Morne Steyn kicked 21 points on Saturday to guide the Bulls to a 36-23 win over the Canterbury Crusaders and into the Super 14 final.
Steyn slotted four drop goals, kicked three conversions and a penalty as the Bulls outscored the defending champion Crusaders by three tries to two after trailing 20-7 late in the first half at Loftus Versfeld Stadium.
But a yellow card for Crusaders No.8 Thomas Waldrom in the 35th minute allowed the Bulls to score 13 points against 14 men and lead 27-20 at halftime.
“Morne kicked really well,” Bulls captain Victor Matfield said. “But we showed we are a good team. Everyone says we’re a ‘kick and hope’ outfit, but we showed how we can run from broken play.”
Bulls winger Bryan Habana sliced through the midfield to score in the 12th minute for a 7-3 lead. But the Crusaders hit back two minutes later with a converted try to winger Adam Whitelock in the corner after a move down the blindside.
Crusaders fullback Leon MacDonald kicked a penalty in the 21st and then launched an up-and-under toward Bulls winger Akona Ndungane on his tryline. Crusaders flanker Kieran Read challenged for the ball, caught it and tumbled over for the try.
“We felt as if we had momentum when we scored our two tries early on,” Crusaders captain Richie McCaw said. “But those 10 minutes before halftime really turned things around for the Bulls, and in the end we were beaten by a team that was hungry enough.”
The Bulls came back when fullback Zane Kirchner drew the cover to send Ndungane over for a try in the 33rd minute. Then came Waldrom’s dismissal and Steyn began his drop-kicking spree, kicking two in two minutes to level at 20-20.
Springbok No. 8 Pierre Spies scored a long-range try right on halftime after galloping clear from the defenders.
Crusaders scrumhalf Andy Ellis kicked a drop goal in the 51st, but Steyn replied with a penalty in the 65th and then nailed drop goals from 22 meters and 50 meters in the 69th minute and toward the end of the match to send the Bulls into the final.
They play another New Zealand side, Waikato Chiefs, who beat the neighbouring Hurricanes 14-10 in Hamilton on Friday night.
© AAP 2012Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Bulls, Crusaders, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
May 24th 2009 @ 12:59pm
Who Needs Melon said | May 24th 2009 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
Hemjay,
I think you’ll also find most of aussies would prefer our brothers across the Tasman to win. I and many I talk to always go for Australia first, NZ second.
Very rare we would go for a SA team. Maybe if the boks are playing England or the Lions… Maybe.
May 24th 2009 @ 1:01pm
rob said | May 24th 2009 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
this is of the thread but I just read that McMeniman is heading overseas and will forfeit a shot at the 2011 world cup. understandable considering his run with injuries and losing his dad this year. what’s of greater concern to Australian rugby is that Digby Ione will be going with him.
May 24th 2009 @ 1:18pm
Viscount Crouchback said | May 24th 2009 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
The Bulls are simply ghastly. We men of Anglo-Saxon stock must stick together. The Dutchmen destest us; so we might as well repay the compliment (even though, generally, we are above such infantile nonsense).
Chaps, you should always back an Anglo-Saxon team over a vulgar Boer team. We might not be quite as autistically determined as those chaps but. by golly, we have twice their cleverness and nous.
Rule Britannia.
May 24th 2009 @ 1:19pm
Greg Russell said | May 24th 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
HemJ, my view on Giteau is expressed in the commentary under yesterday’s article on the Chiefs defeating the Hurricanes. That commentary also carries views from the other side. You participated in that discussion, so you should be up to speed.
The only clarification I will add here is that I’ve said for the last few years that Giteau at his best is every bit as good as Carter at his best, probably even better, but what makes Carter a better footballer is that he doesn’t make mistakes like Giteau does. It has seemed to me from the S14 this year that Giteau is eliminating some of the errors and becoming more consistent. Whether this is just the passage of time, or whether it is related to the coaching of Deans and/or Mitchell, I do not know. I also do not yet know how close he is to the near zero error rate of DC. And of course what can never be known is whether Giteau behind the dominant AB and Crusader forward packs would be better than Carter behind these packs.
I think Giteau can cope with the expectation of the Australian public. Even if he doesn’t deliver, I doubt the public will turn on him. His background is in rugby (even if he has a rugby league name!), and it’s mainly the ex-league players (Tuqiri, Sailor) that the Australian rugby public tends to turn on. Curiously, this attitude is very selective, e.g. it is not applied to Berrick Barnes, and nor was Mat Rogers ever as subject to it.
