By Andrew Logan
August 9th 2009 @ 9:59am
Related coverage
Wallabies crumble in Capetown
South Africa's Victor Matfield, right, tackles Australia Will Genia, center, during their Tri Nations rugby match in Cape Town, South Africa, Saturday, Aug. 8, 2009. (AP Photo/Schalk van Zuydam)
The Wallabies had two enemies on the field – themselves and the referee. The actual opposition, the Springboks, came in a distant third.
As one of my co-viewers mentioned at the time, it is a blight on the game that the Springboks can be described as the best team in the world when they don’t actually play any rugby.
While the Wallabies once again crumbled under the pressure of their lack of self belief, the referee, the crowd, the occasion and the history, the Boks simply sat back, kicked the ball in the air, waited for mistakes and kicked the points.
A telling moment was the 78th minute close up shot of centre Jacques Fourie, because it was at that point where one realised that he had been on the field for the whole game, but not once had been sighted with that ball in hand.
Against any other team, the early exit of Stirling Mortlock would have had alarm bells ringing, but against the Boks, it meant nothing, because their centres were never going to take the Wallabies on.
Morne Steyn, Francois Steyn and Ruan Pienaar, simply kicked, kicked and kicked again. And you can’t blame them. The IRB have encouraged this style of rugby through their incessant tampering with the laws, and they are now reaping the horrible harvest.
Test rugby has regressed to a kickfest – a contest of which team has the best kicker – and a complete guessing game about how the referee might decide to interpret the various infringements. If this is rugby’s showpiece, then we are in dire straits.
In terms of playing attractive rugby, the Boks were dreadful, and so were the Wallabies. In terms of playing percentage rugby likely to win them matches and eventually the Tri-Nations, the Boks were excellent, and the Wallabies were, again, dreadful.
Sadly for the Wallaby tight five, they have worked hard to get to a point where their scrum is a dominant weapon, only to find that their backs are prepared to squander the ball that they have worked so hard to win.
Matt Giteau must be removed from five-eighth sooner rather than later. He has long been touted as the equal of Dan Carter in the world flyhalf ranks, but tonight this was proven to be a sham.
Luke Burgess didn’t help with his scatterbrained passing and some of Giteau’s poor composure must be put down to his halfback creating massive doubt in his mind as to where the ball would arrive, or if indeed it would arrive at all.
Berrick Barnes on the other hand, stepped up to the plate while Giteau was serving his ten in the bin, and kicked with aplomb. With quick ball delivered by Genia after Burgess had been hooked, Barnes settled the Australians to the point where they looked like they might pull it off, but then Giteau rejoined the fray and spoiled it all.
Coach Deans’ first order of business should be to swap these two, to utilize Barnes’ composure and accurate kicking game, and to free Giteau up to take on the line and loop in support of his outside backs.
Ultimately though, it will mean little if the Wallabies aren’t prepared to take on their opposition and seize some chances to attack.
The Wallabies took a step back in time to the old days where they were so locked into a game plan, that they couldn’t get out of it, even when the occasion demanded. So much so, that we saw Drew Mitchell, with 6 minutes to go, and a 10 point margin, kicking the ball back to the Boks from the brokenest of broken play. The idea of running it back supported by Turner, O’Connor et al didn’t appear to have occurred to him.
I haven’t yet mentioned the referee.
Mr Rolland was horrendous and the only redeeming feature was that the Wallabies were bad enough to lose it on their own, so there is no need to blame him.
He penalized the Wallabies in their first scrum for a crooked feed, only to let both sides continue to feed like that for the rest of the match.
He penalized both sides for killing the ball while they were hard on attack. He missed several forward passes, and penalized some that weren’t.
His ruck interpretation was inexplicable and he also allowed himself to be bullied by John Smit. You can’t blame Smit by the way – any good captain should try it on, and it’s the ref’s fault if he succeeds, but it was rubbish of the first degree from Rolland, and any momentum that either side may have developed was completely destroyed by his histrionics.
While all this was going on, the Boks did what they do best and piled up points. They didn’t play rugby, but they didn’t need to.
