By Spiro Zavos
June 22nd 2009 @ 6:12am
The Lions comeback sets up a terrific second Test
Not long after half-time when the Springboks set a 35m rolling maul and then forced a try to take a 26 – 7 lead over the British and Irish Lions, it looked like all the pundits and experts (including Warren Gatland, an assistant Lions coach) were correct in allotting favouritism to the home side.
Then the several things happened which turned the Test and almost enabled the Lions to snatch a miraculous victory.
Lions coach Ian McGeechan gave Phil Vickery, the burly England prop, the hook. Vickery left the field with the bewildered and defensive look of a man who had been mugged so expertly he still wasn’t sure of what had been taken from him.
In this case it was his reputation as a great scrummer by the unlikely Tendia Mtawarira (‘the Beast’), a prop more noted for his barging runs than his scrum skills.
Adam Jones came on as Vickery’s replacement and immediately the Lions scrum steadied. And with the steady scrum and the drying up of scrum penalties to the Springboks, the Lions found and began to execute their game plan. Time after time their centres, the burly Jamie Roberts and the pugnacious master Brian O’Driscoll, carved through and set up tries and penalty shots.
Peter de Villiers, the flaky Springboks coach, around the same time began to start taking off the heart of the pack, Mtawarira, Heinrich Brussow, Bakkies Botha, and John Smit. It was as if the coach was trying to warehouse these players for the next Test.
The Lions roared back.
And it was some seeming gamesmanship that allowed John Smit to come back on to the field when the Springboks were desperately defending their 26 – 21 lead that steadied the home side.
Dion Carsten’s injury seemed to be very well timed. Smit, who is an excellent captain who saved the Springboks in the hectic last minutes of the quarter-final against a rampant Fiji in the Rugby World Cup of 2007, settled his side this time, as well.
Despite their magnificent lineout, with Victor Matfield now in the John Eales class as a lineout jumper and poacher, and their strong scrum, the Springboks gained only 32 per cent of the territorial possession and did not go through seven phases at any stage in the Test. The Lions had seven seven-phase sections of play.
More importantly, they cut the Springbok defences many times in the Test from their first attacking scrum when Ugo Monye was robbed of a try by a superb tackle and flip of the ball by Jean de Villiers.
Monye lost another try, too, when the ball was knocked out of his inside arm (when it should have been held on the outside) near the tryline by Jacques Fourie.
When the Springboks smashed the Lions scrum, over-powered the Lions rucks and mauls and then launched their 35m maul (the best since England’s epic 45m rumble at Melbourne against the Wallabies in 2003). I must admit I had a frisson of pleasure wondering how the northern hemisphere blowhards who denigrate southern hemisphere forward play were now feeling.
The criticism of the New Zealand referee, Bryce Lawrence, was so muted by the usual British press suspects you realised that they must have recognised that his rulings were correct.
I cannot forget an occasion in Sydney some years ago when, after a Test against England, I came into a room of British journalists who were discussing among each other how to write up their leads on how appalling the referee had been. Clearly, the cabal was not operating this time.
This was one Test, anyway, where the Lions players can only blame themselves for their defeat. They allowed the Springboks to intimidate them early on. They gave away an early soft try. Then they conceded too many kickable penalties. Stephen Jones missed a couple of penalties in return. Their scrum was pulverised. And tries were butchered by poor skills.
To be honest, as well, when the Springboks went to their big lead I thought that the Lions were done. But to their credit they came back. Towards the end of the Test they got themselves into a position where it could have been snatched away from the Springboks. The return of Smit and a botched lineout by the Lions finally killed off a magnificent comeback.
Where does this leave the series?
The conventional wisdom before the Test was that if the Springboks won the first Test they would go on to win the next two Tests at altitude to take out a 3 – 0 wipeout. The theory behind this was that the Springboks would get better as they got more match practice and the Lions challenge would fizzle out if it was not immediately successful.
The British media is now pushing a new line that in 1989 the Lions lost their first Test against the Wallabies, and then won the next two Tests. The Lions coach on that tour? A certain Mr Ian McGeechan.
McGeechan is being seen as the master coach who has won more important matches than any other coach (something I’d contest). But there is no doubting that McGeechan has prepared this Lions side very well, and has won two series as the Lions coach, something that no other coach has achieved.
In the last 20 minutes the Lions looked to have the Springboks at their mercy which few pundits (if any, and certainly not me) had predicted.
They had also saved the Lions franchise.
For before the Test there were suggestions that if the Lions were thrashed the point of the Lions existing, which is based on the hopes of their fans that they will be successful, would disappear.
Now, though, we are now set for an intriguing second Test, and for a continuation of future tours no matter what happens for the rest of this tour.
Will the Springboks improve and be dominant at altitude? Or will the Lions, seemingly a fitter side than the Springboks and with much better skills in the backs, win the Test and set themselves for an unlikely series victory?
Pretoria on Saturday holds the answers to these questions.
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...
(96)
van der Merwe said | June 22nd 2009 @ 8:17am | Report comment
While it is always sad to see a legend’s career end before your very eyes, it gave me immense satisfaction to see how the “overweight hooker” and the “weak quota prop” crushed their opposition. Poor Phil! I guess he can now empathise with Al and Matt.
Burger will probably run out for his 50th Cap next week, by the way.
Ian Noble said | June 22nd 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Geech seems to have forgotten that in .97, Tom Smith and Paul Wallace were the Lions props; both similar build to Jones. Vickey at 6′2” was too tall allowing the Boks to burrow into him. Also Geech is fixated by the Wasps connection as Tim Payne has been called up as back up to Sheridan, who has a back injury. Sorry but I don’t rate Payne.
In spite of my concerns, what a test match and can’t wait for next week. Ironic that so many SH posters and hacks have decried NH back play yet in Durban all the invention and exciting play came from the Lions once they had settled into their game.
Mart said | June 22nd 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Cracking Test, great contrast in styles, compelling rugby. Despite the Boks success in the scrum (espacially in the first half) the Lions basically crossed the line 6 times and only grounded 3 so it could be claimed they lost it. I thought the Kiwi ref had an OK game generally but with the huge exception of penalising the Lions at the scrums. The Lions captain’s post match comments were spot on. Vickery (and the rest of the Lions pack) was comprehensively outplayed in the 1st half especially but he’s not so dumb as to give away the same penalty 6 or 7 times (especially in kickable range). Quite clear Beast was illegally engaging almost every time but not picked up once ! I recall one penalty just before half time (in front of the posts) when even the SA commentators on replay said “well, we aint got a clue what that one was for” and they aren’t the most neutral as we know ! A real shame since the ridiculous to-fro on laws from the IRB means it’s all “subject to interpretation” these days, and with a 5 point margin this effectively impacted the result of the game. I can’t recall such odd scrum reffing since Andrew Watson in the 2003 RWC Final. Having said all that, great Test in every sense. Hard to argue with 3-0 to Boks now but could have been veeery different.
Ian Noble said | June 22nd 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Mart
Don’t write off the Lions off yet, as scratch side playing together for only six weeks against a well oiled machine being together for at least 3/4 years it was not a bad performance. Playing at altitude may be problem but they will give it a good crack and another week together should improve the performance.
Vincent said | June 22nd 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
What about Croft? and to think he was going to be left out of the Lions selection! can;t wait for the next test!
Knives out said | June 22nd 2009 @ 9:21am | Report comment
This loss is the fault of the selectors. Unfortunately Sheridan and Murray were injured, but Adam Jones had been far superior to Vickery during the provincial games, however, McGeechan and company decided that they were going to select a side to out work the Springboks in South Africa in the first Lions test in 12 years. Good luck with that gentlemen. The ‘Fleet Street hacks’ (Who are these people?) are probably emphasising McGeechan’s Australian victories simply because prior to the tour they refused to admit his obvious weaknesses.
As expected – by few, I might add – the heavyweight Springbok pack went to work on the Lions pack and got their rewards. Vickery was penalised for 9 points and for 6 of those Mtawarira was boring in and up which is clearly illegal. Regardless, SA had the impetus and clearly had the shove on so good luck to them. That they were allowed to was down to the composition of the forwards. Vickery has never been a great scrummager – he is 6′3 and the only great scrummaging tighthead of that height over the past decade has been Carl Hayman. Why on earth, then, was he selected with Gethin Jenkins, another erratic scrummager? There simply was no balance to the front row and boy did it show.