May 24th 2009 @ 1:27pm
Hemjay said | May 24th 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
Greg,
Fair enough insight but I do have one question.
You have rated him over the last few years to be as good if not better. However you then go on to say he doesn’t have the zero error rate that Carter has. The later statement alone cancels out your believe that he is better. To be better he would also have to have a zero error rate.
Just a small observation thats all.
I rate Giteau highly and its really pointless arguing what he would be like behind the ABs or the Crusaders packs as its never going to happen. I personally would rather discuss what is happening and happened otherwise we could debate fantasies all day long.
May 24th 2009 @ 1:58pm
Greg Russell said | May 24th 2009 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
HemJ, sorry for the misunderstanding: I definitely rate Carter above Giteau, and I really hope I have never written anything suggesting otherwise. I first saw Carter as a kid in the Canterbury provincial side in the early 2000s, and I immediately wrote to a friend that he would be the next Tim Horan of world rugby (remember that Carter was playing 12/13 then, because of Canterbury also having Mehrtens and A Mauger). If anything Carter has turned out to be even better.
What I have written in recent times is things to the effect that (1) Giteau is closing the gap on Carter, (2) Giteau is better than Donald, and (3) Giteau at 10 for the Wallabies is a big advantage over the All Blacks not having Carter at all.
For hammer’s benefit, I should add that McCaw and Carter are the big two of world rugby over the last 5 years in my opinion. I’m getting close to adding du Preez to make a threesome, and Matfield and Habana are also very close. This grouping is very open to the criticism of being too SH-centric, but that is the rugby I watch, and when I see the NH teams up against SH teams, I don’t see anything to make me change my mind. Players like G Smith and Giteau are also amazing, but man-on-man comparison with McCaw and Carter in international rugby shows them not to be as good (just my opinion).
It will be interesting to see how Carter returns from his Achilles rupture … they are often injuries from which you never get back to where you were before.
May 24th 2009 @ 3:53pm
ohtani's jacket said | May 24th 2009 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
The only reason I wanted the Crusaders to win was so the Chiefs could have a home final, but if that had been the case, the Crusaders may have pinched the title and that would’ve reflected very poorly on the rest of the Super 14 teams.
Their forward play in the first twenty minutes was good, but they have an incredibly shitty backline who’ve been drilled in support play and counter attacking, but can’t make a linebreak to save their lives.
Once MacDonald left the field, there wasn’t a single back who could actually penetrate the Bulls’ defence, especially when they sealed the blindside. So they reverted to that awful style of Crusaders rugby where they take an age to clear the ball, only to pass it to a forward for another hit-up. After the Waldrom sinbinning opened the floodgates, I guess they wanted to slow the pace down and play for territory, but they were so slooow clearing the ball from the ruck and Ellis is such a poor halfback that they were really exposed for the limited side that they are.
The Bulls started poorly, but played exceptionally well after the Crusaders started slipping off the tackles. I think their win in 2007 was better, so I don’t know why Greg Smith posted that article, but overall it was the kind of performance that New Zealand rugby fans would admire (aside from maybe the drop goals, which are alien to us.)
May 24th 2009 @ 3:57pm
ohtani's jacket said | May 24th 2009 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
Carter doesn’t exactly have a zero error rate, he’s just a better first five than Giteau. I swear Australians are mesmerised by what players do with the ball, even if what they’re doing isn’t particularly good.
May 24th 2009 @ 4:43pm
Greg Smith said | May 24th 2009 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
@ Viscount Crouchback – Oi, you’re wrong and I don’t like your way of thinking. Anglo-Saxon’s standing together ? Man ? And your notion that Pretoria isn’t cosmopolitan is a laugh, maybe 40-50 years outdated … For the record… these Ango-Saxon’s you’re so proud of are known for belittling ‘Dutchmen’ – generally anyone, especially those of non-Anglo Saxon decent in South Africa would be very friendly, open and hospitable. Your haughty clan mindset needs revision, I hope you’ll agree. Don’t stand in the corner and say everyone hates you.
May 24th 2009 @ 5:33pm
zzzz said | May 24th 2009 @ 5:33pm | Report comment
By the way, is someone trying to claim that Associated Press used the expression “crushing victory” in their headline?
36-23 crushing?
Try 54-19.