Wallabies confronted with smart Springboks

Columnist

By Spiro Zavos, 6 Aug 2009 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert

Tagged:: All Blacks, british and irish lions, Craig Joubert, Francois Steyn, Peter de Villiers, robbie deans, Rugby Union, Springboks, Timana Tahu, Tri Nations, Wayne Smith

Related coverage

South African head coach Peter de Villiers speaks during a media conference at the Sun Square Hotel, Johannesburg, South Africa, Thursday July 2, 2009 ahead of Saturday's final test against the British Lions. AP Photo

Last week, before the Wallabies set off to play their Test against the Springboks at Cape Town, I talked to Robbie Deans about the prospects of his team, their possible tactics (although he was cagey on this) and how tough it is to beat a very good Springboks side in South Africa.

It was a chat rather than an interview.

At one point in the conversion I said, rather ingratiatingly: “At least you have an advantage in the fact that the Springboks coach, Peter de Villiers, is a pretty flaky fellow.”

Deans looked at me in his characteristic uncompromising, New Zealand farmer’s stare, and replied: “Don’t doubt for a a second that the Springboks are a very well coached team.”

Thinking about this, especially after the report a day or so ago that de Villiers had launched a rant about how the Wallabies ‘cheat’ in trying to milk scrum penalties and protect their own scrum, I realised that Deans had made a valid and interesting point.

We are inclined (and I include myself among the guilty party of rugby writers in this) to dismiss the rants of de Villiers as a template of the sort of preparation invested in the Springboks before their Tests.

Of course, most of what de Villiers has to say, especially the bewildering references to the Bible, makes no sense in the ordinary run of things. But there is, I am beginning to realise, some method in this madness.

Take the example of his rant about the Wallabies scrum.

The Wallaby lineout is probably going to be more effective against the Springboks than the All Blacks lineout was. So de Villiers and the other coaches have identified the Wallaby scrum as the weak link in the team’s systems.

Craig Joubert, the South African referee at Eden Park in the first Tri-Nations Test, hammered the Wallabies with penalties at scrum time.

de Villiers is clearly trying to influence Saturday night’s referee, Alain Rolland.

Rolland officiated at Marseille in the Australia-England quarter-final in the 2007 RWC. In The Australian, the rugby writer Wayne Smith pointed out that while Rolland gave the Wallabies the first two scrum penalties in that match before penalising them repeatedly, he also allowed the early scrums to be reset about eight times.

According to Smith, this tired the Wallaby pack so severely they did not have the energy to hit the rucks and mauls with any authority.

The Springbok fullback Francois Steynhas correctly made the admission about the victory over the All Blacks: “It was a great result, but we didn’t do anything … we just kicked the ball, chased and they made mistakes.”

Steyn suggests that the Springboks will try to play more rugby on Saturday than they did last week.

I don’t believe this.

Whenever the Springboks have tried to play rugby they’ve come unstuck.

Last year, for instance, the Wallabies won 27-15 at Durban, their second victory only in South Africa in the Tri-Nations tournament. The Springboks had tried to play clever rugby and were undone.

The side then took over the coaching itself, apparently, and went back to the smash-and-grab game they play to effectively. Tthey targeted Timana Tahu and the Wallabies were destroyed 53-8.

This is one of the great Springboks sides. But it is beatable, even in South Africa as the All Blacks and Wallabies proved last year and the British and Irish Lions did this year.

The Wallabies have had a long time to plan the undoing of the Springboks.

The coach seems to have a shrewd insight into how smart the Springboks are in preparing for their Tests. It will be intriguing to see on Saturday night if the Wallabies come up with the game plan and the execution to achieve a victory the bookmakers, at least, believe is a virtual impossibility.

The Wallabies need to forget what current rant de Villiers is on and concentrate on the clever, if predictable, tactics his team will employ on Saturday night.

Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

The Crowd Says (98) | Page 1 of Comments

Knives Out said | August 6th 2009 @ 1:39am | Report comment

Peter de Villiers doesn’t actually do any physical coaching, Mr Zavos. Surely that’s relevant to your article.

