By Spiro Zavos
June 1st 2009 @ 6:30am
Related coverage
Are the Super Bulls setting up a dynasty?
South Africa's Bulls players celebrate after scoring a try during the final of the Super 14 rugby match against New Zealand Chiefs at the Loftus Versfeld stadium in Pretoria, South Africa, Saturday May 30, 2009. AP Photo/Themba Hadebe
At the end of their stunning 61 – 17 massacre of the Chiefs the Bulls players and coaching staff formed a circle with linked arm, went down on their knees and with heads bowed gave thanks to their God for the victory. God helps those, however, who help themselves. The Bulls played superbly and were coached superbly.
Fourie du Preez demonstrated once again that he is the best player in world rugby. Every facet of the Bulls play, from the confrontational defence, to a ball-stealing lineout, to abrasive running by forwards and backs, to Bryan Habana’s thief in the night inercepts and to Morne Steyn thumpingly accurate kicking, the Bulls were several classes above the hapless Chiefs.
If this Bulls side can stay together for a couple of years, and it will probably will with the Rugby World Cup coming up in two years time, they can win a couple more Super Rugby titles and set up a South African dynasty to rival the Crusaders.
The Bulls were helped by incredibly dumb tactics on the part of the Chiefs. At the the beginning of the match, and throughout its diastrous course for them, they steadfastly refused to kick for touch, even when they had the safety of kicking out from their own 22.
Moreover, the high kicks the Chiefs put in were not chased. Lelia Masaga is a one-trick winger. He has a certain pace but his chasing and catching of high balls is poor.
He put no pressure on the Bulls back three. As a consequence, the Bulls were able to field the high balls, return them with higher interest and then force mistakes with their own whole-hearted chasing.
The other aspect of the stupid Chiefs tactics is that the Bulls have developed a great fractured ball series of plays which requires the big forwards to rumble forward and then for du Preez to chose the right time for a hard, flat pass to unleash a stacked backline.
The Chiefs also neglected the basic rule of altitude play, too, which is: ‘when in doubt kick it.’
Teams coming to Pretoria have to learn the Bulls game which is let the ball do the work, until you are within striking distance and then occur everything into attack.
Most of the Bulls tries came from mistakes made by the Chiefs trying to do too much inside their own territory.
After giving up the opening try, the Bulls then got their game together and demolished the Chiefs, helped by the Chiefs inability to take the right tactical options. From the kick-off, for example, Sione Lauaki tried to run the ball from inside his 22. He was isolated. The Bulls forced a turnover. Not long after, following a short-arm penalty awarded by Jonathan Kaplan, du Preez was over for a try.
From then on it was all the Bulls. They scored again soon after and the flood gates opened up.
So superior and confident were they that were able to sub most of their stars well before the final whistle in an indication that the match was wrapped up well before its end.
For years the Bulls were a hard team to defeat in the pre-ELV days with their lineout and driving maul. With the maul de-clawed as it were by being able to be collapsed legitmately, the Bulls developed a wider, explosive running game.
Ironically they have mastered this game just when collapsing the maul has become illegal. Will they give up their running game to go back to their old rolling maul game? Hopefully they won’t. But the ability to roll mauls near their opponents tryline will give the Bulls yet another scoring option.
From what they showed this season, winning all of their home matches and then producing the biggest margin and most points ever in a Super Rugby final (the previous record was 36 – 6 by the ACT Brumbies against the hapless Sharks at Canberra in 2001), the Bulls are on the rampage for the next few years.
In the 14 years of Super Rugby, has there ever been a more impressive finals victory? Have the Bulls played the perfect final? I think so.
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...
(75)
craig said | June 1st 2009 @ 7:51am | Report comment
Just once I’d like to see a player blame their god for a loss….
sheek said | June 1st 2009 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Spiro,
A dynasty….. who knows? The Bulls will be in the frame these next few years, & possibly/probably win another 1-3 finals over 6 years, but I wouldn’t call it a dynasty.
Back in 1975, Easts Roosters won back to back grand finals, beating St.George Dragons 38-0. Commentators speculated the Roosters, with the talent they had, might dominate Sydney rugby league for the next few years. But it never happened.
The 38-0 win was in isolation. This was the grand final when of the truly greats of the game, Dragons skipper Graeme Langlands, played in white boots (very lairy at the time), which wouldn’t have attracted so much attention except a pain-killing needle injected into the wrong place made him look lame & listless.