The success of the current Lions tour lies in the fact that McGeechan has taken a common sense approach but this seems to have eluded the team selection with the coaches seemingly having forgotten that the scrum is the breakfast of rugby.
Mtwawira was made to look like the converted flanker he is during the Autumn tests because big packs including at least one strong scrummaging prop and one donkey second row absorbed his power and left him tired and bemused. The Lions pack did not have the balance and therefore the capacity to do that. Not many doubted the forward play of SA (Which Mr. Zavos seems to confuse with continuing and accurate criticisms of Australia) and it was no surprise to see them maul the way they did given they have always been a big mauling team and have played together for so long as a squad.
The lineout was always going to be an issue and Lee Mears did not fulfill his part of the bargain here, however, the breakdown was much less of an issue with Brussouw being basically redundant, alongside the much vaunted Pierre Spies. So, aside from the scrum the forward exchanges were rather give and take.
The great irony for me is the same that Ian Noble alludes to. SA played what one would consider the SH stereotype of NH rugby, and they did it very, very well, but beyond that they looked utterly clueless. Perhaps this is down to a lack of game time, but I have long had my suspicions that the highly rated SA backs aren’t actually particularly impressive in contrast to their NZ counterparts. An interesting parallel is that the bemoaned ‘plodding’ NH players showed, spark and dynamism. This series was always far more winnable than NZ in 2005 but maybe that chance has now gone. Overall, I really enjoyed the first test. As hurtful as it was, it was also a pleasure to watch SA play such mistake-free perfectly executed and effective rugby in the first half. The question remains, however, who can improve the most? I think the Lions can but will that translate into a win? Maybe SA will blow the Lions away, maybe they’ll sneak a win. Whatever happens the first test was memorable. I just wish that the Lions were facing Australia next week.
Vincent said | June 22nd 2009 @ 10:09am | Report comment
And as for everyone crying out that the “Beast” was scrummaging illegally…as a prop I say you get away with what you can, but at the same time you must be able to ‘discipline’ your opposing prop so he does not get the upper hand..obviousy Vickery failed in that aspect…I really don’t expect to see him feature in the run on squad.
Amateur Hour said | June 22nd 2009 @ 10:11am | Report comment
I wish Australia was playing the Lions next week too. Unfortunately we have to face France, which looks like a tougher and more composite group than the Lions did on the weekend. What a try to Cederic Heymans!
There is no way that PDV will be allowed to skip his meds again on game day, so we are not likely to see the ludicrous, wholesale type changes again that were made mid-way through the second half on Saturday, which was the only thing that prevented the scoreline ending up where it was headed when it was 26-7.
The Test this week is at Pretoria, home to the Bulls and a large portion of the Boks starting 15. There is a snowball’s chance in hell that they will not be absolutely primed for this match having blown out the cobwebs last weekend after a decent lay-off for a large number of their players.
Australia caught them with their pants down last year and managed to chalk up a win on Sth African soil (at altitude), but the next week were comprehensively smashed by 50-8. The Lions did not do them the indignity of a defeat, but they did go close, so I’m expecting asimilar style of retribution and scoreline.
Spiro, I don’t think that Fourie du Preez did much on the weekend to substantiate your claims that he is the world’s best at the moment. Was he perhaps carrying an injury?
One moment that I keep thinking back to is the on-field arguement between the Kiwi referee and the French TMO regarding the appropriate decision after Monye’s try was judged to have been held up. Classic. Did you catch any of it in the UK?
Mart said | June 22nd 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Knives – “Vickery was penalised for 9 points and for 6 of those Mtawarira was boring in and up which is clearly illegal. Regardless, SA had the impetus and clearly had the shove on so good luck to them”. And SA won by 5 points !!!
AH – agree with the great ref / TMO comment for the disallowed Monye try. Not sure of the value of the TMO if he suggests a 5 metre scrum and the ref over rules and gives a 22 dropout ! But I guess this was a Kiwi getting back at a Frog for recent rugby history between the 2 Nations ?!?!
Hayden said | June 22nd 2009 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Great game, great come back form the Lions, but I can’t help but feel that all this talk of a close game next week is a pipe dream for Lions supporters. This was their best chance, and they came up short. The Boks won’t take their foot off the throat again if they are in the same position. Their only hope is that PdV shows up dressed as John the Baptist during the week and proclaims Earl Rose as the new messiah, and puts him in the starting line up.
van der Merwe, if you’re reading: is it just me, or is Smit the Boks talisman? It seems they are twice the team with him on the field, and look very shaky when he is off.
Boks by 20 next week. Sorry.
MikeN said | June 22nd 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
I was in total agreement with one of the commentators when Heinrich Brussow was replaced. He is a fetcher and was playing like George Smith does, disrupting much of the Lion’s ball at the breakdown. He is something SA rugby has rarely had and they do no appreciate the importance of his type of play. The former Springbok commentating on thr sidelines showed this when he supported the inclusion of the bigger bash and barge player being inserted. I doubt George Smith would have had many tests under his belt if he was South African
The Sprinboks started struggling the moment Brussow was taken off. The scrum had already become more even once the Beast tired and Jones came on. The Lion’s just started getting faster better flowing ball without Brussow.
The only player who should have a shot at displacing Brussow is Burger as, while he is not a fetcher, he is brutal in his disruption of the flow of the oppositions ball.
van der Merwe said | June 22nd 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
Hayden, undoubtedly.
Mike, Brussow had a quiet game. If you go back and actually focus on him you’ll see that, contrary to expectations, he didn’t really attack any rucks and while we are at it, the lack of physicality that Burger brings to the table was apparent, but then, I suppose it’s unrealistic to expected him (or anyone else for that matter) to impose himself to that degree. Nevertheless, things did indeed begin to get sloppy shortly after he left the field.
Spiro Zavos said | June 22nd 2009 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Graham Rowntree, the Lions scrum coach, has issued a long press statement and interview that virtually endorsed the referee’s decision to penalise Phil Vickery eight times for three successful penalty kicks, virtually the winning of the Test for the Springboks.
On the referee: ‘The referee, as he’s been asked to do, and as we have been asking him to do, rewarded the dominant scrum. I think they won that engagement they were going forward, their movement was upwards but at the time of the engagement they were quite legitimate … we were just under pressure and we take that on the chin.’
On the Springboks scrum and how to improve next week: ‘We will be looking very hard at those scrums where we were so vulnerable in that first half … I think the changes we made sorted it out …’
As I said in my blog the relative silence of the usual suspects about bagging the referee tended to give the game away as far as Phil Vickery’s scrumming was concerned. Adam Jones almost miraculously stopped the rot as soon as he came on. This suggests that the referee was not favouring the Springboks in his interpretations.
The big worry for the Springboks is the ease with which Jamie Roberts in particular broke through their defensive line. If Shane Williams had been given the chances that Monje blew, it would have been game over.
Will Ian McGeechan make the change to bring in a finisher like Williams? You’d have to think that having to win the Test at Pretoria to stay alive in the series this is what he’ll do.
MikeN said | June 22nd 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
I think it is a sad end to a fine career for Phil Vickery. I wonder how the English press is treating him? Is it like they treated Al Baxter or with more respect. The matches I have seen in the S14 with the Beast have shown that he tends to be more explosive in the first half then fades in the second. This happened on Saturday as well. Vickery had worn him out by the time he was replaced, but it was disasterous for the Lions up until then.
Yes Spiro, Jamie Roberts just exploded when the ball started flowing the Lions way. Neither coach can be satisfied with his selection or substition policies.
Compare Monje’s effort to Cedric Heymans’. One blew two chances he should have nailed and the other score a try that was all but impossible to score. Best try I can remember seeing.
van der Merwe, I agree he is not yet at GS’s level of play, but he was quick to the breakdown and slowed things down for the Lions even if he did not dominate and steal possession. He had a more positive influence on the game than his replacement. I am not sure he is ready to start yet if Burger is available, but they should keep working with him.
Jameswm said | June 22nd 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
Let me ask something.
When was the last time the Lions won a test series?
When did they last win a test?
How many tests have they lost in a row? Is it 6 now?
I wonder if playing as a composite team rather than building up years of combinations is a problem for professional rugby players.
And it brings out the old chestnut – who would you pick if a SANZAR team played against the Lions?
Beast Mtawarira
Bismarck du Plessis or Stephen Moore
John Smit or ??