They played the game plan which basically removes the chance of them making errors and gives them every chance to accumulate points. In the Test arena, you have to admire the application of a team who can be so single minded about their approach, even if you don’t actually enjoy it.
Where to from here for the Wallabies?
It has to be results. There can be no more talk of “development”, of “learning”, of “going in the right direction”. They have now lost to an All Blacks side which is one of the worst since Taine Randell’s All Blacks, and then to a Springbok side which is simply a one-trick pony, albeit a thoroughbred.
That said, both of these teams have something the Wallabies don’t, and that is steadfastness and application. The ability to hang around, remaining there or thereabouts on the scoreboard, and give themselves a chance to win at the death.
With Berrick Barnes’ field goal, it seemed early that the Wallabies may have heeded this lesson. But it wasn’t to be. The Tri-Nations is won and lost on the road. The Wallabies have squandered their chances thus far, and now instead of having a chance to win, will be fighting simply to remain in the contest.
It would be nice to be optimistic, but there’s little reason for optimism. So Wallabies supporters – brace yourselves. This Tri-Nations could actually get worse.
Super 14 Tipping now live on The Roar. Join now.
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...
(217)
Shahsan said | August 9th 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
I wish people would stop it with the complaints about “bad refereeing” and “limited game plan” and “state of rugby today”. The reason the Boks are dominant is that they have worked out a game plan and execute it to perfection: strong pack that wins more than its share of lineout ball, a very strong back row, a competent frontrow, good defence all-around, and 2-3 terrific kickers.
And they do have brilliant strike runners too if they ever had to revert to plan B, except they haven’t had to in the Tri Nations (they had to against the Lions in the second test and scored some good tries).
And the way South Africa plays has been ever thus: when they had Naas Botha they played a similar way, even though they had brilliant backs such as Gerber, Du Plessis and co in their ranks.
The truth is that their opposition now are just not playing better than them, simple as that.
If the ABs and the Wallabies can improve their forwards and win more than their share of possession, if the backs can exceute basic moves without dropping passes or misdirecting them, then the limitations of the Springboks would be exposed for all to see.
The Lions came close, and had they had a better and slightly longer buildup, i belive they would have won that series instead of narrowly losing it.
It’s up to the ABs and Australia to do the same.
sheek said | August 9th 2009 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
The trouble is Shahsan,
If the Boks & other teams aren’t going to get away from Plan A, then the game IS in trouble. I’m presuming you’re a South Africa, & a rugby union zealot.
Over here in Australia there are millions of heathens who, when dished up this rubbish, will boo it off the park. I hope that happens. I hope Aussie fans give this form of rugby the thumbs down, sneer & jeer, & walk out.
Then maybe the IRB will realise they have a PR disaster on their hands with the current laws.
Even looser said | August 9th 2009 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
Sorry Sheek but I don’t believe for one moment that the IRB give a toss about what Australian fans want.
I’ve written elsewhere that I’m amazed that Sth African fans get so excited about the way the Springboks play. Yes there are times when a penalty kick is the right thing to do. But last night the game was all over red rover when George Smith gave away a penalty not far from the Wallaby line. Wouldn’t Boks fans have enjoyed the Skipper turning down 3 easy points for a scrum and then a try? Surely even Bok fans would like to have seen that? No?
But ah ah….let’s take the 3 points. Sterile stuff!
Rusty said | August 10th 2009 @ 9:59am | Report comment
On the contrary – I think in the back of Smits mind was the Tri nations as a whole. In which case the thought would be to deny the Wallabies any chance of getting a bonus point. In light of the campaign the correct strategic move
Shahsan said | August 9th 2009 @ 6:26pm | Report comment
Yes, I’m a rugby union fan. Always have been and always will be. No time for the other abominations.
And I’m far from a South African fan. In fact, there is no team i despise more. And I would love to see them get smashed. But no one is playing well enough to do it.
But someone will. The cycle always turns. Deans might get it right, and the new boys might come good and then show up the South Africans as the one-trick ponies they are. But until then I am in admiration of the skills they are executing. And the match was quite thrilling, if you know your rugby.