Forget the score, the Chiefs didn’t show up to play. It was obvious from their reaction after beating the Hurricanes the previous week, that they considered that to be their final.
Besides, the Bulls have a style that might be almost unbeatable at home, but they are very beatable elsewhere.
Brett McKay said | June 1st 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
I was thinking the same thing Sheek, when they start beating teams away from Pretoria consitently, they may well become unbackable favourites. As clinical as they were, I’m not sure the Bulls would have been as dominant in Hamilton.
That all said, it was a thoroughly deserved win, and I guess the big hypothetical now is would the Bulls beat Leinster??
JC said | June 1st 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Brett, judging by finals performance, not only would they smash Leinster, they would lay Ireland to waste, and put away the B&IL as well.
Rusty said | June 1st 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Well done to the Bulls, deserved Super 14 winners. Practically unbeatable at home and getting better on the away leg.
Sheek, only three losses the entire season to the Highlanders, Saders and Brumbies respectively would say they arent very beatable anywhere. In regards to the so called dynasty we shall have too see what remains of the team post Lions tour. I expect most of the senior players will depart this team and the country and provide a real insightful look at our so called depth. In the meantime congrats again to the Bulls and onwards to the Lions!
True Tah said | June 1st 2009 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Sheek
Rusty makes a good point, the Bulls lost those away games, although they were robbed in the Brumbies game.
In a few years, the Bulls have gone from being cellar dwellers in 2000-2004 to winning the title twice in 3 years. It doesnt put them on par with the Saders yet or even the Blues of the earlier years, but I would say they are at least the equal of the Brumbies.
I hope that they do become a dynasty, it can only be good for the comp.
Temba said | June 1st 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Good article, good to see non ref bashing article. No matter what the bulls do, very few from here would call them great. I suppose it’s just they way the kiwi’s think. They have broken countless records this season and if its not complaints about the drop goals it’s the ref or Suzy or anything the kiwi’s can come up with to explain why no one can be as good as them.
I am sure ill here the normal CRU done it 7 times, so and so did this, ill hear all the historical achievements, all the reasons why the bulls were so luck but you know what, no one has ever played a game like that in a final, the Bulls (who you would least expect) played the way you all want the game to be played.
The Bulls now are a great team.
Hammer said | June 1st 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Of course it’s good for the competition – the longer SA sides failed to win the title – the less enthused they got … now there’s real interest in from all 3 nations ….
Bit surprised again from the comments in this article … sure it’s played at altitude – but are you really championing for a non stop kickfest ?… shades of that dire SA / Aust tri-nations game a few years back …
the chiefs know only one way to play – and they had to trust in it .. it was always going to be a flawed strategy – given they would have inevitably tired in the final 20 … but they needed to try and build a big lead … in the end they were blown away by a very good team
James B said | June 1st 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Don’t get too carried away Spiro. We all know this could have been a different result had the game been played in Hamilton. The Chiefs had no chance travelling so far, having to play at high altitude, and without two of the very best in Sivivatu and Leonard.
The Bulls got thrashed by the lowly Highlanders in NZ. As one of the commentators remarked, what a difference one point on the table can make. Indeed!
Even the referees were South African, though I thought they refeered well, but all those factors combined does make it terribly hard for any team travelling to high velt. Maybe neutral venues should be considered as they do in France for the play-off, though this is probably impractical with the vast geographic divide in Super 14 franchises bases.
You state – ‘Fourie du Preez demonstrated once again that he is the best player in world rugby’. I think you meant the best half back in world rugby. Maybe and probably so, but in my opinion Brendan Leonard is arguably as good, though very injury prone. Lets not forget French Player of the Year – Byron Kellehar.
If the bulls can secure home semins/finals, I think they have every chance of going on win more titles. And why not given the natural home advantages they have over any other S14 side.
Pippinu said | June 1st 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
An absolutely amazing win by the Bulls. Perfect? Well, the Chiefs still did manage to score 17!!
Despite the huge margin, it was still a great sporting event, but this reminds me of a point I have previously made about this three conferences idea (should this mean separate tables for all three).
Few Australians would have taken an interest in this game, or at least not as many as the game deserved.
But I fear that with a three conference system, anytime an Australian side drops out early of the finals, the rest of the finals series, including the grand final itself, will be off the radar because the SA and NZ teams will become even more invisible to the Australian public than they already are.
Chris said | June 1st 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Re a possible Bulls dynasty-
Possible, the bulls have developed a great structure over the last couple of years, their youth players aer easily the best prepared of the SA’can team by the time they make the first team.