Victor Matfield
Bakkies Botha
Rocky Elsom
Richie McCaw
Pierre Spies
Fourie du Preez
Dan Carter
Bryan Habana
Berrick Barnes
Stirling Mortlock
Sivivatu or even Turner right now?
Matt Giteau at fullback – he could be lethal there
Bench
Moore or du Plessis
other prop?
Horwill or Thorn
Palu
G Smith
Jean de Villiers
Muliaina
Note – Giteau backs up at half in case of injury
Many of the selections are very tough I might add!
MikeN said | June 22nd 2009 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
Jon Smit is good but Ben Robinson and the Waratahs had a points decision win over the Sharks scrum with him at Tighthead. Ben Robinson has done more, and more consistantly, than the Beast this year and can do it for the whole game.
Mart said | June 22nd 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Spiro – Rowntree: get real ! You’ve been sucked in. This is merely “diplomacy and tact”. The Lions will do nothing to upset the incoming referee (rightly so). The real issue is, as Geech saidright after the game, interpretation by a specificref. No-one (UK scribes, Lions management etc) will argue the Boks scrum wasn’t dominant. What IS at issue is whether the SA scrum (Beast especially) was legal. Simple point since on other days (as we have seen in S14 this season) Beast would have got ping’d more often than not. If that had happened the Lions probably would have won. Couldabe, wannabe etc etc but the net is that given the ridiculous IRB “non clarifaction” of a unified set of global laws / interpretations teams don’t have a clue how to effect certain plays in a game and expect a “standard” referee’s outcome. I personally am a subscriber that “the ref is God” (rather than vide replay etc) but in this – and many other – cases the ref’s decision on his interpretation of the laws has a huge impact on the result. Not good if you haven’t picked which way the ref thinks !
Not sure why you say “silence of usual suspects” – Stephen Jones (assume you were refering to him) bagged the ref in his Sunday Times article for not penalising Beast for illegal scrumming. At the same time that he acknowledged the SA scrum was hugely dominant. No argument from me on either observation !
Agree with you too on the Lions ease of breaking the line … I thought Moyne was a tad unlucky, but will take your point on that, but Williams has been very out of form on this tour. Agree that last year’s Williams would be an automatic selection, this year I’mnot so sure…..
Vincent said | June 22nd 2009 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
Question: does anyone know how the reversal of John Smit then coming back on after he was replaced works?
matta said | June 22nd 2009 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
Front Row – Specialist positions. As far as I am aware its viewed as one unit so if you have to cover and injury you can….
AndyS said | June 22nd 2009 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
Yes, a pretty convenient “injury” to get the captain back on when the wheels started to fall off…
matta said | June 22nd 2009 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
correct. Many teams making a farce of the ruling.
Ziggy said | June 22nd 2009 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
Unbelievable nonsense being written! Or else I watched a different game. The big change came when the SA players were substituted en masse. Up until then it was a totally outclassed Lions side. Men playing boys. Once the Boks lost their dominant forward momentum the Lions bravely (and intelligently fought back). Vickery has rightly been blasted for his performance but I wonder about the Lions second row efforts in the scrum? Did they add the the necessary shove to help him steady himself? Note, for example, how ‘tight’ Spies played for a No 8, often exerting great shove in the scrums instead of just hanging on, waiting to break quickly. That’s why he had a realtively quiet match. The entire Lions scrum was being pushed about like little muppets. Fortunately for them they were not facing the Wallaby or AB scrum which, I believe, is better than the Boks!
Agree you cannot write the Lions off especialy as the Boks desperately need to sort out their midfield defence by playing
Olivier in the centre. Otherwise BOD is going to have a lot more fun whenever he gets his hands on the ball. Plus Ruan Pienaar is no Honiball when it comes to tackling and this gives any side the opportunity to break through that channel all day long.
If the Lions only get 40% possession they can win through their backs providing they can quicken up their pace to the breakdowns.
Greg Smith said | June 22nd 2009 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
An old British War tune goes, ‘We are marching to Pretoria, Pretoria, Pretoria … Pretoria here we come !”
Call me cynical but the ’script’ especially against the backdrop of ‘England’s Golden Age – leading up to London 2012 Olympics’ reads ‘Lions heroic victory in Pretoria !’
(Only ‘fair’ way to counter (from a Boks point of view)… walk on a knife’s edge giving the Lions a big first half lead … then re-writing the script to read, ‘Bok heroic comeback in Pretoria !’
If the Boks can successfully do this … then without a doubt they’ll be the ones to watch come 2011 RWC. They’ll have mastered a large variety of game situation styles giving them the dynamism that won the the RWC in 2007. ( aka The learned & maintained skill to adapt & alter rapidly to various styles of play & still be effective !)
2nd Test – Halftime scoreline Lions 21 – 3
Full time score Springboks 33 – 24
Rugby Fan said | June 22nd 2009 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
Why can’t leading rugby journalists resist attacking each other in petty schoolyard feuds? I enjoy reading what Spiro Zavos has to say about rugby – so much so I’ve bought a couple of his books – and think his general observations above are interesting. His piece is ruined for me, however, by sniping unnecessarily at “northern hemisphere blowhards” and “the usual British press suspects”. He’s not the only culprit because I’m well aware that there are British and Irish journalists who are similarly boorish. I’ve always thought that rugby journalism is a class act when compared with football journalism but you don’t generally see soccer writers laying into each other. Even the spats on the cricket pages are less vitriolic. I’ll support my team through thick and thin. I’m elated when they do well and crushed when they lose but my whole sense of self-worth and my entire world view isn’t shot to pieces when they do fall short.
TV and radio commentators and colour men are as one-eyed as they’ve always been but they generally maintain of degree of respect for the opposition. Perhaps this is because they often share a studio with rival commentators and former players from all sides. On another note, I was struck recently by how forthright but basically good-natured the conversations are on the Ruggamatrix podcast and I wish the same was also true of more written rugby journalism. Many of our print journalists, however, go beyond good nature banter. In an internet forum, what they write would be regarded as little short of flaming or trolling.
Mr Zavos, please use the wealth of knowledge you have about our great game to shed some light on how matches unfold and how players and coaches cope with the challenges they face. Lay off the silly point-scoring against other writers. Yes, you aren’t the only guilty party but you are a journalist of some stature so I’d hope you would set a better example.
ohtani's jacket, said | June 22nd 2009 @ 6:00pm | Report comment
The Lions should’ve won that Test. In fact, I think they would’ve, they just ran out of time.
They created far more scoring opportunities, but fell too far behind — a combination of poor finishing and fantastic defence. Penalties wouldn’t have been an issue if they’d kept in touch on the scoreboard.
Greg Smith said | June 22nd 2009 @ 6:37pm | Report comment
@ OJ -’ Should’ve’ – rubbish ! Boks should’ve won by 60 points ! (All things considered)
This variation of rugby union (ie B&I Lions vs whomever) is basically tilted in the Lions favour as an extravaganza.
The home team don’t have the same luxuries and still the Boks beat the Lions at THEIR (Lions) game.
If you put Bruce Lee into a ring with Mike Tyson to fight according to WBA Boxing rules. And Bruce Lee beat Tyson using only boxing rules, you wouldn’t be too critical of Bruce Lee because he’s adapted to another style.)
This is what the Boks did. They are not known for ‘festival’ rugby. Yet, they beat the Lions at ‘festival’ rugby ?
Coming up for Mike Tyson … in this scenario is like supporting Windows against a Mac (running a virtual Windows clone)
The Springboks (the Macs) didn’t look too bad running virtual Windows ! Now lets see if the Lions can play proper highveld TEST rugby at Loftus and Ellis Park !
Darryl said | June 22nd 2009 @ 6:41pm | Report comment
I’m not going to get into the opinions of posters here on the legality of our Bok scrum. Even Rowntree (who I applaud for his candor) acknowledges we had the better of the scrum.
What I will say however, is that while the Lions may take heart from their comeback, they should not be in any denial that their comeback was largely due to the incompetence, ineptness, naivety and foolishness of a Springbok coach clearly out of his depth at international level, who should be coaching a provincial team and learning his lessons at that level rather than during a Springbok Lions test match. While I take nothing away from the admitted supremacy of the Lions backline compared to the (boring) Springbok one, the en masse replacement of our key players was the turning point in the test match. How Pieter de Villiers, whose utterances during press briefings and interviews continue to defy logic, could say we looked ‘flat’ so he wanted to inject some life into the team (when we had just completed a momentous rolling maul) just boggles my mind.