I think rugby fans should just get used to the fact that the best team, aesthetically speaking, are unlikely to win the World Cup anymore. Just look at soccer/football, the self-styled “beautiful game”. The last truly beautiful side to win the World Cup was Brazil 39 years ago. Every world cup since then has been won by the most pragmatic team. Same thing in rugby. Since the game turned pro, the most efficient and expedient team has won every time.
And their fans will not complain.
JustinB said | August 9th 2009 @ 6:52pm | Report comment
Sheek, the game is in trouble only in Australia, nowhere else. And frankly the IRB probably doesn’t give a s**t about the game in Australia, and why should they? Rugby union doesn’t revolve around Australia surprisingly enough.
Australia is in fairly unique position of having two other strong contact ball sports which compete with union – league and AFL. If the fans in Australia find AFL or league more exciting, who, outside of Australia, cares?
Union is still thriving in the northern hemisphere, SA and New Zealand, despite your apparent boredom with the game.
sheek said | August 9th 2009 @ 8:34pm | Report comment
Well,
Irrespective of how the game might be going in Australia, if you guys can honestly say you’re over the moon with the type of rugby that’s been dished up so far in 3N, then you are easily pleased.
And if playing conservative rugby is the only way to play winning rugby, then the game has a fundamental problem.
Re football, sure Brazil 1970 is the standard. However, I thought Italy in 1982, Argentina in 1986, France in 1998 & Brazil in 2002, all played attractive football on the way to winning their world cups. And perhaps you could also include Argentina 1978.
Shahsan said | August 9th 2009 @ 10:20pm | Report comment
Sheek, Italy in 1982 were spoilers and chancers, just as they were in 2006. Brazil and France were the two best teams in that World Cup, followed by Boniek’s Poland. 1986’s best teams were Brazil, Belgium, Denmark and France. 1990 was probably Cameroon and even England, etc, etc etc, ect.The point is you don’t win points for style. You have to play to your strengths to win.
Which is exactly what South Africa is doing right now. It’s not aesthetically pleasing rugby but rugby can be played in a myriad ways and they’ve chosen one they know they have the personnel for.
I am not easily pleased. I love the way Fiji, Samoa and Japan play rugby but they are never going to win the World Cup. None of teh big guns have ever played with their kind of flair. But they know how to win.
Now it’s up to Australia and New Zealand to play well to beat the Boks. At the moment, both are playing poorly (or not well enough).
The general tone on this site seems to be that losers whinge (and whinge and whinge and whinge) when they lose but then suddenly all is well when they win.
That is not how I know rugby people to be.
Armchair-critic said | August 9th 2009 @ 8:45pm | Report comment
A recent study in NZ apparently showed rugby was at its least popular since surveying began in the early 90s. Given that rugby is undoubted NZ’s national game, this is a telling and worrying statistic
Fuzz said | August 9th 2009 @ 9:06pm | Report comment
I think it just shows that kiwis are now diversifying in sporting interests. Soccer is taking a strong foothold and league is certainly on the up.
However there has been some very good crowds at ANZC matches so far this year. I guess you could put it down to the added interest of four teams getting the chop come end of the year. Plus Armchair you forgot to mention that the study was taken after the June tests and before the victory over the Wallabies and before the ANZC started. I could only assume what the survey would have said after the last two games against the Boks.
I don’t think the survey has really told us anything we didn’t know already, New Zealanders have been rugby’d out for a long time it’s common knowledge.
Gary said | August 10th 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
The game is only in trouble in NSW and Queesland, not Austrlaia as a whole. Elsewhere, particualrly in WA, it is thriving.
rugbyfan said | August 10th 2009 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
hardly…south africa couldn’t sell out british lions, new zealand can’t get a sell out crowd for it’s test matches, these statistics may actually indicate that the problem is not just australia.
countryboy said | August 10th 2009 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
sheer BS rugbyfan, the Lions series didn’t sell out because the tickets were the local equivalent of $300 each, plus South Africa had just held the Soccer Confederations Cup and the cricket IPL.