Reply
- Ben J said | August 6th 2009 @ 4:26pm | Report comment
  
  How do you know that KO?
  
  Reply
  - Knives Out said | August 6th 2009 @ 9:52pm | Report comment
    
    Because he is never seen on the training pitch. Tell me what he is in charge of. White openly admitted that he was in charge of defence, as did Matt Williams and Graham Henry. What does PdV do? Nothing. He wasn’t seen on the training field once in the build up to the 1st Lions test.
    
    Reply
    - Ben J said | August 6th 2009 @ 9:57pm | Report comment
      
      Where did you read that KO, I would like to see it? And anyway, not to be seen for the first Lions test is hardly earth shattering, there has been 4 tests since then if you have’nt noticed.
      
      Reply
      - Knives Out said | August 7th 2009 @ 3:21am | Report comment
        
        No, the biggest issue on the Springbok mind for the past 12 years. Not earth shattering at all. I guess that PdV has been pitchside guiding the players every single day since then. You must have read a lot of books on leadership and management, Ben.
        
        Reply
Yikes said | August 6th 2009 @ 1:50am | Report comment

Well, to be fair, the Wallabies do cheat at scrum. Just not in the way PdV says.

They double crutch-bind, which is illegal.

Reply
Nick said | August 6th 2009 @ 2:34am | Report comment

PDV is a fantastic coach! The problem comes in when racial qouta’s are put into place because any small mistake that a black player makes will cause him to be crucified because people might speculate that he has not been chosen on merit when that might not be the case.! Adi Jacobs for instance, who is a top class player was crucified during the B&I series!! Truth is if Jauque Fourie made the same mistakes it would have not been such a highlight but instead a bad day at the office! Alot of people say that PDV is winning just because he inherited a world class team, yes that does help but believe me the all black players are a very talented outfit aswell and they had no chance against PDV strategy and the efficiency that his players were coached to pulling it off!! The bottom line is if they want to get more players of colour on the squad they need to develope the black youth (which will take years since hardly any black youth play rugby) instead of taking the short cut and making racial qoutas which discourages white players from playing rugby in South Africa and gets talented black players crucified. PDV may not be fantastic at press confrences (which the media twist dramatically), but he is winning and that what a coaches main aim is.

Reply
johnny-boy said | August 6th 2009 @ 5:54am | Report comment

PDV may have done the Wallabies a favour by putting the focus on the scrum – so that Baxter – if Deans is foolish enough to start him – will have no excuses this time. Get it right Baxter or get out. Your architects arrogance is ruining any chance of the Wallabies getting an opportunity to have a go, time and time again. You are wrong, the referee is right, even if you are right or you think you are right – get it !

Reply
- fox said | August 6th 2009 @ 11:44am | Report comment
  
  Yours is a narrow view. Who is your preferred tighthead? It’s the typical complaint, yet very rarely do those who complain about Baxter have a feasible solution. There is simply no better tighthead in the country. It is very unfair to pillory a fellow for trying his best. He’s not asking to be unfairly treated. Is he? Listen to Smit’s comments regarding the scrum – he states the Waratahs were one of the toughest scrums in the S14. Who was the Waratah tighthead?
  
  Reply
  - DanielJ said | August 6th 2009 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
    
    Fox, paradoxically your to is a narrow view, what happens if Baxter sustains a serious injury?
    
    Reply
    - DanielJ said | August 7th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
      
      silence?…… i thought so too
      
      Reply
Sambobly said | August 6th 2009 @ 6:54am | Report comment

Johnny-boy, the problem for Baxter is that he WAS right on every penalty against the All Blacks. What is he meant to do? He does all this work on his game, dominates his opponent and gets penalised for it! Lets just hope the ref does a better job this week.

Reply
- Knives Out said | August 6th 2009 @ 7:07am | Report comment
  
  None of what you have said is correct, Sambobly. Baxter was not right for EVERY penalty against Woodcock, and neither did he dominate Woodcock. Baxter was penalised incorrectly a few times, but he was also guilty of illegal scrummaging. This myth seems to have developed which details how Baxter threw Woodcock around like a rag doll. It’s just not true.
  
