaar, with little or no experienced back up. Similarly, Smit and Burger have looked very mediocre and du Plessis isn’t playing half as well as he is capable of.
van der Merwe said | April 29th 2009 @ 5:00pm | Report comment
I’m pretty sure that Brussouw will be involved. Considering that Cheeky called Snor a baboon…
Rusty, you make a very good point about the breakdown. Last year, specifically on the home stretch of the Tri Nations, you had the most of the forwards standing in the backline instead of consolidating possession (at times the backs had to do that). As a result, they made many breaks, but could never finish because the opposition could turn them over with relative ease. In the last game, though, the forwards piled into the rucks and the Wallabies could do absolutely nothing. If they follow that formula they will be successful. If, however, they play like they did in those first two games against the Lions I can see the latter getting an upset.
Rusty said | April 30th 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
agreed – my gut feeling in his maiden season is that he was aiming for the more short term goal of just winning rather than building squad depth. With all the furore about his appointment can you really blame him?
Rusty said | April 30th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
van de Merwe – thats the problem isnt it. There is this vision of “Total Rugby” where the backs and forwards combine etc etc but its no good having the backs doing the tight forwards work or simply not comitting to securing the ball. It may work in the S14 and tri nations a bit because both sides attempt to put more people in the defensive line but it wont work when there are 3 boks defending a ruck and 8 Lions coming through the gate. Not that I am saying it will always be like that but you have to weigh up the advantage of quick ball versus the comitting more numbers to the breakdown than the opposition which could leave you exposed on the next phase. Personally I think quick ball is the winner everytime, you dont have to throw the kitchen sink through every breakdown as long as your opponent thinks thats what your are doing and doesnt impede your ball. This is what we saw in the tests we dominated – we consistently blew through the breakdown till eventually the other side pretty much stopped competing on our ball.
pothale said | April 30th 2009 @ 10:51pm | Report comment
Given the likely make-up of the Lions forwards, I doubt they’ll simply stand there and allow Boks to dominate every breakdown and not compete – it isn’t in their genes, whatever about anyone else. From the Lions persepctive, killing quick ball is going to be top of the agenda, and getting their own out at their decided pace. If it’s Phillips, Jones, Flutey et al in the back-line, I suspect it’ll come out a lot quicker, rather than the measured, attritional phase play that Munster tend to follow.
Rusty said | May 1st 2009 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
I certainly dont expect them to back off from the breakdown but my comment wasnt directed towards the Lions but more towards how the Boks need to play to be successful. Obviously from a Lions point of view they would want to do everything possible to prevent this occuring. Likewise for the Boks on the Lions ball.
Loftus said | May 27th 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Knives Out,I m not very impressed with your rugby knowledge,but it s very clear that you think you are The Rugby Guru.I reckon a lot more people will appreciate you more on this website if you can try to be more objective.Trying to imply that the Springboks used thuggish behaviour in the last Tri-nations is one of the funniest things I ve heard all year.Can you remember Thorne speartackling John Smit after the ref blowed his whistle,therefor ending his Tri-nations before it even started? Let s go back to Brian O’Driscoll,same kind of tackle but this time 2 defenders speartackling and ending the poor guy’s Lions tour.Most of your comments are so anti Springbok that it s almost childish and definately spiteful.It looks like you can t wait every day to log in and rub your hands,thinking of things to say to bring South Africa and the Boks down.If one listens to you the Springboks are a mediocre team without any quality players.Oh dear,I bet you get constant nightmares about the Springboks being World Champions.
Loftus said | May 27th 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
Laurens K
I don t believe what you said about Springbok rugby’s demise after the 2007 World Cup players call it a day.Nothing is further from the truth.Firstly,that team is full of 23 year olds and they re gonna be around for a very long time.Actually I reckon at least 90 percent of the team will defend their title in New Zealand.Secondly,the black playes that get selected are starting to look like world class players and not quota players.That means that all the development in black areas are starting to pay off and soon we will start to delve in our 48 million population and find another 20 Habanas or Beasts.I hope you were joking when you asked for Kiwi or Aussie jerseys because the future is bright.
pothale said | May 27th 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment
Loftus – I think you’re right. The Sprinboks are a mediocre team without any quality players.
We don’t need KO to tell us that. In fact he didn’t, you did.
Roll on the Royal.
Rusty said | May 27th 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
wow – bit of early morning escalation! havent even got into my coffee yet
Loftus, you and I both know that all sides are dirty to an extent, its a tough game and in giving it all people get carried away. The difference is that with our long history of skop en donner any incident on the Bok/SA side will be magnified greatly conversely an incident by our opponents seems to be minimalised. In essence this is also a bit of our own fault, not just for playing that way but also in the attempt to clean up our play we pillorise our players adding to the image. BTW – Great to see the Bulls hitting their straps after last season, I am still waiting on the Stormers, its only been 13 years and counting….
As for the Boks being mediocre – overrated in some ways yes, mediocre no. Mediocre doenst beat the ABs and Wallabies and wouldnt sit 2nd on the rankings, world cup point system or not. Also when I say overrated, I mean we have a lot of excellent players who are not playing to their full potential and are holding up others in better form. Its good to see a core of these finding form with the Bulls and I think if PDV has any sense he will form the squad around these key combinations.
In relation to my previous thread on the state of affairs, I think we still have issues at tight head unless Rayno Gerber is in the coaches plans. The Bakkies/Matfield axis with Rossouw and Bekker looks very good. The back row will be interesting but to my mind the definites are Spies and Smith, with Burger propbably starting on reputation and Brussouw from the bench. du Preez and Steyn are in excellent form and would be my test starters with Vermaak and Pienaar backing up. Centres are a big area of concern due to the first and second choices in each position de Villiers/Olivier and Fourie/Jacobs carrying or coming back form injury. Wings, JP and Habana with the latter really looking for action of late. Fullback is a worry unless Kirchner is in the slot, would like to have seen Daniller or Ludik in the squad.