Of course a bench replacement should never upend the performance of the team, but so many so early and so quick was sure to be disruptive. This is a top notch Lions team who deserve the respect of 80mins of total concentration, not clearing our bench as if we were playing Italy. We will never know what the score would have been if this decision had not been made. But if the Boks go on to lose this series (which make no mistake, I belief is totally possible now), it’ll be because PdV snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and gave the Lions new found confidence and belief in themselves, that a first test thrashing would have completely knocked out of their sails in this series.
Greg Smith said | June 22nd 2009 @ 6:50pm | Report comment
That ‘knock out’ wasn’t ever going to happen … it’s tantamount to suicide in viewership figures
All over Europe, they are shouting – ‘It’s alive !’ – Well done to the Springboks for it !
Brad said | June 22nd 2009 @ 7:12pm | Report comment
The game was alot like the world cup final 2007. The lions were trying to play rugby instead of allowing the boks to play and then kicking the ball downfield. What the boks do is let the opposition play so that they make all the mistakes and allow the boks to score and hopefully get the intercept. Only the All Blacks can succesfully “play” against the boks and still score and win. SA are weak ball carriers and are just good at gaining territory and letting the opposition flounder. The coaches are to blame for the lions failure
Darryl said | June 22nd 2009 @ 7:37pm | Report comment
Brad, to say that SA are weak ball carriers is to be in denial about the S14 final played this year. The Bulls have shown they are anything but weak ball carriers. And I’m a Sharks fan, btw! The Bok coaches are to blame for the Boks failure. And with your WC final comment, let’s not forget that up to the WC final, the Boks were one of the highest try scoring teams of the tournament, with Habana tied for the try scoring record. What some people don’t seem to learn, is that a final will always be a close encounter played conservatively. There’s just too much at stake to play high risk rugby.
And look, let’s also not forget that the bulk of the Bok team had not played any rugby for as much as 6 weeks prior to this Lions test. All things considered they were phenomenal in that first half. Take any SH team: Bok, AB, or Aus and ask them to play their best rugby after 6 weeks off the field and they won’t be up to the task. The Boks will get stronger – if their coaches allow them to! We do need a selection change or two though. I’d put Kankowski at #8 (Spies does not seem to feature in strong forward encounters) and get Adrian Jacobs back to Currie Cup training with the Sharks where he belongs. Burger will most likely play as well, and it will be interesting to see whether that’s a good move or whether it would have been better to keep Brussow there.
ABMAN said | June 22nd 2009 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
Darryl,
One game by one team does not make them great ball carriers.
I wouldn’t say they South Africa are bad but to call them anything but weak on the basis of one game is a bit of a stab in the dark. I don’t think there is much of a muchness between any of the SANZAR teams we all play a similar game.
Knives out said | June 22nd 2009 @ 8:22pm | Report comment
This old substituion chestnut, eh, Ziggy. Smit and Mtawarira stay on until the 65th minute. Adam Jones is brought on at the 45th minute. The Lions scrum is A OK. The Springboks don’t have the ball. Must be PdV’s fault. JdV hasn’t played in weeks and is replaced by Jacques Fourie in the 57th minute – that’s hardly a game breaker, and Brussouw is replaced by Rossouw on the 52nd minute – this is hardly an issue as Brussouw has been irrelevant and Rossouw, theoretically, can add far more to the powerful mauling game of SA. IMO, the only bad substitution is Botha, who has a great work ethic, but at the end of the day these players haven’t played in ages so what’s the point in risking them? Any coach would have done the same. PdV is clearly a fool but it was obvious in the 1st half that were the Lions to receive any ball they would be dangerous. That ball supply dried up when Adam Jones came on. That isn’t the coaches fault.
Ian Noble said | June 22nd 2009 @ 8:24pm | Report comment
Both teams will have learnt alot from the 1st Test. The Lions in the first half were undercooked; the ploy by the Boks for the Lions to play against 2nd rate teams in the lead up obviously worked. The Lions only started playing in the 2nd half. The Boks on their part will not be so lax in the 2nd half, but a number of them did appear to be blowing alot and were off the pace.
By the way where are the Boks supporters? My impression was a sea of red shirts with a great number of empty seats presumably reserved for Boks supporters.
Darryl said | June 22nd 2009 @ 8:53pm | Report comment
Knives out, I guess we all have rose-tinted glasses for our own teams. If you don’t think that the game only changed when the en masse substitutions were made then you’re fooling yourself. But we can talk until the cows come home – the record books will show that the Boks won this past weekend, and the proof of the pudding will be this Saturday.
Is it just me or is anybody else a little worried about the performance of a French referee for this Saturday who can’t even speak English (he was the TMO this last weekend who could not explain himself in English to Lawrence). That was a very worrying moment.
Greg Smith said | June 22nd 2009 @ 8:54pm | Report comment
The Red Sea Test ! (I’ll call it that and remember it as a ‘classic’) A virtual home game for the Lions.
Durban is basically Little England – an indication of the ’soft landing’ gifted the Lions. They well and truly mucked it up !
South Africa has gifted the Lions the FUL ROYAL treatment… private aircraft, luxury accomodation, the best training facilities, their own private chef, a maid(each) to wipe their backsides, handsome pay checks, 6 soft warm up games, a great schedule, nice weather, home support, the ‘lions share’ of fans, and a soft landing in Durban !
We expect in return – some rugby ! Simple ? Not a 20 point lead before halftime where South Africans begin to cringe in embarrassment & pity for the poor Lions and have to evacuate the field to narrow the final margin ?
(And then bear ‘tough talk’ from their experts !) ha, ha, ha, ha…… toooooo much… ha, ha !
Knives out said | June 22nd 2009 @ 8:57pm | Report comment
Not sure why Mr. Zavos is bringing up the scrum issue, especially when this quote confirms the exact opposite of the point he is trying to make.
‘Graham Rowntree, the Lions scrum coach, has issued a long press statement and interview that virtually endorsed the referee’s decision to penalise Phil Vickery eight times for three successful penalty kicks, virtually the winning of the Test for the Springboks.
On the referee: ‘The referee, as he’s been asked to do, and as we have been asking him to do, rewarded the dominant scrum. I think they won that engagement they were going forward, their movement was upwards but at the time of the engagement they were quite legitimate … we were just under pressure and we take that on the chin.’
Now, it’s a long time since I left school, but it seems to be that Mr. Rowntree is highlighting the fact that Mtawarira illegally scrummaged upwards with this juxtaposition, ‘their movement was upwards but at the time of the engagement they were quite legitimate’ but overall is confirming that SA had the dominant scrum. Damning with faint praise. I think this is a clever piece of psychology. His attitude is similar to the majority of fans, very few of whom have moaned about some of the refereeing.
Knives out said | June 22nd 2009 @ 9:00pm | Report comment
Darryl, my point is that there weren’t en masse substitutions. The captain and Mtawarira, part of a unit that had dominated, played against Adam Jones and a reinvigorated scrum for 20 minutes. Other than that I don’t see how JdV coming off had anything to do with the comeback, and neither do I see how Rossouw had anything to do with the comeback. PdV didn’t take of 7 people at the same time. He staged his substitions and I think you’re fooling yourself by blaming your coach as opposed to your team who had no idea what to do when their supply of possession dried up.
Brad said | June 22nd 2009 @ 9:47pm | Report comment
The worst part of the match for rugby union is that if your prop is outscrummed you get penalised. In this case the lions lost 9 points. Perhaps because Habana is faster than Monye they should get a penalty there as well. And the Maul!! we say that rugby should not resemble gridiron but with the maul players are allowed to protect the ball carrier and are not allowed to be taken out. Rugby union is being run by idiots. it
Knives out said | June 22nd 2009 @ 9:56pm | Report comment
Brad, I thought the new maul interpretation meant that the ball carrier had to be at the front of the maul. This wasn’t the case on Saturday, and it hasn’t been the case all tour, if I am correctly informed, that is. That isn’t a criticism of SA because the Lions have done it too.
