By James Mortimer -
July 12th 2009 @ 5:24am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...2009 Tri Nations preview: Springboks
If history were to reflect on the achievements of the Tri Nations sides up to this point, then South Africa, victors over the British and Irish and Lions, would enter the tournament with the biggest sense of fulfilment.
It was the Springbok’s first Lions tour success since 1980, and only their second since 1968. If the World Champions had a final frontier as such, then it has now been conquered, and they now turn their menacing attention to the Tri Nations.
While one could say that the Springbok have achieved everything they have wanted to, with the cabinets in SARU resplendent with the World Cup, Super 14 trophy and even the current IRB Seven’s series cup, surely there is a sense of unfinished business still.
They have not held the Tri Nations – the ultimate symbol of Southern Hemisphere supremacy – since 2004. Furthermore, last year as newly crowned World Champions; it was a season where realistically it was a case of “what if?”
While the landmark victories over the All Blacks in Dunedin and heaviest defeat of the Wallabies in Australian test history were the highlights, the reality is that they lost twice to those respective sides and came last in the 2008 tournament.
The Springboks did have the strongest test team on paper in the world last year, and should have achieved more.
To reflect briefly on the Lions tour, the South Africans deserve more credit than most people have given them. After all, despite initial murmurs to the contrary, it was a very strong and very well coached Lions side that could have, but for the benefit of slight faux pas from a certain Irish number ten, could have been a far different result.
It was a British and Irish Lions team that played brilliantly in the test series, especially when considering they struggled to put away some weakened provincial sides.
The former Springbok’s Coach Carel du Plessis was right when he said that South Africa were not at their best, but irrespective of any factors, the annals of history will not be changed.
The question for South Africa, is can they get better?
Or are the World Champions actually on the decline?
Certainly there are aspects that do not bode well for a team that should be marching into the Tri Nations as title favourites.
The South Africans are World Champions, courtesy of the title they won in Paris in 2007. But there is something missing from their mindset, and we could look at the pure definition of a champion to understand the problem with this very good team, a team that is letting something get in the way of what could or should be global rugby domination.
Let us put aside their physicality, no matter how borderline it may be. One of the great attributes of any Springbok team is their adroit ability to physically intimidate, and this hybrid is no different.
Do some of the acts of players such as Bakkies Botha or Schalk Burger classify as cheating; well, only if they are caught in the act.
Having a somewhat eccentric coach in Peter De Villiers is almost moot, when we consider the final act of the South Africans, that being the protest at the ban of Botha.
Here was an act that quite simply should not have happened. Players of the class and seniority of John Smit or Victor Matfield should have, especially as players who have won the World Cup, stopped this stroke.
This was the thumbing of a system and a sport of which they hold the highest honour – this was not the act of a champion of the rugby world.
Surely, a champion should be setting some form of example
There are other ways of achieving such remonstrations that not only are politically correct, but are also the act of a team that has specific goals in mind. That is, the goal of achieving rugby based benchmarks. Such as whitewashing a team that was 0-2 down and wondering what they had to do to beat this unsentimental South African team.
This could be the issue with the approaching Tri Nations.
The All Blacks, defending champions, know they have a point to prove. Equally the Wallabies, know that they are in all probability in the best position of any Tri Nations side, and that if they perform to maximum potential, may win the title.
For the Springboks, this should be their final frontier. If they can win this Tri Nations, then it is indeed a rugby royal flush of achievements, and it would sign off this current generation of South African rugby players as possibly the best of their proud and illustrious history.
They are capable.
Their set pieces are strong, and their lineout almost unchallengeable. In the forward exchanges they have the back row and the animal presence do disrupt any team, even the well machined loose forwards of both the All Blacks and Wallabies.
They have the world class players, with the fore mentioned forwards combining with players like Fourie Du Preez and Bryan Habana, who on their day are quite simply the best on the planet.
The only question remains over their game plan and their mindset.
They can win this Tri Nations tournament, and the history that waits is as great as any Lions scalp.
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...
(22)
Wilson said | July 12th 2009 @ 5:59am | Report comment
Brilliant journalism.Balanced concise informative. Go Bokke go.