  Reply
  - fox said | August 6th 2009 @ 11:46am | Report comment
    
    Every prop gets it wrong some of the time. It appears some more than others have become more of a focus for referees looking for excuses to move on from scrums.
    
    Reply
  - Nez said | August 6th 2009 @ 5:48pm | Report comment
    
    Baxter didn’t throw Woodcock around, Woodcock was in complete control but intentionally collapsed after fading on his hit in order to milk penalties. Baxter scrummed alright this year but should have been hooked as soon as we saw he wasn’t getting a fair deal from the ref. We have plenty of options developing at tighthead. Dunning is back playing and was scrummaging better as a tighthead before his injury than Baxter, you have younger developing guys like Alexander, Kepuy and the bolter is the young Southern Districts prop Palmer.
    
    Reply
mitzter said | August 6th 2009 @ 8:00am | Report comment

“he also allowed the early scrums to be reset about eight times.

According to Smith, this tired the Wallaby pack so severely they did not have the energy to hit the rucks and mauls with any authority.”
Oh boo hoo, wouldn’t the other teams tight 5 be the same or are scrums particurlarly sapping for australian forwards

Reply
vinay verma said | August 6th 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment

The Wallabies can play it three ways. The “rope a dope” where they absorb the blows and counter attack. The can stand toe to toe as in the “Thrilla in manila” or they can float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.
I would favour the quick hands and turning the big Boks around constantly. Limiting the penalties and being disciplined in their own half.
Easier said than done and the Boks will be prepared.There is no doubt that this is a formidable “BOKSIDE” Can the Wallabies spank it!

Reply
- Ben J said | August 6th 2009 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
  
  The “big Bok” myth is such a joke, the Kiwis were at least 20 kg heavier in the forwards, these Boks now have an openside which is not much lighter than any of his teammates(102kg) but obviously much shorter. I would love the Wallabies to believe they can only “turn the big Boks around” and win, they will be the one’s that are doped.
  
  Reply
Jameswm said | August 6th 2009 @ 9:42am | Report comment

I don’t think this Springbok team is as good as everyone says.

Against the Lions, they played their usual bully boy game, and for some reason this caught the Lions off guard. Once the match settled, admittedly after 50 minutes or so, the Lions were all over them every time they got half decent ball.

The Boks have a world class hooker, locks, half back and winger. The two props are over-rated and as we all concede the Beast was extremely illegal, and blatantly so, but got away with it. If I were Deans, I would be having a quiet word to the ref about this. Broussouw is a good player, though not as good as George Smith, and Spies and Smith are also over-rated. Spies is incredibly athletic for a big guy, but there are aspects of his game where he struggles. Both Steyns are top shelf kickers, but you can’t call their backs dangerous compared to Giteau, Mortlock, Turner and co.

They will come at you like aggro bullies, and if you can match them for the first 20, they don’t really have a plan B. They didn’t need one against the ABs, who do seem weak at the moment.

The problem for the Wallabies is without Vickerman, Elsom and a world class tight head (and I can’t see any on the horizon in less than 3 years), they aren’t good enough either. Sharpe needs a huge game (I doubt he has it in him) and Jimmy Horwill needs to match Bakkies in the physical exchanges. Stephen Moore needs to re-appear, or else get the immensely physical TPN on earlier. If only we have TPN, Benn Robbo, Rocky and Horwill all starting.

I have seen a Waratahs pack out bully South African packs, but can the Wallabies do it? Can Cliffy stand up and play the wrecking ball role? Can Baxter deal with the Beast’s tactics? Can Sharpe pull out a big one?

These are the key questions really.

Reply
- ohtani's jacket, said | August 6th 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
  
  I agree that the Springboks aren’t that good, but neither are the Wallabies or All Blacks unfortunately.
  