Darryl said | June 22nd 2009 @ 10:37pm | Report comment
“Knives out”, ok sure, it wasn’t en masse as in all at the same moment, but my point is that he took off critical people at the worst possible time and the Lions fightback came as a result of this. But don’t take my word for it, let’s look at the facts:
46 mins – BOK TRY! Another excellent rolling maul and Heinrich Brussow scores his first try in Springbok colours.
51 mins – Springbok substitution. Danie Rossouw comes on for try scorer Brussow.
57 mins – More Boks subs as Andries Bekker and Jaque Fourie join the action.
65 mins – More changes for the Boks. Morne Steyn comes on for Pienaar to earn his first Springbok cap, while local heroes Smit and Mtawarira leave the field to a huge applause.
67 mins – LIONS TRY!
I rest my case.
Frank O'Keeffe said | June 22nd 2009 @ 11:00pm | Report comment
It’ll be a HUGE disappointment to me as a rugby fan if this series is lost after two Tests. I was really entertained everytime the Lions got the ball to their centres. When they let the ball loose try scoring opportunities happened. O’Connell said it after the game, when the Lions played rugby they played it very well. They just didn’t have enough time to play rugby (too many lost opportunities).
I really want to see this series go to three Tests. The Lions have it in them to win games, but the more I think about it, I can’t see the Boks losing two straight games at home. The more I ponder about that, the more I think that was perhaps the Lions Test to lose.
Greg Smith said | June 22nd 2009 @ 11:06pm | Report comment
So South Africa got 20+ caps out in the game, didn’t get a yellow or red (or a post match citing), kept the series alive, no major name sullying incidents, minor to no injuries. (they won (by a couple sufficient points)) —-> not the worst day you could have in the office in Durban with a house full of Lions supporters ?
I have a feeling the pain is only just beginning.
4 – 0 (with an ultra embarrassing Emerging Boks pummeling)
Darryl said | June 22nd 2009 @ 11:08pm | Report comment
Greg Smith, you’re absolutely right. I shoulda seen what you were up to all along and joined in. Stirring is far more fun than the serious tangent I’ve ended up on.
matta said | June 22nd 2009 @ 11:52pm | Report comment
nothing more humble and rational than a Saffer after a win is there?
Darryl said | June 22nd 2009 @ 11:54pm | Report comment
matta, pot kettle mate… pot kettle
matta said | June 22nd 2009 @ 11:55pm | Report comment
sorry, what was your name again?
matta said | June 22nd 2009 @ 11:59pm | Report comment
what I mean by that is, I dont even really remember you posting on here much..let alone enough for you to form an opinion on me.
Or I take it that was a swipe and Aussie on the forum in general..
If not, please show me a case where I have gloated and shown a poor sportsmen like attitude what the Wallabies have won?
Darryl said | June 23rd 2009 @ 12:10am | Report comment
Haha, classic!
“I dont even really remember you posting on here much..let alone enough for you to form an opinion on me.” … which by logical deduction, then neither do you have reason to form an opinion of me
Anyways, I was assuming your point was more general/generic … as was mine. I wasn’t taking it personally as such. YMMV.
Darryl said | June 23rd 2009 @ 12:15am | Report comment
So who was “nothing more humble and rational than a Saffer after a win is there?” meant for?
matta said | June 23rd 2009 @ 12:20am | Report comment
Sorry, I didnt even know you were from South Africa. I was having a poke at Greg.
Brad said | June 23rd 2009 @ 12:20am | Report comment
group hug?
Greg Smith said | June 23rd 2009 @ 12:21am | Report comment
- surely not me ?
We beat the the worlds greatest ‘festival’ rugby team (Lions) at their own game in Durban with a team that doesn’t know much about ‘festival’ rugby !
Rationally – because Johann Rupert phoned Tony O’Reilly & offered him a couple quid to help him out !
Darryl said | June 23rd 2009 @ 12:22am | Report comment
Brad, we leave that for the Poms.
What happened to matta’s follow up comment before my last? weird – disappeared on my page.
Knives out said | June 23rd 2009 @ 1:25am | Report comment
You don’t have a case, Daryll. The Lions looked dangerous when they got the ball – hence the two disallowed tries in the 1st half. Fact. When Adam Jones came on the Springboks had no advantage in the scrum. Fact. The Springboks therefore had less ball. Fact. The Lions therefore had more ball. Fact. The Lions used this ball to maufacture opportunities. Fact. What Danie Rossouw has to do with anything I don’t know, and what JdV has to do with anything I don’t know. Clearly it hasn’t crossed your mind that some players might have been tired.
Darryl said | June 23rd 2009 @ 6:30am | Report comment
Knives out – blah blah blah – we won, Lions lost, end of story.
We’ll know soon enough on Saturday if it was a fluke.
Knives out said | June 23rd 2009 @ 6:35am | Report comment
How very mature. I’m so surprised.
Darryl said | June 23rd 2009 @ 6:42am | Report comment
Oh please, what is this kindergarden? I said in one of my earlier posts ages ago that we can argue until the cows come home. It’s not going to prove anything. It’s why we have these things called Test series? Perhaps you’ve heard of them. It’s so that people like you can’t bleat eternally about how your team was actually better in a one off even though they lost. Thankfully we have 3 of them in a row so that there can be no mistake about it. If your Lions win the series, I’ll be man enough to come here and eat humble pie. Question is, will you?
Knives out said | June 23rd 2009 @ 6:48am | Report comment
People like me. How utterly ironic.
‘Overall, I really enjoyed the first test. As hurtful as it was, it was also a pleasure to watch SA play such mistake-free perfectly executed and effective rugby in the first half.’
ABMAN said | June 23rd 2009 @ 6:50am | Report comment
Righto children calm down please, feel the love.
Darryl – Seems some people will just never accept their team losing and will continually argue their case on why they feel their lads had the upper hand even though they were on the wrong end of the scoreline.
Knives Out – Mate give it a rest he’s never going to agree with you and your just repeating yourself over and over.
The Lions lost obviously they just weren’t good enough on the day. Lets look forward to the next test this weekend. If they(Lions) pick up where they left off they should be right in amongst it come the full time hooter on Saturday.
Knives out said | June 23rd 2009 @ 6:56am | Report comment
You’ve already said that, Abman ,and it wasn’t a particularly accurate sentiment then. I’d be very interested to see how you would infer from my writing that I think the Lions had the upper hand or in fact deserved to win. Please enlighten me.
Ian Noble said | June 23rd 2009 @ 7:01am | Report comment
Bob Dwyer in his analysis of the game said
“In all, the Springboks deserved the victory but I had the feeling, at the end, that all of the finesse and touch, that I love about the game of rugby, was provided by the Lions. They did, after all, score three tries to two by the Boks and they did cross the line three more times only to be denied.
The Lions will have learnt a lot and will take great heart from their excellent fight back.
The Boks won’t be a rusty next week and they will have gained a little more match fitness.
This series is not over yet. Not by a long shot! ”
Seems to be fair reflection, bring on next week.
ABMAN said | June 23rd 2009 @ 7:07am | Report comment
Knives Out these are not your exact words but how I have interpreted your writings on the various threads but it seems to me that you infer that the wholesale changes had no effect on the Springboks wilting and you in the Lions were gaining the upperhand before the replacements started taking the field.
I’m not going to get into a pissing contest with you as I see no point.
I’ll just sit back and read what you have to say and others.
But please remember that we won’t always agree just like The Sun will rise in the east tomorrow and set in the west.
Darryl maybe its about time we put this thread to bed it is obviously doing your stress levels no good
Feel the love mate do you need a hug
Knives out said | June 23rd 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
That’s all fair enough, Abman, but I’ve openly stated my admiration for the Springboks and the manner of their victory, however, I disagree with the emphasis that has been placed on the substitutions for these simple reasons: a) The Lions backs always looked dangerous, hence the two disallowed tries in th 1st half, b) SA got their possession and points from the lineout and scrum – the impact of the scrum was met with the arrival of Adam Jones,c) The Lions got more ball, thus they scored tries. It’s not as if half the SA team was removed en masse. the subs were staged and a player like JdV had had little impact on the game anyway. That he was probably very tired is being largely ignored. I would expect many other coaches to have done the same. It’s not as if anybody has even suggested that SA might simply have been tired following their lack of game activity. I certainly wouldn’t debate that, but all this – “It’s PdV’s fault!” is a little too much.