Knives Out said | July 12th 2009 @ 7:55am | Report comment
James,
The Lions were poorly organised and terribly selected, hence the form and composition of the midweek side, and the tactical naivety that was illustrated in the 1st test. The Lions were simply better than a lot of SH ‘experts’ thought they could be, and unfortunately for European rugby they could have been a lot better. Therefore will the series win galvanise the Springboks? I severely doubt it. The Lions were arrogantly dismissed as cannon fodder, thus the average Springbok fan must be wondering why the Lions weren’t dispatched with consumate ease, as was the pre-tour predictions. Further, were I a Springbok fan I’d be wondering why players who were considered greats prior to the series: Mtawariara, Botha, Matfield, Spies, du Preez, JdV and Habana were made to look so ordinary and containable by what was essentially an elongated Barbarians squad. If the Lions struggled with being in camp for 8 weeks will the Wallabies struggle with even more time together?
The Springbok scrum was poor and I would imagine that an improving Wallaby pack will be licking their lips in anticpation at facing their African brethren, especially after the beating that the Waratahs dished out to the Sharks. It’s all too easy to say that the Springboks weren’t at their best but if that is true then it is fair to say that they weren’t at their best during their European tour, the 08 3N or at any point beyond that aside from the 07 WC. SA will be ferocious but the Lions have set a clear precedent on how to beat SA and SA have always been ferocious. That simply isn’t enough anymore. I am picking SA to collect yet another wooden spoon.
Hayden said | July 12th 2009 @ 8:36am | Report comment
I’m with you Knives. The only way this SA side will win is if they get away with a bunch of off the ball stuff, e.g. Matfields swinging arm to Kelleher a few years ago that cost an intercept try that won them the game. Their line out is good, but little else unless they get away with thuggery.
Add in that Habana seems more interested in prancing around like Cristiano Ronaldo, they lack centres to get the ball out to him anyway, their scrum is average etc etc. I’m looking forward to a few servings of humble pie being dished out to Safferland.
van der Merwe said | July 12th 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
“Further, were I a Springbok fan I’d be wondering why players who were considered greats prior to the series: Mtawariara, Botha, Matfield, Spies, du Preez, JdV and Habana were made to look so ordinary and containable by what was essentially an elongated Barbarians squad.”
I’m wondering how rather than why, actually. By the way, do you still cling to the delusion that Matfield and Botha are third-rate and unable to hold a candle to Paul and the rest?
pothale said | July 12th 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment
Matfield and Botha are third-rate, VdM?
Who said they were?
I think you should ask that question the other way round. Do you still think that Paul and the rest of the Lions are third-rate and can’t hold a candle to the Boks? That’s what most commentators were saying prior to the test series. Matfield and Botha are continually paraded as the best lock pairing in the world – in NH and SH press.
Sam Taulelei said | July 13th 2009 @ 12:15am | Report comment
The draw is in SA’s favour, with their first three matches all scheduled at home. With hometown advantage they should be expected to win at least two if not all three before they take to the road. Unlike NZ and to a lesser extent Australia, it’s more a case of who to leave out rather than who to select from their squad.
Knives Out said | July 13th 2009 @ 2:19am | Report comment
‘I’m wondering how rather than why, actually. By the way, do you still cling to the delusion that Matfield and Botha are third-rate and unable to hold a candle to Paul and the rest?’
I’m wondering who brought up Paul O’Connell, although, incidentally, I didn’t notice Matfield overwhelming the Munster man at any point. This sort of comment is very school yard playground-esque and given that O’Connell is not participating in the 3N also somewhat irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Botha and Matfield were rather insipid during the Lions series and it should be a genuine worry for South African fans that such an experience pair could be subdued by such an inexperienced collective. As I’ve said, I’m sure Deans and Henry watched the Lions series with great interest.
–
I completely disagree, Sam. The Springbok depth myth has been completely blown out of the water. I think Australia has the best draw with their three mid-tournament games at home.
Greg Russell said | July 14th 2009 @ 3:11pm | Report comment
Guys, do you know who you are messing with? Knives Out is a pseudonym for Paul O’Connell. I know, because I saw his photo once! How do you think he knows so much about what went on in the Lions camp?