What is also benefitting them is that they are just about the only Southern Hemishere franchise that can go toe-to-toe with the northern hemisphere clubs in terms of money. Just look at how well attended their home games are and how well theri shirt sales are going. They make a massive amount of money. I predict that they will lose far fewer players than many people are expecting because of this off field success.
Temba said | June 1st 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
James, neutral venues for the finals? Now I have heard it all…
Lets do it next time a kiwi team wins the rights to host the final.
Du Preez is the player of the series in my books and without a doubt the best 9 in the world. He also puts a strong case for best player.
Robbos said | June 1st 2009 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Pip, I think this is quite common in most sports. Look at the French Open after Hewitt got knocked out, Australia tends to lose interest.
Of course this is still a provincial competition, but then I can assure you that people in Sydney lose interest in the AFL finals once Swans are out or not competitive (see crowd figure last year finals match finals match against Nth melb).
LeftArmSpinner said | June 1st 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Spiro, come on. All season you have shown us the way, shown us the light that is correct English. At the final hurdle, it all falls over.
Bulls dont have Dynasties!!!! They have herds!!!! And yes, I think that they are setting up a herd.
Rusty said | June 1st 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Given the vast distances between countries and venues the neutral idea is dead in the water. The distances makes it too inhibitive on the travelling support and defies the point of finishing top. Terrible to imagine the final without the vibrant seething mass of colour that was the local crowd.
Pippinu said | June 1st 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Robbos
what are we going to do about Sydney people?
You remind me, I’m just about to send an article to The Roar on this very subject!!
Rusty said | June 1st 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
on a tangent though – in terms of the Currie Cup it will be interesting to see if post 2010 Football WC if the CC final would be played at Soccer City with its 90K seating.
Hammer said | June 1st 2009 @ 10:13am | Report comment
Neutral venues are just not practical and don’t reward season long consistency … the Bulls deserved home ground advantage for being the best performing side over the season … you can’t take that away from them – just because they play in SA at altitude …
what needs to be looked at is the turn around time between semis and finals – and this should have been addressed years ago … its just not practical for a team to fly NZ – SA or SA – NZ within a week and be expected to perform at optimum – there’s no way that the chiefs are 44 points worse side than the Bulls (in fact both would have rolled the Lions) … perhaps what needs to be looked at is mid week semis …
Rusty said | June 1st 2009 @ 10:23am | Report comment
Hammer – not a bad idea and maybe one to consider for the S15. I still remember my Stormers team arriving back in CT from Australasia playing I think it was 1 possibly 2 games and then flying back to play the Saders in Christchurch. Think they covered something like 24K+ of travelling in the season to get to the semi and were noticabley buggered after the first 30min. Back on the S15 I suppose with the conferences we should actually see less long distance travelling and this should take some of this fatgue out.
sheek said | June 1st 2009 @ 10:23am | Report comment
The point I was attempting to make, is that things aren’t always what they seem. While the scoreline was a massacre, that doesn’t suggest in any way a future dynasty for the Bulls. Next year, everyone starts again from scratch.
The Essendon Bombers were expected, with the teams they had each time, to create 5 years dynasties after winning the premiership flag in 1993 & 2000. It never happened.
And who would have thought the Geelong Cats would lose last year’s GF to Hawthorn Hawks? Although ironically, that will now probably work in their favour, since the Cats players have had a tangible & painful lesson in taking nothing for granted.
For all their dynasty building, the Canterbury Crusaders could never win more than 2 Super 12/14 titles in a row. It’s tough gig. In any year, there are 3-4 genuine candidates for top dog. You do need some luck, along with all the hard work.
ohtani's jacket, said | June 1st 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
The Americans usually classify a dynasty as three in a row.
If they win the title next year, you could maybe argue that three titles in four years is enough. You have to win back-to-back titles to be considered a dynasty of any sort.
At this point, I just see it as a result of the Bulls making the semis in 2005 and 2006 and pressing on.
ohtani's jacket, said | June 1st 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Sheek, the Crusaders won three in a row from ‘98 to 2000.
The Blues made three finals from ‘96-98 and the Brumbies 2000 to 2002. The Crusaders went to the finals for five straight years from 2002 to 2006, which gave them two more oppportunities to three-peat.
I’d say the Bulls finishing 10th last year kinda ruined their chances of a three-peat, but you never know.