Darryl said | June 23rd 2009 @ 7:19am | Report comment
ABMAN, hehe nah mate, no stress here. I’d said my piece and moved on. Totally agree. This thread is past its sell by date. Waste of time to keep arguing. I’ll leave it to Knives out to continue being ironic and just watch from the bleachers. I’ll rather let the scoreboard do the talking this Saturday.
Knives out said | June 23rd 2009 @ 7:24am | Report comment
‘I’ll rather let the scoreboard do the talking this Saturday.’
No you wouldn’t, that’s why you call people ‘dicks’ and ‘pretentious wankers’.
Darryl SA said | June 23rd 2009 @ 7:28am | Report comment
Er ok, before I go… where on earth did I do that?! Perhaps you have me confused with a different Darryl I’ve seen posting. Perhaps it would help if I identify myself differently, like as Darryl SA, which I will do in future postings to avoid confusion. But no, I have never used those terms in anything I’ve posted. All that aside, I really must go now. Peace out.
Darryl said | June 23rd 2009 @ 7:34am | Report comment
Er, ok. Before I go, where on earth did I say that? You’re possibly getting me confused with another Darryl I’ve seen posting on the forums. I think in future I’ll post as Darryl SA to differentiate us, but no, have never used those words in any posting I’ve made. Ok, now I really must be off. Peace out.
Knives out said | June 23rd 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
Fair enough, Darryl. I take that back then. See you on Saturday.
stuff happens said | June 23rd 2009 @ 8:27pm | Report comment
The key moment in the game was when Bismark du Plessis stood over the BOD and threatened him with his fist.
And what did any of the LIons forwards do?
Nothing.
Pathetic pansies.
Good night pussy cats
Knives out said | June 23rd 2009 @ 8:30pm | Report comment
What should the Lions have done, punched him? What the touch judge should have done was penalise du Plessis.
Ziggy said | June 24th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
????? Penalise him? And send him off if he sticks his tongue out?
Greg Russell said | June 24th 2009 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
I am somewhat hors de combat at the moment (due to a combination of having young children and hundreds of university exams to mark). Nevertheless I would like to make two observations that come with distance:
1. When I saw the Lions 22 for the first test, I could only think “Who are the great players in this team that are capable of propelling the Lions to victory over a South African team that might have problems, but certainly has a decent quota of great players?”
O’Driscoll is a great player, but is there anyone else? O’Connell is a great club player, but I don’t think he can be called a great international player. Byrne and Roberts certainly seem to have the potential to become great players, but they are not yet there. And would not that be it?
I was also forced to wonder if there has even been a Lions team with fewer great players than this one.
2. Spiro wrote “There were suggestions that if the Lions were thrashed the point of the Lions existing, which is based on the hopes of their fans that they will be successful, would disappear.”
Don’t get me wrong, I believe the Lions have a certain future. But the fact is that they have lost their last 6 tests, and, as I have pointed out before, it’s quite conceivable that they will arrive in Australia in 2013 having lost their last 8 tests and not having won a test since 2001.
If I had it in my power to award Knives Out citizenship of Australia, I would do so. I love him to bits and just want him to come to share my love of the Wallabies. (Of course this is tongue in cheek – I admire KO’s knowledge of rugby and his reasonably rare quality of engaging in fact- rather than emotion-based discussion of the game.)
stuff happens said | June 24th 2009 @ 6:03pm | Report comment
Greg Russell I agree with your point 1. and can only repeat an earlier observation that on Saturday the Lions need to MAN UP,otherwise they will lose.
I saw the great Willie John in the crowd at last night’s game. He would have been privately appalled with the way the Lions allowed the Springbok forwards to intimidate them.Good luck to the ‘Boks it was just what they wanted to achieve at the start of a test series.
The Lions have one chance left.Do they have the forwards ( or coaches!) for the job?
Er, pass the ball sweetie.
Darryl said | June 24th 2009 @ 6:24pm | Report comment
Much as I defended the Boks against Knives Out, if I have to put my objective cap on and put away my patriotic cap, I think if anything the Lions will be far more confident this week and will take that confidence into the next game from the first minute.
The Boks on the other hand will now play with an element of doubt and fear thanks to the way the last test ended, and they have not had the time together to find the cohesion they will need to counter the Lions confidence – this is both for defense and offense. Jacobs is starting again, which means that O Driscoll and Roberts will be punching holes through the midfield again at will, so unless the Bok forwards can contain the Lions forwards (which won’t happen from the scrum this week that’s for sure), I foresee the Lions running rampant spreading it wide.
Of course the weather and the referee are an unknown influence. The way that ref could barely speak English worries me. He’s also a NH ref so I expect his interpretation to favour the Lions much like we saw last night against the Emerging Boks with a NH ref, and much like Lawrence favoured the Boks. I’m not accusing any of the refs of bias, simply that the players from that hemisphere are more accustomed to their interpretation and playing to their interpretation. I hate to admit this but I expect the Boks to lose this one and setup a clanger of a final test, by which time they will have found their feet, and by which time Jacobs will have been found out and sent back to the Sharks training camp where he belongs.
That’s just me 2c.
Knives Out said | June 24th 2009 @ 8:19pm | Report comment
Ziggy, what du Plessis did was provocative and against the spirit of the game. The referee would have been well within his rights to award the Lions a penalty. I’m not suggesting he should have, but he certainly could have.
–
Mr. Russell, you’re sweet. I’m blushing all the way away in Pomland. I love you too, babe.
Personally, I think the magic of the Lions lies in the fact that they’re not supposed to win. Being a Lion in an amateur era was wonderful for the players simply because they were allowed to train like professionals for three months, or however long they were away. That, IMO, removes some of the corinthian glamour of the old teams that they have accrued over the years because their opponents were probably not afforded that same luxury. That the Lions are way behind the 8 ball in the professional era (so few games to play etc) means that the romanticisation can be brought back into an increasingly dull test world. Being a Lion is basically mission impossible – it’s the last great adventure in rugby, and the 1989, 1993, 1997 and 2001 tours have reflected that with each series being a nail biter. However, it must be recognised that longer tours are a necessity, as are the best opposition players being released to play for their provinces/franchises.
Is Paul O’Connell a great player? I’m not sure. He’s had some truly exceptional games for Ireland but has struggled every time he has put on a Lions jersey. He wouldn’t have been my choice of captain, put it that way. I suppose the real issue is what defines a great player. I think Juan Smith is a great player, but various SA fans I know cannot stand him. I think Martyn Williams is a great player but he hasn’t been a great Lion. Is that significant? Obviously some players are utilised differently by their countries than with the Lions.
Of the younger generation, Tom Croft and Tommy Bowe could be great players, as could Rob Kearney, Mike Phillips and A.W. Jones. Sometimes I forget just how young, and therefore unproven, the touring squad is. To that extent, the tour selection has remarkable similarities with the 1997 squad. Many people have forgotten that Dallaglio had hardly played for England, that Smith, Wallace and Davidson were test nobodies, that Greenwood hadn’t even played for England, that Back was rarely, if ever, used by England, that Jenkins was a terrible full back etc. Allied to the various rugby league enigmas: Tait, Young, Quinnell, Bentley and Gibbs, that squad was drastically short of star power. Let’s put it this way – a few weeks ago none of the media gave the Lions a prayer and all of a sudden these physical specimens have leapt off the screen and into people’s imaginations.
–
Darryl,
Agree completely with your 3rd para. Berdos (?) could be an equaliser. I’d be surprised if Roberts wasn’t much better contained this week, however.
Ziggy said | June 25th 2009 @ 7:43am | Report comment
Facts are far removed from some of the analysis. Much of it is basically just the views of an ardent fan supporting one team against another. When you have played the game at a high level you will appreciate the dramatic impacts of a series of critical changes to key positions all of which weakened the Boks where they were most vulnerable. The disruption of an already below par midfield defence coupled with the change at fly half was almost suicide. The high speed of todays game gives no time to settle in and your opponents are ’set’.
The anlaysis of the Beast’s prowess is also a case in point. There is little doubt though that the Lions forwards were below the quality of the Boks. I am amazed at the lack of comment on the importance of the timed shove of the entire pack which the Boks did admirably. Remember the Argentinians at their best? In contrast, Vickery (whom I admire) did not have that support at his side and back. Hence he buckled. He is still a powerful prop but cannot do the job on his own.The rolling maul amply demonstrated the superiority of the Bok pack AS A UNIT. I agree that what happens in the scrum is often a mystery to us backs. In fact, in our day, we felt it better that the forwards go and play somewhere else on the field – without the ball,which did not appear necessary to their wrestling and boxing efforts.