  I’d be mindful of saying Juan Smith and Spies are overrated or that Brussow isn’t as good as Smith. The Boks loose forwards have been getting the job done. I’d also be mindful of saying the Wallabies have a better backline. The Wallaby backline has done diddly squat all year.
  
  I suspect there are too many areas the Wallabies have to do well in if they’re going to win this game, and hence there will be too much pressure on them, but rugby never really goes according to plan.
  
  Reply
- van der Merwe said | August 6th 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment
  
  If by “settled” you mean after de Villiers prematurely subbed a bunch of his A players.
  
  Brussow not as good as Smith? That remains to be seen, but preciousness and sentimentality aside, considering that McCaw (whom Brussow out shone in both Tests) > Smith, I somehow doubt it. Spies overrated? Probably. Though, I would say the opposite about the other Smith.
  
  I don’t understand the consensus that the Wallabies will be better than their cousins (their line-out aside). The last time the two played, it was generally acknowledged that All Black pack out-muscled the Qantas one, the latter lacking “mongrel” (or else George Smith would have caught that pass with his teeth).
  
  Reply
  - ohtani's jacket said | August 6th 2009 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
    
    Brussow didn’t outshine McCaw in Durban. He’s a good kid, but he’s raw.
    
    Reply
- Peteski said | August 6th 2009 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
  
  I totally agree on all points, especially regarding that paper tiger Nathan Sharpe. When is he going to move on?
  
  Reply
- Ben J said | August 6th 2009 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
  
  Yeah the Boks are not good, it’s just that everyone else is worse.
  
  Reply
- Ben J said | August 6th 2009 @ 8:18pm | Report comment
  
  Jameswm
  
  I will put it to you and everyone here that Pierre Spies is the kind of player that will walk into any international team at present because of what he brings to the park. He is an x factor player, speed of a back,aggressive, pretty strong in the tackle, good lineout option and getting better at his ball retention. I would say that most teams would absolutely love to have him in their team.
  
  Juan Smith, after a shaky start is getting better, again a very good lineout exponent and as solid as a rock.
  
  OJ
  
  I have not read ONE account of the game that even suggested that Brussow did not better McCaw in Durban.McCaw was pinged a few times and were lucky not to be carded IMO.
  
  Reply
  - Knives Out said | August 6th 2009 @ 9:56pm | Report comment
    
    ‘I will put it to you and everyone here that Pierre Spies is the kind of player that will walk into any international team at present’
    
    And I will put it to you that he wouldn’t.
    
    Juan Smith is a far, far superior rugby player than Spies.
    
    Reply
    - Ben J said | August 6th 2009 @ 10:01pm | Report comment
      
      Juan Smith is a flanker and Pierre Spies is an eigthman. Now go and write that down 100 times before you make uninformed statements again.
      
      Reply
      - pothale said | August 7th 2009 @ 3:05am | Report comment
        
        Ben J –
        
        Why is saying that Smith is a far superior player than Spies ‘uninformed’?
        
        Reply
      - Knives Out said | August 7th 2009 @ 3:28am | Report comment
        
        Yes, but unless I am mistaken Smith started his test career at 8 and still occasionally plays there for the Cheetahs. Regardless, the difference between 6 and 8 is hardly comparable to the differences between 8 and 7. That is probably why Richard Brown, Martin Corry, Ali Hogg, Ryan Jones, Joe Worsley, Imanol Harinordoquy, Juan Leguizamon and Julien Bonnaire have all played test rugby in both positions in recent years. Anyway, my point was that one is an excellent and intelligent rugby player, the other is a muscle laden sprinter.
        
        N.B. It’s probably quite uninformed to suggest that a player would walk into any team on earth when so many teams play so many different styles, attacking and defensive and rely on weather patterns. It oversimplifies a very complex matter, not to mention the fact that despite it being an opinion based comment it is probably not a very strong one what with players the calibre of Parisse, Taylor, Heaslip, Koyamaibole, Harinordoquy and So’oialo roaming the paddock. I even recall Andy Powell and Nick Easter outplaying Spies.
        