Loftus said | June 1st 2009 @ 10:36am | Report comment
Another thing Craig,if you want to make fun of other people s religion,can you please do it amongst your bad taste bully friends?This is a sport site and if you have nothing to say about the Super 14 final please keep quite.You would do yourself a favour.The Bulls always do it after a game,win or lose. We don t expect you to understand it,just to respect it.Almost just like we respect the All Blacks’ Haka. I just want to say to Spiro that I think he s one of the best sport writers in the world and I m so glad I found this website.Keep the good work up! Go the Bulls,my blood is blue.
yeebarr said | June 1st 2009 @ 10:40am | Report comment
craig,
While it’s true there are too many “athletes” and celebrities that thank God for “winning” I also know that many sportsmen (and women) thank God just for just giving them the gifts and abilities they have. (Hey – if you want to see someone thank God for “losing” just come down to see me play club cricket!
Congrats to the Bulls – but let’s come back in a couple of years before we start talking about any dynasty!
Mark said | June 1st 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
Spiro – well done, you summed up what went wrong for the Chiefs perfectly. As soon as the Chiefs were playing catch up they were going to make more mistakes & allow the intercepts, etc. The Bulls just didn’t take the foot off the throat once it was there, real killer instinct in that team !
Temba, chill out bud, you won & by no small margin. If you want ref whinging come here when the Wallabie lose !
Dan said | June 1st 2009 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Craig,
Here here! There’s nothing more narcissistic and self-absorbed than a sportsman/woman thanking god for a victory… If you honestly believe in god, then how could you suppose that he/she/it (whatever) is interested in whether or not you succeed in a “game” when half the planet is either starving or living in constant fear of war. Just play the f#cking game and keep a little perspective about the world we live in please.
Hammer said | June 1st 2009 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Rusty – yes and no .. the conferences will possibly reduce travelling in the rounds .. but won’t mean anything different in the playoffs … you’ll still have potential for SA and NZ sides having to turn around and travel vast distances in a week …
Loftus said | June 1st 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
The reason Spiro mentioned a dynasty was because of the comprehensive victory in a final,not to downgrade the Crusaders dominance in the tournament.If you really try to be neutral you would see many similarities between these 2 clubs.It s also no coincidence that the only 2 times the Crusaders have lost in a S14 semi final was against the Bulls,quite easily.Spiro was talking about the fact that the Bulls showed the same fighting spirit that the Crusaders have always had since this tournament started.Winning 2 of the last 3 S14 s while you lost your father figure manager along the way along with having to play the new ELV’s(which, let be serious, disadvantaged them more than any other teams and took away all their strengths)is a good reason to think they can win more titles.This team will be better next year.
sheek said | June 1st 2009 @ 11:08am | Report comment
OJ,
Thanks for the correction. That 2000 final remains as an outstanding example of macho stupidity by the Brumbies, who refused to change their tactics one iota when it was plainly obvious to even the dim-witted, that plan A (continuous one off the ruck hitups) wasn’t working.
That they only lost to a penalty goal in the last minute doesn’t change the fact it was one of the dumbest exhibitions of rugby I have ever seen. And they were hailing Eddie Jones as the new messiah?????
If Aussies wanted an inkling of how Eddie Jones was going to self-destruct the Wallabies as head coach, this game would have given them the insight.
End of rant….. better now.
sheek said | June 1st 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
OJ,
The amazing thing about the Crusaders winning those 3 consecutive finals in 1998-200, is that they probably shouldn’t have, as they were not the favourite on any occasion.
In 1998, they stopped the red-hot Auckland Blues from three-peating.
In 1999, they beat first placed Queensland Reds in one semi, then beat 3rd placed Otago Highlanders in the final. Otago themselves had beaten the 2nd placed Western Province Stormers in the other semi.
In 2000, they outsmarted another red-hot favourite in ACT Brumbies.
All 3 finals wins were at away venues. Incredibly commendable effort!
Rusty said | June 1st 2009 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
Agree, the talk of dynasties is premature and really only belongs to the Saders for that incredible consecutive run. What we can say though is that winning the superx is alone an incredible feat and for that the current crop of Bulls are a great team.
Craig said | June 1st 2009 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
Loftus, I made no fun of the bulls or anyone esle for thanking there god “for the victory” as Spiro put it. Is it not only fair that is god gave them the victory then he/her/whatever can also be blamed for the defeat? Apologies if I have offended it was just a bit of light heartedness.
BTW to all the sportmans/woman and actors/musicians you are due to receive awards I have seen god this morning and he says your welcome!