The Boks are very vulnerable through the Fly Half and midfield channels especially as they have the very volatile Steyn covering them. Pieterson can also be flaky in defense.The inclusion of Burger is going to mean the Boks get less loose ball but he will add more defensive cover for Pienaar.
The best game plan for the Boks would be to continually kick for the corners and try to win the line out ball. We all know they have the weapons for this!
The best plan for the Lions is to increase their numbers to the breakdown (and speed up as well), run hard at Pienaar,who does not like to tackle, and break through that fragile midfield defence. Testing Steyn under constant chasing pressure may pay off as well because,while he can be brilliant, I suspect he may take wrong options. Giving him time and space to kick back will be disasterous for the Lions. Keep turning the Boks around – but under high speed pressure. Dont’ just kick possession away.
Greg Russell said | June 25th 2009 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Knives: interesting comments as usual.
I was super impressed with Kearney in Australasia in June 2008, and thought that here was a great player in the making. I am not sure why, but neither McGeechan nor Kidney seems to have given him appropriate opportunities since then.
I also thought Croft looked superb for England in NZ in June 2008. However the NZ media did not give him recognition (maybe they cannot accept that anyone else except McCaw can be brilliant at 7?), so I did not wish to take my impression as confirmed. (Now I should?)
Phillips looks a bit too wooden to me, but maybe I am too harsh? The other thing is that it’s rare for a 9 or a 10 to be great in isolation – is Phillips suffering from playing with mediocrity at 10?
I have not seen enough of Bowe or A.W. Jones to comment.
Watching NZ and Australia tour Europe last November, it occurred to me that there was enough individual brilliance around the British Isles for the Lions to have a backline far more brilliant (on paper) than South Africa could get anywhere near assembling. For example, what could happen if McGeechan threw together Byrne, S Williams, R Kearney, O’Driscoll, Roberts, Cipriani/Hook, Blair/Phillips? Notice the word “could” here. It’s an unknown, but my point is that maybe McGeechan had to take risks – I know the series is not yet over, but I could never see the Lions winning it through being conservative. So maybe McGeechan should have just taken his 15 most individually brilliant players, trained them together, played them together, and seen what sort of a cake was baked.
I guess I am being a bit radical here, but hopefully my point is clear. I realise that Shane Williams has had a dismal 6 months, but it’s only 12 months since he absolutely tore the Boks to shreds in South Africa. That sort of rare ability does not disappear overnight.
Greg Russell said | June 25th 2009 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
Actually, it was Rees and Haskell who I thought were quite impressive for England in NZ in June 2008. I confuse Rees and Croft because they are both Toms. Croft was on that tour but for some reason did not get a run.
stuff happens said | June 25th 2009 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
Greg Russell re NZ ‘08 I thought Luke Narraway seemed a real find for the English.
On Sat it will be ‘attitude’ from the forwards that will give the Lions their chance.Unless it improves dramatically from the first test they won’t win, whoever is in the team.
Viscount Crouchback said | June 25th 2009 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
Interesting points about the English back row that played in NZ in ‘08. It was Haskell on the blind-side, Tom Rees on the open-side, and Narraway at 8. They competed terrifically, I agree, but, for varying reasons, none of them has kicked on. Rees has been injured for much of the year, Narraway has lost all confidence (he played twice for the Saxons in the Churchill Cup this month and looked like a junior player) and Haskell seems to have lost focus (a messy split with the girlfriend featured in the tabloids last month).
The thing about English rugby is that there are so many players of roughly equivalent ability that they’ll happily jettison guys and turn to someone else for five games. It’s a never-ending carousel. Thus Haskell is now third in the pecking order behind Croft and Robshaw, Rees is probably behind Steffon Armitage, Joe Worsley and Lewis Moody, and Narraway is behind Easter and Jordan Crane.
If these guys were Australian, then Robbie Deans would have no option but to work with them and cajole them and eventually they would become class operators. There is so much wasted talent in England.
Campbell said | June 25th 2009 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
Funny how Knives always states things as “facts” yet in reality they are generally just his opinion/belief – thus no more valid than anyone elses.
Keep bleeting all you like about how they dried up the Boks ball, played all the rugby etc etc etc…
In my opinion the score was Boks26 , Lions 21 – deny that Knives???
Greg Russell said | June 25th 2009 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
sh and VC: I agree that Narraway also caught the eye in 2008, but I thought he was rather one-dimensional: excellent at carrying the ball forward, but didn’t do much else. Sione Lauaki in NZ shows the danger of being such a player: when he’s on song his ball carrying wreaks so much havoc that his limitations are worth tolerating, but when he’s not on song, it’s a very different story.
“The thing about English rugby is that there are so many players of roughly equivalent ability that they’ll happily jettison guys and turn to someone else for five games. It’s a never-ending carousel.”
This is a verbatim description of NSW in State-of-Origin rugby league (theme du jour over here).
“If these guys were Australian, then Robbie Deans would have no option but to work with them and cajole them and eventually they would become class operators. There is so much wasted talent in England.”
Not sure about this. Ability invariably follows a Bell distribution, and it is very rare for a large group to be good without anyone being very good. I strongly suspect that either the gems are there in England but are not identified, or else that the gems are not there and a lot of players are vastly over-rated. Let me be charitable and say it’s more likely the former.
It is a truism that the more talent there is, the harder it is to identify the gems. If I look at the Australian cricket system (with 6 state sides) or NZ rugby (with 5 S14 franchises) it’s easy to conclude that ideally a pyramid has about 6 teams below the point at the top. Certainly this is in accord with modern management principles, which recommend that a boss should have 6-8 people in the layer below them. In sporting terms the point of the number 6 is that it provides the right level of talent screening: there is enough diversity to provide choice, but at the same time there are not so many players that one struggles to see the wood for the trees.
So my recommendation to the RU would be to strip the GP to 6-8 teams in order to make England stronger (i.e., 6 teams worth of English players, 2 teams worth of imports). This would sort out the “players of roughly equivalent ability”, and make it clearer who the gems are.
Greg Russell said | June 25th 2009 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
PS. Of course I realize that a GP with only 6-8 teams would be commercially impossible … I was just theorizing, not being practical.
Rugby Fan said | June 25th 2009 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
The Viscount is quite right about England’s selection policy. I remember when Chris Jones was the Next Big Thing before disappearing off the face of the earth. The Viscount’s point about the back row could also be made about the backline where, if a coach hasn’t somehow simultaneously fielded Tait, Cipriani, Flood, Geraghty, Hipkiss, Foden, Abendanon, Flutey, Brown, Armitage, Strettle, Cueto, Tindall, Lewsey, Monye, Varndell, Voyce and Sackey, then he is lambasted for failing to nurture new talent while also ignoring experienced players. The fact that so few of these newer guys have made a consistent impact is the main reason they were overlooked for this Lions tour. I’ve heard more than a few Lions fans argue that our best XV from this year’s squad wouldn’t include any English players.
One fairly constant theme in Lions tours is that the final Test selection rarely matches the pre-departure choices. When the team wins, the outside bets look like inspired but when the team loses, there is bound to be speculation about why the stars weren’t played. It seems daft now that Vickery was preferred to Murray who managed to handle the Beast when they last met. However, Powell was selected for the squad partly because of what he achieved against South Africa before but he hasn’t been able to have the same impact this time around. Similarly, I’m sure we can all imagine how Shane Williams might show some magic but, like Mike Blair, he hasn’t so far and his lack of form could just as easily continue.
The best chance for the Lions on Saturday is that the players turn up with their best game. Monye butchered two tries which may well cost him his place but Bowe didn’t look like scoring at all and he had been superb up until Saturday. Heaslip and Byrne also were both less assured despite being form players for much of the tour. If those guys can show up and our front five manage a degree of parity then the team can be competitive.
There are plenty of ways it can end ignominiously for the Lions not least because the Boks know what they are facing now and will be keen to blow the opposition away as early as possible.
Viscount Crouchback said | June 25th 2009 @ 5:33pm | Report comment
Interesting thoughts, Greg.
I think there ARE some extremely talented players in England, but they require more than two or three Tests to attune themselves to the demands of the international game. Ex-pros say that it takes about 20 Tests before you stop obsessing over your own performance and start thinking more about the team’s performance.