And the inability to sell-out a test in NZ is probably more a reflection of the average Kiwi’s disappointment with the current team than an issue with the rules and the type of game on offer.
Anyway, if crowds are smaller, it’s because there is TOO MUCH RUGBY, not the type of rugby.
Ben J said | August 11th 2009 @ 6:28pm | Report comment
Not that it matters that much but Newlands was soldout for Saturdays game.
matt0931 said | August 11th 2009 @ 6:20pm | Report comment
Guys you can’t take anything away from SA, they play the rules perfectly and the game plan they have built suits their players skills to a tee. They have the best pack in rugby and they know how to use it, their line out is incredilbe and their play at the breakdown is what other teams dream about.
In the last world cup there were three teams, SA, ENG and ARG using the high ball technique and more teams are likely going to start to employ this tactic, in fact the Wallabies put up a few last weekend and I only hope as more teams jump on the sky rocket bandwagon the IRB will see some light and change the rules for the better.
JK said | August 9th 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
I know this is going to sound like sour grapes, BUT….. I agree with many of your points, the ref interpretations and sometimes awareness of what was actually going on was dumbfounding. I am struggling to continue to follow rugby at the moment. That game was a sham, not just from a wallabies fan point, I was watching with people new to the game and found it extremely hard to defend the game as a great spectacle and an exciting form of entertainment. Even non footy followers were asking ” so you don’t need to score tries to win?” and ” it’s just AFL with the offside line” (meaning kicking goals to win)
When a refereee can be so easily influenced by a player, how is anyone suppose to know what’s going on or what to do, are they supposed to ask John Smit for instructions?
In the end though no excuses Wallabies were poor for most of it, so once they fell apart, and the ref can’t really win the game for himself, it left the Boks standing and thus victory was thiers.
Ahhh maybe it is sour grapes!
Even looser said | August 9th 2009 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
JK – The AFL comment along with comparison to Soccer was in fact made by my Missus, who I just could not manage to get to sit & watch the game. She wanted nothing to do with it. So to me that says much about ‘the product’.
Well played by the Boks. It’s not the type of game that I want to follow for much longer but Boks did what they needed to do to come away with a win. Just how so many Sth African fans get excited about that Rugby exhibition has me dumb founded. Is it a case of the King with no clothes?
Rusty said | August 10th 2009 @ 10:06am | Report comment
As a Saffa fan. Sure it isnt the flashy of wins but for a traditional Boks grind em to dust, pressure play it was worth waiting till 1am to watch. Hell, 3 weeks of play and 3 wins over the other top 3 nations. I will take that any day
Ben J said | August 11th 2009 @ 6:31pm | Report comment
Even looser
The Wallabies committed cynical fouls amongst their 19 penalties, 3 yellow cards and conceded 9 lineouts. That is an indication of the pressure they were under. To blame the Boks’s backline play or lack thereof is only masking the defficiencies in the Wallabies gameplan.
pothale said | August 9th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Blaming the ref?
Give us a break.
It’s regressed to a kickfest? But the Wallabies didn’t play the game.
It’s all the fault of the IRB and the ELVs. Except the Wallabies squandered chances galore.
The Boks kicked the ball up in the air – except when they put it behind the Wallaby backline, who allowed the fleet-footed Victor-Matfield to pick up the ball and score.
There’s no need to blame the ref because the Wallabies were awful, but let me write three paragraphs about how bad he was anyway.
His ruck interpretation was ‘inexplicable’ except for the fact that he clearly indicated that players – from both sides were diving in off their feet – and Wallabies continued to infringe.
Wallabies got pinged for holding onto the ball in the tackle – because they were.
Ref was bullied by John Smit. Or was it that Mortlock and then Smith wasn’t up to the job?
Histrionics by the ref? The difference between the first half and second half in terms of infringements was marked. The Wallabies learned not to infringe – as much.
If three of your players decide to commit professional fouls – there’s not a lot a ref can do except card them.