Seriously, I’m getting a bit tired of all this talk about how great the Springboks potentially are. They had their chance to lay a claim to greatness against the Lions, and they blew it – two narrow wins (one of them highly controversial) and a narrow loss against a Lions team with no pretensions to greatness … sorry, but that doesn’t do it for me. If the Bulls being able to score 50 points against teams that have been in South Africa for 5 days makes the Springboks a great team … well let’s just say that there must be a lot of great teams in international rugby. How quickly we forget that South Africa won the last World Cup without having to play Australia or New Zealand or France or Ireland or Wales. I agree you can only beat what is put in front of you – Fiji (just!), Argentina and a clapped-out, headless England: what awesome opposition! – but just because you do so, that doesn’t automatically make you a great team.
What seems clear to me is that all three 3N teams are relatively even, and so it’s going to come down to weather, bounces of the ball, form minutiae, and – dare I say it – refereeing calls. I for one am not going to try to predict all this, because one can’t. I mean, look at the Lions tests: either Vickery took some amazing drugs between tests 1 or 3 or else one has to conclude that his monstering by The Best in T1 was purely a result of lax refereeing. No-one can have any idea how this sort of thing will go in the 3N.
South Africa at their best (e.g. big wins over Australia and England last year) are indeed an awesome proposition, but they have been up and down for so many years that one simply has to accept that this unevenness is part of their DNA.
Knives Out said | July 14th 2009 @ 10:41pm | Report comment
Geez, don’t type that again, Mr. Russell. If there’s one guy the Boks don’t respect it’s big Paulie.
I agree with everything you said but none of it is popular sentiment, so type it gently and hope that nobody reads it.
USRugbyFan said | July 15th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
At least the Springboks beat their WC opposition, unlike the mighty All Blacks of 2007 vintage who choked epically.
Jerry said | July 15th 2009 @ 9:14am | Report comment
That’s a new and interesting point, USRugby Fan. Truly, Pulitzer worthy insights there, champ.
Knives Out said | July 15th 2009 @ 9:14am | Report comment
I would presume that beating Fiji is only mildly easier than beating France in France, US.
Rusty said | July 15th 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Greetings all – just back from Bali and looking forward with relish to the first titanic battle in the gladiatorial event we call the tri nations.
Dont enjoy the paying out Mr Russell but you make some valid points and I agree that they are too inconsistent to be defined as a great team in their era. Good yes, with some excellent players but not able to deliver week to week a full 80 min which would be the mark of a championship team. As for the world cup, its a four year badge won 2 years ago by the best team in that comp format. Hell, I remember being in a train in Paris after we blanked the English in the pool stages and they were still singing “we are still world champions”! so we will probably be the same. Things have certainly changed since then and the past is the past but dont belittle an achievment any rugby nation would love to accomplish just because all the other top seeds failed to get over the line against “inferior” opponents.
Anyway, thats been done to death, on to the Lions. I was obviously happy that for all the obvious short comings in the current squad and a coach out of a comic book we sealed the series while only really playing well for 60 min or so. I am also dissapointed that the we never again looked that good and if anything got progressively worse while the Lions got better. Unlike my brethren I was pretty nervous about winning the whole thing from the start, prone as we are to said scratchy performances and obvious deficiencies in selection and setpiece. The Lions were for a scratch side only prepared for 6 weeks quite impressive and once the initial selections sorted got better and better. A great series I think which I am glad we won. What remains to be seen though, is if the coaches actually learnt anything from it and correct the glaring chinks and if the players can get up for the comp. I hope so as for the core group this could be the final hurrah and it would be great to sign off as holders of the RWC, Lions series and 3N.
As for the 3N, I think it will be very even across the board but that Australia are looking like the team with the least deficiencies. Current lineup is solid with no obvious flaws and were pretty slick but again we shall see how things unfold against the ABs and Boks which is the beauty of this comp. Any team can win on a given day
Greg Russell said | July 15th 2009 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
Rusty, I try to stick to facts rather than emotion, so I wasn’t trying to “pay out”. I support good rugby no matter who plays it, as long as they do so fairly. Heck, I’ve even come to have some admiration for Bakkies Botha! From what you have written, I think we are essentially in agreement.