Pippinu said | June 1st 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
Jesus Christ – can we leave God out of it!!
Viscount Crouchback said | June 1st 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
I found the Bulls’ prayer circle rather moving. It is wholly understandable that Afrikaners cling – as Barack Obama would put it – to their religion in such dangerous and uncertain times.
The cultural elements of the Bulls’ triumph have been completely overlooked. It’s all very well pointing to their rugby tactics, but seriously: those Bulls won because they were absolutely desperate to provide some succour to their dangerously marginalised community. Those crazy 50,000 Bulls fans waving their flags might look somewhat chauvinistic to Anglo eyes, but really: where else can these chaps express their culture nowadays?
It’s no coincidence that Victor Matfield constantly stresses the importance of the crowd. Rugby for the Bulls goes much, much deeper than it does for everybody else.
Sam Taulelei said | June 1st 2009 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
Until a Kiwi and Aussie team can figure out how to travel to Loftus and beat the Bulls at home in a semifinal or final then you can bank on a Bulls victory every time. Home advantage is never more crucial than in the Super 14 when it involves teams travelling from or to the republic.
It’s not so much an issue when travel is transtasman or within a country itself, but it’s pertinent that not one Kiwi journalist was prepared to publicly back the Chiefs in beating the Bulls and I’d say that if the Bulls had to travel to Hamilton, the odds wouldn’t be in their favour either.
That’s the challenge ahead for Aussie and Kiwi teams as with the expanded finals series beginning in 2011 there will be more travel involved in the playoffs and it will become that much harder to win if that factor can’t be overcome. I sense a resurgence of rugby in the republic and greater success in super and Tri Nations rugby.
True Tah said | June 1st 2009 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
Viscount
on what basis do you claim the Bulls supporters are dangerously marginalised? On the assumption all their supporters are Afrikaaners, which is incorrect. Wasnt Jacob Zuma wearing a bulls jersey just before the game?
If thats the case, the Cheetahs represent an area which is more heavily Afrikaans than their Pretoria-based counterparts, yet you make no mention of them?
Viscount Crouchback said | June 1st 2009 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
True Tah,
I make the claim on the basis that millions of white South Africans have been forced to flee the country because of the dangerously high levels of crime in South Africa. Thousands of farm-dwelling Afrikaners on the high veldt have been slain in their beds by criminals and killers.
Most of the Bulls fans will rarely leave their homes without the most extraordinary prior planning and preparation. Rugby for them is a glorious release: they can spend the day with like-minded folk without worrying that they might be hijacked or shot at traffic lights.
Bloemfontein, where the Cheetahs reside, is generally reckoned to be much safer than the area around Pretoria.
Pippinu said | June 1st 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
If millions of whites have fled South Africa, there can’t be too many left since there were only ever around 5 million to begin with.
Viscount Crouchback said | June 1st 2009 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
The estimate is that around 1m have fled the country, i.e approx 20% of the population. Pretty extraordinary by any measure.
Working Class Rugger said | June 1st 2009 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
True Tah
Have to say that at least in the Afrikaan perspective Viscount actually has a point. Over here in WA there is a every growing South African presence. One of the many South Africans that I know over here these days stated that there were at leasy 100,000 whites now living in Australia. And accoeding to his recent visit back to his home land. That number is set to increase. They see themselves as the threatened minority. As he stated Apartheid in reverse. Don’t know if that entirely accurate but it the the perception they have adopted.
Working Class Rugger said | June 1st 2009 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
There were at their hieght about 12 million.
Pippinu said | June 1st 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
12 million whites??
that’s wildly incorrect
Working Class Rugger said | June 1st 2009 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
Mate thats what I have been told by a ex-pat.
True Tah said | June 1st 2009 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
WCR
I think in 1994 there were between 5-6m white south africans and that was the highest their population ever reached.
As a % they made maybe 20-30% of the population in the 1920s -30s which was their highest %, however from the 50s onwards as a % their numbers dropped significantly, as millions of Africans from many other nations migrated to south africa for employment opportunities, despite the apartheid policies of the South African government.
Who Needs Melon said | June 1st 2009 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
I agree. This belief that God had anything to do with the Bulls victory is ridiculous.
Clearly he was at the French Open at the time.
Working Class Rugger said | June 1st 2009 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
This is probably again perception. Not long ago after he returned he kind of let loose on what he thought of the country he left a decade ago. Wasn’t too complimentary really. I haven’t looked up census figures. Just putting forth something I was told by a south African. I guess for a man that grew up during apartheid it would feel a little like the majority of the nation was once white only to return now to discover the complete opposite.