The only place the Wallabies should be looking – is at themselves.
LeftArmSpinner said | August 9th 2009 @ 9:29pm | Report comment
pot, no one is blaming the ref.
pothale said | August 9th 2009 @ 9:31pm | Report comment
Oh good. That’s all right then, LAS. For a minute there, I thought they were.
Rusty said | August 10th 2009 @ 10:08am | Report comment
I thought that was one of the main points of the post ..”The Wallabies had two enemies on the field – themselves and the referee. The actual opposition, the Springboks, came in a distant third”
Andrew Logan said | August 9th 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
Shahsan…..respectfully, I direct your attention to the following lines from the above article:
“In the Test arena, you have to admire the application of a team who can be so single minded about their approach, even if you don’t actually enjoy it.”
“Mr Rolland was horrendous and the only redeeming feature was that the Wallabies were bad enough to lose it on their own, so there is no need to blame him.”
“Morne Steyn, Francois Steyn and Ruan Pienaar, simply kicked, kicked and kicked again. And you can’t blame them.”
“In terms of playing percentage rugby likely to win them matches and eventually the Tri-Nations, the Boks were excellent, and the Wallabies were, again, dreadful.”
Colin N said | August 9th 2009 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
“The Wallabies had two enemies on the field – themselves and the referee”
“He penalized the Wallabies in their first scrum for a crooked feed, only to let both sides continue to feed like that for the rest of the match.”
“He penalized both sides for killing the ball while they were hard on attack. He missed several forward passes, and penalized some that weren’t.”
“His ruck interpretation was inexplicable and he also allowed himself to be bullied by John Smit.”
So youu are blaming the ref then.
Ben J said | August 11th 2009 @ 6:35pm | Report comment
Andrew
I have rarely seen a Wallaby team concede so many penalties and yellow cards in a single game. In my memory the Boks were the ones that offended more at the ruck and scrumtime. What has changed that a NH referee in all 3 tests decided that the Boks are the most disciplined when their history is against them?
Andrew Logan said | August 9th 2009 @ 10:36am | Report comment
Pothale…..see above.
pothale said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
Andrew – see above.
If you’re not going to blame the ref, then don’t. You’re either blaming him by calling his decision-making and rulings into question or you aren’t blaming him, full stop. This is a version of having your cake and eating it.
You claim it was a kickfest. Is that because Australia squandered their chances of playing it in hand? Or because Australia are now the same as Springboks?
Your article has a number of contradictory assertions that I find confusing.
You state that: Test rugby has regressed to a kickfest – a contest of which team has the best kicker – and a complete guessing game about how the referee might decide to interpret the various infringements. If this is rugby’s showpiece, then we are in dire straits.”
Except that you seem to be saying that Australia were trying to play a running game but failed to do so.
The same happened with All Blacks in the last match.
I didn’t see a kickfest in the Aus v NZ match nor did I see it happen in the Lions Test matches.
Or much of the 6 Nations either.
Ben C said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:27pm | Report comment
Without trying to put words in Andrew’s mouth, you can blame the referee for the spectacle without blaming him for the result.
Frankly I agree some of the strange forward pass calls were questionable, but the biggest problem for Australia was that we went missing entirely at the breakdown. Again. I don’t really disagree with Rolland’s decisions in this area as a whole as the Boks had the ascendancy and the Wallabies didn’t match up. The forward pass decisions were of little or no moment. Lack of commitment at the breakdown, not Rolland, causes Australia to leak possession, hand points to the Boks and give away any momentum. That and two ridiculous decisions by Giteau and Brown within minutes of each other.
Well done the Boks. Robbie needs to have a long hard look at this team and think again about several positions, particularly the backrow.
CraigB said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:00am | Report comment
If that was rugby you can keep it! If that was the best team in the worlds idea of rugby you can keep it! Don’t get me wrong the boks had dome great rugby moments. There line out and rucking was exceptional. However is this is now the style you need to win games then I am just not interested. Just bomb it up and hope the vageries of the referee go your way. Sorry that’s not the game I fell in love with. That’s not the game I want to watch nor the game I would want to play.
bennalong said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
Andrew,
Your analysis of the major issues was spot on, but your need to rubbish your national team detracted from the thrust of your article.