Notice I wrote “I agree you can only beat what is put in front of you”, so I do not dispute that South Africa were deserving winners of RWC07. However this of itself is not to say that they are a great team or that they are the best team in the world. To give a recent example from a different sport, Pakistan beat your South African boys in the semi-finals of the T20 cricket WC, but in my mind there is no doubt that South Africa is a better cricket team.
Anyway, I come from the country which won a gold medal at the 2002 Winter Olympics because 3 out of 4 skaters fell over, and so the Australian who was coming last had to do nothing more than complete the race … we were all happy to claim that gold and rejoice over it, but no-one in their right mind would ever say that this result meant that Stephen Bradbury was the best skater in the world. I am not saying that the Boks in 2007 were Stephen Bradbury, but I’m just using this example to make a point.
Rusty said | July 15th 2009 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
haha – love the Bradbury comment. Im going to use that again some day. Yes we are in general agreement and like yourself I try maintain some objectivity and sticking with the facts but somethings will never sit well. Like the marginalisation of the achievements of the current team who in the last 5 years despite some obvious deficiencies still manage to accomplish as much as they did. Factually, they beat the number 1 team year on year – including once in NZ, win a 3N in ‘04, a world cup in ‘07, a Lions series in ‘09 and along the way inflict record defeats over several top tier nations. Of course with the good comes the bad including record defeats and some other shambolic performances and it is that lack of consistency that has stopped them becoming a great team. I also think that the chance to achieve this honour at an international level is passing fast. This tri nations will be the last chance for a majority of the players before they move on and upset the apple cart. Next year with multiple core players gone and PDV in charge it truly will be the start of a new cycle. It remains to be seen if it will be up or down
van der Merwe said | July 15th 2009 @ 5:16pm | Report comment
This has been done before to death, so it would be beating the dead horse to continue, but I will say that the fallacy of trying to diminish SA’s WC victory via demeaning their opponents (presumably based on an historical basis) ultimately ends up doing the reverse. If, for example, England were “clapped-out” and “headless” what does that make the Qantas (Tm) Wallabies or France?!
Greg Smith said | July 15th 2009 @ 5:23pm | Report comment
@Greg Russell – “one simply has to accept that this unevenness is part of their DNA”
- cut us some slack … any South African will attest that what South Africa achieve literally ‘hogtied’ is against the natural order of a long list of systematic trip ups teams like Australia and New Zealand have the life-long luxury to live without.
‘the mark of a championship team”
Please consider the tiny single moments that have awarded disproportionate lifetime glory to a long list of sportman and teams (including the AB’s and Wallabies) more generally. I agree South Africa ride a bit of post RWC 2007 hype but a fan would look more broadly at history going back over 100 years to form a proper opinion. Anyone looking at South African rugby in this perspective would be a fool to NOT give the Springboks a seat at the highest level of rugby. Some Bok fans would argue that South African rugby enjoys a ‘undervalued’ and ‘underhyped’ status in terms of world rugby if viewed in totality.
Coming back to the ‘hype’ and disproportionate glory – New Zealand AND Australia are very quick to trumpet their tiniest success.
I’d cut South Africa a little slack generally … to me, in a video analogy, they’re like the 80’s VHS vs Betamax situation – VHS was more popular but Betamax was the real deal and infinitely better quality. Stolen honor ? Who said this was a fair world ?
Mike said | July 15th 2009 @ 6:10pm | Report comment
vdM, denigrating the opposition doesn’t just happen to the Bokke. Reading some posts on the Roar, you would think that Italy and France were little better than club sides and the ABs and Wallabies hopeless for not slaughtering them this year! The fact is both Italy and France made the SH sides work for their wins.
So yes, South Africa were worthy winners of RWC2007.
In World Cup, even the lesser sides are dangerous – they can spring an upset on the best team in the world if it is unwary or careless, which is what happened to both ABs and Wallabies. A world cup winner is the ONE team that doesn’t drop a match from the quarter finals to the final. The Bokke did that in 2007 and deserve the kudos.
Of course, that doesn’t guarantee that you will even get past the quarter finals in RWC2011 – Pas Op!