Viscount Crouchback said | June 1st 2009 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
Yeah, it was about 5-6m at the height, and about 1m have left since. Most white South Africans know people personally who have been murdered by criminals. We can only imagine what these people have gone through. The Bulls triumph is about more than just rugby.
Pippinu said | June 1st 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
No one is ever happy about losing their privileged status, regardless of how it came about in the first place.
Viscount Crouchback said | June 1st 2009 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
It’s not a question of “privileged status”. It’s a question of your children sleeping soundly in their beds at night. What an arrogant, oafish comment. Shame on you.
Greg Russell said | June 1st 2009 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
Having watched this match, I am tempted to proclaim that the McCaw/Carter era of world rugby domination has been superseded by the Matfield/du Preez era.
Anyone who reads my comments at The Roar knows that I am a huge admirer of du Preez, e.g. after last week’s match I wrote “Is Fourie du Preez not only the best halfback in the world, but in fact the best player in any position?”
This week I watched Matfield closely. He is so reminiscent of John Eales in the way he functions both as a tight-five forward and a loose forward at the same time, in fact if anything he is better. Notice also his outstanding rugby intelligence, as evidenced by his try (noticing that Kahui, the man who should have been defending there, was injured).
Noticing the positions of Matfield (2R) and du Preez (HB), naturally I observe that when Australian rugby ruled the roost it had Eales/Farr-Jones and then Eales/Gregan dominating proceedings. I find an obvious pattern here.
Comment-makers at this website seem reluctant to admit that there are great players who make a great difference, and that some positions on the rugby field are more important than others. But these seem to be facts to me.
With this in mind I ask: does Australian rugby have a Matfield or Eales on the horizon? Does Australian rugby have a du Preez or Gregan (1999-2003 version) or Farr-Jones on the horizon? Are we uncomfortable with the answers to these questions? Bringing back Vickerman would be some sort of start, but HB is a big problem.
Jerry said | June 1st 2009 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
Greg – shouldn’t the Matfield/Du Preez combo actually have to prove it’s better than the Carter/McCaw duo first?
I think you’re over-rating Matfield’s general play by a huge margin to be rating him alongside Eales, let alone better.
ohtani's jacket, said | June 1st 2009 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
It’s a bit too early to be proclaiming this, that and the other thing for the Bulls. If they don’t win another title in the next few years then they’ll just be a team that snatched a couple of titles with a good squad.
The “greatness” of the Matfield/du Preez combo will be determined in the Test match arena. What I like about the Bulls is that they came up through the ranks as semi-finalists and kicked on, which a lot of sides don’t do, and played some fantastic running rugby, which South African sides aren’t always noted for.
du Preez and Matfield may be the stars, but it was a team effort and they deserved the spoils. It was an odd season, however, and the format’s changing dramatically (more than people realise at this point), so I think people are jumping the gun a bit. I don’t think this Bulls side will stay together over the next five years, but if a South African side finishes number one overall in the Super 15, they’ll be tough to beat in the new format.
Dan said | June 1st 2009 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
Greg,
Well we will have Rocky coming back next year
Hammer said | June 1st 2009 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Speaking as a kiwi I don’t really give a toss about eras of world rugby domination – whatever the hell that’s’ supposed to mean … rugby’s a team game and having a good lock and a good halfback is only part of the equation … the premise that that is all you require and you’ll stand astride the globe is fanciful at best
I’ll be more than happy to have the now supposedly second grade Carter and McCaw in the next couple of years – but they’re not going to do it all by themselves …
Greg Russell said | June 1st 2009 @ 3:11pm | Report comment
One thing I forgot to add earlier: I found it very interesting that at the end of 2008, Robbie Deans nominated South Africa rather than New Zealand as the best team in world rugby (I’m pretty sure this story was carried on this august website).
It would be exceedingly out of character if Deans said this just to have a go at Graham Henry, so I tend to think he meant it. It would not have been easy for him to come to such a view given how close he has been to McCaw, Carter and a lot of the other key New Zealand people.
Anyway, I know some people always think that I say these things just to have a go at NZ rugby, but it’s not the case. After all, I now have children who could become All Blacks …
Mark said | June 1st 2009 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
But Greg, if your children do become All Blacks what colour jersey will YOU be wearing ?