Was it the desire to appear balanced?
I suspect so because you also felt the need to”admire the application of a team who can be so singleminded in their approach”. Or perhaps…….”Mr Rolland was horrendous and the only redeeming feature was that the Wallabies were bad enough to lose it on their own!……!@#$%?
Have you ever played a team sport?
This in fact brings me back to the salutory aspects of the article and the two reasons you identified that made the game a debacle.
First, that appalling refereeing display. Roland was refereeing a game in which one team was clocking up points from his penalties. The fool appears to have been unable to play the advantage rule instead choosing to ally himself to the side kicking penalties. Try playing in such a game, Andrew.
Second, the idiocy of the rule changes and the rules that reward that particular game plan.
A game can only exist if the rules are well known, understood and designed to create gameplay between two sides of similar ability.
Then, you don’t change them without reason, and if you do, failing universal disapproval you have to persist with them and allow the game to develop around them over say five years. Bringing back long arm penalties for indiscretions that don’t confer advantage is pure idiocy.
I would like to cheer your call for Barnes to be installed at five-eight. Barnes is a tactician and can think with his backline in mind. Giteau plays intuitively finding holes as they appear. The Wallabies would be better served with the tactician doing the kicking, and the change would not be too hard.
Barnes wasn’t the only Wallaby who played well and having identified the problems out of their control, Andrew, you should have been less critical of a team that was tasered everytime they got going.
Last night, if we didn’t actually see the death of rugby we saw its spectre, and the warning should not be ignored.
sheek said | August 9th 2009 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
Bennelong,
I’m fascinated by this attitude that to criticize your fellow countrymen is somehow sacrilegious (as you suggested to me elsewhere on the site). There is such a thing as constructive criticism, you know.
Some Aussie rugby fans are almost Monty Python-esque in their defence of the Wallabies, despite certain things staring them in the face like dog’s balls.
The attitude of some Aussies to their team, & rugby fans in general to the way the game is played, is almost as pathetic as the stiff upper lip gentlemen on the decks of the sinking Titanic. First passenger says, “I say, do you think we’re sinking”? Second passenger replies, “I rather think we are”.
However, both gentlemen continue to sip on their gin & tonic, providing the outer appearance of everything being just as it should be. But meanwhile……….
There are two ways to improve the team. One is by personnel changes. That avenue is closed to us, because most of the current 22 are the very best available we have. And I blame the structure of Australian rugby for not providing sufficient alternatives.
The other method is to improve the skills level & techniques of the players, as well as their strategic & tactical nous. This takes longer, & it is precisely what Deans is trying to do. However, the worry is whether Deans has improved this team as much as it is capable of being improved. Does the team have anything more to offer???
As for the game of rugby union itself, it’s rapidly turning into a dud. And this is another area I’ve been attacked for suggesting such blasphemous things.
I now see rugby union like equestrian dressage, but without the horses. Instead of having hurdles & troughs as obstacles, you have the laws & the referee.
And like dressage, every small mistake is penalised. Except that in rugby the opposition benefits by booting penalty goals, & we see plenty of those!
Nashi said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:06am | Report comment
Boy am I glad I didn’t stay up late to watch that piece of rubbish. I mean rubbish from the point of view of a spectacle and rubbish from the point of view of Wallaby play. Full marks to the Springboks, they play an uncompromising, take no prisoners game. If Australia had a lineout, could counterruck, pass from the halfback position to a five eight who really belongs there, follow a captain who can actually work with a ref maybe, just maybe we could beat the Boks.
For once I am beinning to doubt Deans, admittedly I may be a bit harsh because of his personal circumstances but I am just flabbergasted by the performance of the Wallabies. They just look brittle, in every game they start like a house on fire and then, here we go again, let’s get a case of the dropsies, give away a few penalties and give the opposition such a leg up we can have an other gallant loss. Get a grip guys, you are losing your fans with monumentally stupid and insipid play.