Knives Out said | July 16th 2009 @ 1:49am | Report comment
Fair and even comments as ever, Rusty. I watched that SA v England game in a pub in West London (which has a high SA population) and after the game my friends and I shook some hands and congratulated some of the surrounding Bok fans, all of whom (having been previously hostile) seemed stunned by our response. I’m not sure what they expected. Anyway, my point is that every fan base has a minority, I’m curious if you are the SA minority, however.
–
‘I will say that the fallacy of trying to diminish SA’s WC victory via demeaning their opponents (presumably based on an historical basis) ultimately ends up doing the reverse’
What does this mean, van der Merwe?
Loftus said | July 16th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
South Africa wiped the floor with the Argentinian team that beat the ‘mighty’ French team (and hosts) twice at that World Cup.The same French team beat the ‘oh so mighty’ All Blacks.South Africa also beat the English ,if you add the 2 results between them,by 51 points to 6.The same English team beat ,or should I say destroyed,the Aussies.The Irish didn t even make it past the group phases.So I fear to think what damage SA would ve done to the All Blacks , Aussies,French or Irish if you were good enough to beat your ‘minor’ opposition! If you believe this Greg Russell geezer then SA don t deserve any of their recent success and just got lucky!!! What a bitter man!! Well Greg,winning a World Cup ,Super 14 title by a record margin,Sevens World Title and a Lions series isn t bad for a ‘lucky country.Let s hope we re lucky in this year s Tri Nations!
Knives Out said | July 16th 2009 @ 10:08am | Report comment
1. South Africa beat an extremely tired Argentine team unused to extended competition.
2. That England team did not destroy Australia.
3. By utilising your logic I can conclude that given that NZ and Australia had beaten SA regularly for years prior to the 07 WC the trend would have continued. Further, Ireland had beaten SA the past two times the teams had met so I presume that Ireland would have beaten SA as well.
4. I would think that quite a lot of rugby fans would think SA rather fortunate to have beaten the Lions actually.
Greg Russell said | July 16th 2009 @ 11:31am | Report comment
To my South African friends:
1. Did I not write above “I do not dispute that South Africa were deserving winners of RWC07″? Most of you seem not to have noticed this.
2. Just because I try to apply hard-nosed logic to the results of the Boks, why would I not do the same to Australia and NZ? You seem to assume that because I am critical of the Boks, that means I am of the mind that the Wallabies and/or the ABs are wonderful and beyond question. That is not the case, far from it.
Here are some more facts to add to those of Knives Out:
1. After winning the 2004 3N on bonus points (i.e., each team finished with a 2/2 record), South Africa came 2nd in the 3N of 2005 and 3rd (let me not be impolite and say last) in the 3N of 2006-8.
2. The only time in recent years that South Africa has been no. 1 in the IRB’s rankings is briefly after the 2007 RWC. At all other times NZ has been no. 1; for not insignificant periods of time, Australia has been ranked ahead of the ‘Boks.
3. NZ won 3-0 against a 2005 Lions side that was at least as strong on paper as the 2009 Lions side. The first two wins were highly emphatic, while the third was also comfortable and was achieved by a NZ side with a lot of second-string players, much like the Bok side from Jo’burg a few weeks ago (which was smashed). Further, most people would say that South Africa is at least as difficult a place to tour as NZ.
If out of all this and the facts presented by Knives Out you honestly think it is justified to conclude that the Boks have been the dominant and the indisputably superior team in international rugby, well could you please just admit that you are arguing on passion and emotion but not on reason.
Incidentally, I admire your passion for the Boks (and I mean this most sincerely).
I also want to state that I am not at all “bitter” about any of the successes of South African rugby. I was truly thrilled by the way the Bulls won the S14 this year. I have the highest admiration for South Africa’s marquee players (Matfield, du Preez, Habana), and I would pay good money to watch the athleticism of Spies and the skills of Kankowski. As I wrote above, ” I’ve even come to have some admiration for Bakkies Botha” (and even more admiration for Graeme Smith, if you want to extend the net).
I could go on, but hopefully you get my point. It’s good to have emotion but there is also a big place for reason, and it is almost always on this plane that I try to write. Similarly for Knives Out. Engage us on our facts and reasons, and leave the emotional responses for those who write at that level.