Muzzioni said | June 1st 2009 @ 3:21pm | Report comment
I agree Greg. I am a devote Crusader and All Black fan. I think This years All Black selection made yesterday has to be one of the weakest on record. There are some great new faces but I think we are quite light on experience in key positions namely No.8, Half Back and 1st Five. Cown is the only one with any real experience and he is still strugling to hold off contenders.
How the French see this opportunity will be interesting as the last game against the French was the AB game of disbileif from 4million kiwis.
I for one like to see new blood coming through and having our backs against the wall is always revealing.
Hammer said | June 1st 2009 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
Ah yes Greg but he also predicted a Hurricanes / Crusaders final … hardly speaks volumes for his apparent appreciation of ‘bok rugby …
if memory serves his analysis was based on the spanking handed out by SA to the Wallabies and also the run away win over England at Twickers .. a case could be made that it was more a case of trying to smooth over his very poor team selection and the very poor all-round performance by the Wallabies in that SA game and also diverting attention away from the Wallaby Twickers achievement – which when put up against the NZ and SA wins didn’t look that flash
Jerry said | June 1st 2009 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
Deans didn’t actually say the Boks were the best, he said the Bok wins over Aus at Ellis Park and England at Twickenham were the best performances of last year, which is a fair enough opinion, though I’d disagree and rate the Aus win over NZ and the subsequent NZ trouncing of Aus as both being better than the Twickenham match.
I don’t think he was saying that to be catty towards Henry, and I’m sure it’s his honest opinion, but we should also bear in mind he’s coaching in a tournament against both NZ and SA and coaches love to position themselves as underdogs.
Dave Stephen said | June 1st 2009 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
Hello Greg Growden,
Any comments after the Bulls victory considering your ill founded predictions and disparaging views?
One Wise man said | June 1st 2009 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
It is a bit early to start talking about a dynasty isn’t it?
They won one game by a lot. Lets not get carried away.
Where did they finish last year? and the year before?
Lets see where they finish next year when other teams work out how to backup the ball carrier.
stuff happens said | June 1st 2009 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
I’ve said this once before but the way to solve the disadvantage of jetlag for the travelling team to or from SA for the S14 final is to have two weeks between the semis & the final. Why is that so hard?
altus said | June 1st 2009 @ 7:21pm | Report comment
Viscount
As an Afrikaner on this list, I can say that that is the biggest bunch of bullshit ever spoken on this list.
Afrikaners being oppressed is laughable. The people who left complaining, are most people who reacted badly to losing political power.
But while white South Africans may have lost political power in the last 15 years, but they still have all the economic cards in the country. Our standard of living puts the rest of Africa (and that includes to black South Africans) to shame.
As for being targets of crime…. that is another strawman-argument. As bad a s the crime is, black South Africans are far more like to be targets of violent crime than whites. It is all a matter of perspective.
Greg Smith said | June 1st 2009 @ 7:39pm | Report comment
O boy … here we go … South African racism debates….
but… back to the religion thing… that CHRISTIAN voodoo doesn’t belong in modern rugby… nor, come to think of it, does the HAKA… ban that rubbish !
Next we’ll have Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons running around on a Saturday… hell… restrict that stuff to the shed…
Or… if you want to advertise your religion or HAKA cultural dance… pay for an ADVERTISING slot… half-time preferably.
Knives Out said | June 1st 2009 @ 7:58pm | Report comment
‘Comment-makers at this website seem reluctant to admit that there are great players who make a great difference, and that some positions on the rugby field are more important than others. But these seem to be facts to me.’
Mmm… I wonder who that means? Completely innacurate. And I doubt very much that Matfield is a better player than Eales.
katzilla said | June 1st 2009 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
Man there is some absolute dribble frothing from the mouths of some of you here.
Greg Smith – The Association of random CAPS and ….. called asking for your union fees.
Your an embarassment to all the humble Saffas i know, all 3 of them.
Greg Russell – Like someone above has said, at least let the New Super Duo of world rugby compete against the best before claiming to have taken the mantle. Its like winning a vacant boxing belt, your not really the best cause the best retired.
Next year the Poosaders will have their star back and it’ll all be a little different i’m afraid.
As for Dynasty, yes these Bulls were great in that final and are the deserved champions this year.
But Dynasty talk is premature.
The problem being that if the Bulls don’t manage to finish top of the table the chances of them winning it will go from high to slim.
Imagine if the Hurricanes had beaten the Chiefs two weeks prior?
Do any of you seriously think that the Bulls would have won the Final so easily away from home in New Zealand?
It certainly wouldn’t have been as clear cut.