        Reply
  - ohtani's jacket said | August 7th 2009 @ 12:09am | Report comment
    
    Carded for what? Since when did getting penalised twice mean you should be carded?
    
    Most the the world’s rugby journalists are knee-jerk reactionists. They’ll tell you that because Brussow won a turnover at the ruck that he outplayed McCaw. George Smith wins turnovers at the ruck and no-ones makes a big deal out of it because the Wallabies lose. The amusing thing about the Brussow deal is that McCaw forced turnovers in both Tests. Brussow isn’t as good as Spies or Juan Smith yet. He’s just a kid and hasn’t come up against a guilty blindslide flanker in the Tri-Nations yet.
    
    I dunno what the deal is with you Boks fans. You win a few games and everything the Boks do is flawless. They’re the best of an average bunch and need to improve if they’re to win away Tests let alone avoid being one year wonders.
    
    Reply
    - Ben J said | August 7th 2009 @ 12:22am | Report comment
      
      No one has said this team is flawless but they are producing rugby that is hard to beat at this stage. Who knows what will happen overseas but it is unrealistic to think they will produce more than 1 away win. If they do not win at least one away then it would have been a failure.
      
      I do not see how you can compare Brussow to either Spies or Smith, completely different types of players. I would say he is better than them when it comes to winning ball on the ground.
      
      Reply
      - ohtani's jacket said | August 7th 2009 @ 1:10am | Report comment
        
        Right now he’s just a fetcher. He does nothing except tackle and try to win turnover ball. I realise that’s how a South African openside plays to a certain extent (minus the turnover ball), but he’s not as good as Burger was in his prime (yet) and everybody’s talking about him like he’s the stick up kid.
        
        I don’t know what I’m doing in this thread, since my team aren’t playing this week. Usually, I support the Boks against the Wallabies, but y’all make it so hard. I can understand being frustrated by people’s comments, but it’s part and parcel of being the team to beat.
        
        Reply
  - van der Merwe said | August 7th 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
    
    I agree that Spies is a fantastic player – approaching world class, if not already so, but I think it’s fair to say that people do overrate him in much the same way as they would, say, Lomu. In any case, he will only get better as time goes by and his all round game increases.
    
    Reply
Hammer said | August 6th 2009 @ 10:42am | Report comment

VV – you must be watching a different Wallabies outfit to the one I see … no way do they have it them to play 3 different types of game … they’ve nothing to date … and there’s an over realiance on giteau “doing something” – when in fact the reverse is happening – giteau continues to fade out of games dramatically

Reply
- vinay verma said | August 6th 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment
  
  Hammer..let me rephrase by saying this is the way I would hope they could play. Can they play any of the three ways then?
  
  Reply
Hugh Dillon said | August 6th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment

Getting back to Spiro’s comments for a moment, one of the things that puzzles me is that other sides seem to have scrum time problems as well as the Wallabies but how often do you see them penalised? Both the AB and Springbok props dropped their binds, collapsed, bored in, etc etc and a Welsh ref let them do it. (Which is probably appropriate because all props cheat just like all breakaways do — the best man wins in the end.) International refs have, however, become fixated on Al Baxter — if only he could milk a penalty or 4, he would be worth his place in the pack.

How do the Wallabies counter this? I am not sure. I hope Alain Rolland might find it a bit embarrassing to be so publicly pressured by the Bok coach and have a bit of judicial pride. Perhaps Robbie Deans or Jim Williams ought be thinking about some public advocacy too, but of a more subtle kind: praising Rolland’s fairness and emphasising their faith in his ability to be fair and to stand up to the sort of pressure De Villiers is attempting to place on him, as well as the pressure of a home crowd…

Baxter always seems to collapse when he stands too far from his opponent in an attempt to get in a strong hit. A cagey loosehead will let him drive downward and, guess what, MILK a penalty. I bet the Beast is getting ready to do just this as we speak. Perhaps we need to sacrifice a bit on the hit for a lot more stability.

Reply