I read an article in an English newspaper before the Argentina game which stated that “tonight is the night we’ll find out whether Chris Robshaw is cut out for international rugby”. I thought that was complete nonsense. It’s ludicrous to judge a guy solely by how he fares on debut.
If Matt Giteau was English, then I reckon he’d have played about half as many Tests as he has now. Patience would have been lost somewhere along the line and he’d have been in and out like a Hodgson or Flood or Tait.
Encouragingly, Jonno seems to understand the importance of stability and a fair crack of the whip. Andy Robinson was a terrific technical coach, but his selection policy was appalling – he changed his mind like the wind. It’ll be interesting to see whether the likes of Croft, Care, Monye and Hartley can kick on to become world-class players now that they’re likely to enjoy a decent run of games. There’ll be some wastage – there always is – but these players have no chance unless they’re afforded a fair go.
Viscount Crouchback said | June 25th 2009 @ 5:40pm | Report comment
Rugby Fan,
I think the 1st Test illustrated the perils of picking on form. The Lions selectors were waylaid by decent performances against sub-standard opposition in the build-up. Thus Mears and Wyn Jones snuck into the XV when the selectors would have been better off sticking to their original instincts – that is, to go with beef.
The most startling thing about Durban was how some of the Lions players crumbled under pressure. Mears lost his nerve; so too, I thought, did Stephen Jones and Lee Byrne. No warm-up match can possibly mimic the unique pressures of a Lions Test.
Knives Out said | June 25th 2009 @ 9:20pm | Report comment
Mr. Russell,
Very briefly:
Kearney was the incumbent 15 during Ireland’s Grand Slam season.
Phillips is a bit wooden, a bit too upright. You’re right, and I have real problems with his service. However, physically he can dominate games. So, presumably, with the right coaching he has the potential to be world class.
I think the Lions have tried to play too much rugby this tour. During the wet games they failed to play tactically, and against SA they picked a front row to handle and contest the ruck. In other words they seem to have ignored the necessity of conservatism.
–
Viscount,
I don’t agree with your carousel comment. The EPS agreement makes it impossible for players to be easily jettisoned. If you’re in then you’re in for a good few months. I do, however, agree with your sentiment about the necessity of consistent selection. Pleasingly, Johnson has started to develop a core group – which, of course, the EPS agreement facilitates.
Regarding the Lions, I don’t think the coaches were wowed by Mears or A.W. Jones in the build up, I would suggest they were selected with past achievements in mind. Mears was selected to throw accurately and A.W. Jones was selected because he has played very well against SA when he has played against them, and because the coaches sought a more mobile pack.
–
Campbell,
Thanks for that interlude.
–
Rugby Fan,
I completely agree about your backline comment. Having seen some of the performances of the mid-week team, and the hosh bosh selection, I can’t help but wonder what difference Care, Hipkiss/Tindall and D. Armitage would have made.
Loftus said | June 26th 2009 @ 5:11am | Report comment
So all the rugby critics and presenters,all the journalists and ex-players have said that the game turned when brightspark Peter de Villiers took half his team off and replaced them with players out of position.Yet, Mr Knives Out,the rugby guru,do not think so.Mate,are you blind or stupid? Or both? Do you really want to tell the rest of the rugby watching world that in 80 minutes the Springboks have become that poor after destroying the Housecats in the first hour without stupid personnel changes? And the Lions have become world beaters after an hour when it looked like men against boys before.And taking off your strongest scrummager,captain,fetcher,enforcer, inside centre( the backline’s defencive organiser)and the world’s best scrum half don t have anything to do with it? Dream on Knives Out,if it makes you sleep better at night.And the rest of you pathetic Lions supporters – stop moaning and critiscising the ref.He should ve given Vickery a yellow card in the first 20 minutes,so he basically helped you.Don t know why you Lions supporters are such bad losers because surely coming from England,Wales,Scotland and Ireland,you must be used to losing in sport by now!
pothale said | June 26th 2009 @ 6:21am | Report comment
Yes Loftus you’re right. We’ll go home now immediately and won’t bother playing the next Test.
The Boks got their points from having the far stronger advantage in the scrum – and resulting penalty kicks from Piennar.
When the Lions got the ball out to their backline, they were much better than the Boks – a fact also acknowledged by most commentators – SA and others.
The Boks made substitutions which no doubt weakenend their hand. The Lions made changes which strengthened theirs – a fact acknolwedged by rugby critics, presenters, journalists, and ex-players – as you describe them.
Knives Out said | June 26th 2009 @ 6:28am | Report comment
Excellent work, Loftus. Cohesive AND insightful. You’ve applied yourself well. You must be the pride of South Africa.
Ziggy said | June 26th 2009 @ 6:35am | Report comment
Loftus, well said. I note with interest that much of the analysis never mentions any individual Bok players. The focus is only on the Lions and all the rationalisation as to why they did not thrash the Boks i.e. the ref, wrong selections, the phases of the moon etc. There is also no apparent evidence of any practical knowledge of the game. I was one of the original contributors to this site but left because of all the ongoing one eyed supporter bias from all sides. Alas, it has not improved so this is my last posting here.There are better rugby sites to spend time in.
The Lions can win if they play to their strengths and speed up their game. If they allow the Boks to dictate the kicking game and the loose play they will lose by plenty.
Knives Out said | June 26th 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
Pothale, does Loftus’ prose, tone and grammar remind you of anyone else? I can see some striking similarities between Loftus and another Roarer.
pothale said | June 26th 2009 @ 11:21pm | Report comment
No I don’t see a resemblance to anything, KO. My comments are still being moderated as a result of the last time I made some ‘personal’ commentary, so from now on I am blind to people’s peccadilloes, tone of voice, rantings, personal remarks, or anything that resembles or smacks of ‘argumentum ad hominem’.
Rugby Fan said | June 27th 2009 @ 6:10am | Report comment
Whenever I see an a opposing fan crowing about something slightly unsavoury that their own team did, I have to ask myself how I’d feel in their shoes. As a Lions supporter, I didn’t enjoy seeing BOD threatened with a punch or Habana looking like he was on PCP etc. However, I know that I wouldn’t feel so bad if my guys were doing the same so I’m not going to knock it just because my team’s on the receiving end. I’d certainly rather that no side engaged in anything underhand but, if someone’s going to get away with it. I’m hypocritical enough to want it to be my guys.
I think that the Lions can compete against the Boks on Saturday but I have one major fear. When England went to New Zealand after we had won the World Cup, Woodward hoped it was to cement our dominance over the Southern Hemisphere. It didn’t work out that way but the second 2004 Test was a turning point. We lost the first test but felt the second was winnable. If we had squared the series in the second test then we would have been honours even. But then this happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd_KCcbHgRk
That’s Simon Shaw getting a red card when England had started well and NZ were on the back foot. I remember howling that it was unjustified at the time but now I realize it doesn’t mattter whether I was right or wrong. The point is that Shaw put himself in a position where an official could send him off and that is very poor play. My worry, then, is that the Lions pack come out as fired up for revenge for the second Test now as England were against New Zealand in 2004 and someone, maybe Shaw again, does something stupid to draw an early card.
Incidentally, I’ve always thought that England’s failure in 2004 against NZ and Australia is one reason why Dallaglio, Back, Hill, Greenwood & Dawson stuck around for the failed 2005 Lions. Martin Johnson got his timing right and retired before the 2004 matches and those guys might wish they had done so too. I think some of the 2003 World Cup winners hoped 2004 would be a victory lap but stayed around for the Lions because they didn’t want to end on a losing note. For Dallaglio, the subsequent Lions failure drove him to try for the 2007 World Cup.
Knives Out said | June 27th 2009 @ 7:47am | Report comment
I don’t recall you saying anything, Pothale? You’re very mild mannered. Docile even; the Nurse shark of the Roar. Anyway, I think there’s been a very high amount of trolling going on recently with the instigator of various different aliases possessing a name that rhymes with Ole Ole.
Interesting thoughts as ever, Rugby fan.
Loftus said | June 27th 2009 @ 6:12pm | Report comment
I fail to see your point,Knives Out. I guess when someone start to get sarcastic and bitch about spelling,they ve lost the argument.Then again,it was a very easy argument because the evidence is there for all neutrals to see.So keep on barking.If I m the pride of SA then what are you?