Again congrats to the Bulls and the Bulls fans. Not to the Bandwagon jumpers like Mr Greg …… SMITH
Hemjay said | June 1st 2009 @ 10:22pm | Report comment
Wow the Chiefs certainly got a touching up. Sorry for the late post I just got in from the king country hunting and no sky tv out there. Good win to the Bulls, not sure about the Dynasty thing either, once they beat the Blues 3 titles then I might start listening. Funny how some of the Safas are going on dam kids its only your 2nd title in 14years. Your first came on the back of a season when the ABs were rested for the 1st half of the tournament. Congratulations Bulls lets see how you go next year ++
True Tah said | June 2nd 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
I dont think there is too much which will force the Bulls side to fall apart. They gel well as a unit, and it is clear that there are strong bonds between the players, e.g. Habanas dad is the agent for Bakkies Botha. There are plenty of springbok contenders in the Bulls and at a young age, and I would imagine they would want to stick around till 2011.
Someone else has pointed out the Bulls are an incredibly wealthy side, I would probably say they would be the wealthiest team in the southern hemisphere and by some margin – they get huge crowds and their merchandise is huge in south africa, so losing players to Europe would not be an issue as it is for the Kiwi sides, who just dont have the $$$. Also they have an excellent talent identification program (like the Sharks).
I guess in comps like the AFL and NRL, it is geared against sides like the Bulls succeeding in the long term, by virtue of the salary cap. There is no salary cap in South African rugby, so there is no impediment to this. I predict that by 2011, the Bulls will have one another super rugby title.
Knives Out said | June 2nd 2009 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
True Tah,
Don’t you remember how Botha tried to run off to France?
retiredrucker said | June 2nd 2009 @ 7:48pm | Report comment
On the lighter side.
WCR,Craig and Loftus,
As a Force fanatic I’m praying every day we get some cheerleaders as HOT as the Bulls! Lead us not into temptation! I understand what the Bulls are praying for.
Working Class Rugger said | June 2nd 2009 @ 7:54pm | Report comment
Yeah Retired
The SA’s do cheerleader’s alot better than us and the kiwi’s. Though the Hurricanes and blues girls aren’t without their charms.
Greg Russell said | June 2nd 2009 @ 7:55pm | Report comment
Knives, we’ve made our peace with each other and found mutual respect, I was not at all referring to you.
By the way, I could swear I saw a photo of you today with some of your postings elsewhere … bring it back, I like it!
“And I doubt very much that Matfield is a better player than Eales.”
Someone else gave me grief over this. Yes, in my haste I did express the thought with too much conviction and not enough uncertainty.
I also thought about my statement a bit more. Matfield catches and passes better than Eales, e.g. I’m pretty sure it was Matfield who was in the middle of the Bulls’ backline in the movement that laid on Habana’s first try on the weekend. Although it’s a bit bizarre to speak of a tarantula being a “fetcher”, this is something that Matfield does better than Eales. I’m also not aware of Eales having the ability to decode the opposition’s lineout calls, as Matfield regularly does (Eales just took opposition throws with his natural athleticism!). Of course I’ve no doubt that Eales did many things better than VM. And I agree it’s a very dangerous game to play to suggest that anyone could be better than Eales. Have I made myself clearer?
Knives Out said | June 2nd 2009 @ 8:25pm | Report comment
That’s fine, Mr. Russell. I have to admit, my first reaction was that the comment was a bit of a cheap shot aimed in my direction. I hope you appreciate my position and how the comment might be perceived.
I
think that a lot of Australians forget just how good Eales was. I recall that in his first season for Queensland opposition coaches were saying that he would be a world great within a year or two, and how he would easily be a Wallaby by the end of the season. At one point Eales and Garrick Morgan were sensational. Utterly sensational. Matfield, IMO, has never had that all-encompassing work rate that Eales had. Did Eales just steal lineouts through athleticism? Initially, yes as he started in the non-lifting era, but he was still as effective during the professional period of his career.
The photo? That’s Paul O’Connell, I’m afraid, or his eyes to be more precise. There’s no red hair on my head. I’m thinking of changing it to Earl Rose.
Greg Russell said | June 2nd 2009 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
Knives, yes I can understand your interpretation of my comment, I apologize.
Well I did think there was something familiar-looking about the photo, but since it was so small I did not make the connection.
Knives Out said | June 2nd 2009 @ 8:50pm | Report comment
No need to apologize. It’s hot in England, and I’m snappy.