My changes would be move AAC to 13, put O’connor on at 15, leave the wings alone, put Gitteau at 12, Barnes at 10, Genia at 9, Brown at 8, Elsom at 6, start Mumm at 4 and send TPN down to the pub every night for the local darts contest, don’t put him back on the field until he wins at darts 3 nights in a row.
On another note, Australian Rugby blew it with the ELVs, we should have known it was going to fall over and we didn’t have a plan B. We should have been busy recruiting from AFL instead of league so we had a team that could kick the leather off the ball and contest the marks. I agree with the comment above that right now rugby looks just like AFL except someone introduced an off-side rule.
I wish the Springboks good luck in the next world cup, Football that is, they should be unstoppable with a home ground advantage, I’d just love to see Bakkies Botha put a challenge on Ronaldo.
Ozsaffer said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Consider this!
The Springboks are being constantly blamed for their perceived inability and /or unwillingness to play a type of rugby that’s not more attractive from a spectator point of view. Has anyone ever thought how the extremely “negative” play (manifested by the ridiculous amount of penalties awarded against them) by the Wallabies & All Blacks impact not only on the flow of the game, but ultimately the Springbok’s running game. Had some of those penalties not been conceded – could they potentially have resulted in tries for the Springboks? Guess we’ll never know!
It would seem that the only way they can “contain” the current Bok side is to deploy negative /foul /professional foul tactics – For heavens sake – then don’t complain when the Boks take the points on a platter. Stop blaming the Boks for the Wallaby & All Black inadequacies!
All that being said, I thought the Wallabies played a great game and the competition is still anyone’s to win.
ohtani's jacket said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:44am | Report comment
Rubbish. The Boks had a 15-13 advantage and couldn’t work a simple overlap.
Ozsaffer said | August 9th 2009 @ 6:57pm | Report comment
“Rubbish. The Boks had a 15-13 advantage and couldn’t work a simple overlap”
Facts – shame on the boks for not using it – good on them for not needing it to determine the outcome though. The Wallabies also played an excellent tactical game during that crucial 12 minutes – Good on them!
If the Boks did score however, it in all likelihood would have been said that they won against 13 men!
To get back to bok tactics.
How is it any different when Michael Lybnagh, Andrew Mehrtens, John Eales, Matt Gittaue, Dan Carter, Stephen Larkham, Johnny Wilkinson and the like manage to sink the boks with the help of an educated boot???
For crying out loud – the Wallabies oustcored the boks by 2 tries to 1 – not 10 to 1!!!
Wonder what you’ll say if the boks bag the tournament in Perth subsequent to a Wallaby victory over the All Blacks in Sydney and then follow it up with an emphatic try loaded victory over the wallabies in Brisbane considering there won’t be any pressure on them in that case and the fact the the wallabies will be on their 3rd consecutive test on the day! Unlikely – probably, possibility – definite yes.
Who and /or what will you blame then????????
Get it into your heads please? The boks are playing winning rugger. Pressurise the opponents with calculated % rugby and 1 of 2 things will happen:
a) Try scoring opportunities
or
b) Poor disciplined negative play by the opponents resulting in 3 pointer opportunities.
The Wallabies chose the latter and still lost, so accept it!
ohtani's jacket said | August 9th 2009 @ 10:40pm | Report comment
Only South African logic would dictate that not scoring on a 15-13 advantage showed that they didn’t need an advantage to beat the Wallabies. Even PdV admitted that the Boks played poorly in the second half.
There are a lot of things the Boks do well. They’ve got a great pack, an incredible lineout and they’re fantastic kickers. But they cannot attack with the ball in hand. All of the first fives you mentioned above playd on far better teams than these Springboks. The so-called greatest Springboks of all-time are probably the weakest “great” team in the history of rugby.
Ozsaffer said | August 10th 2009 @ 6:44pm | Report comment
Not just Saffer logic!!
See extract of an article elsewhere on this site.
“One of the reasons for this try-famine (for a side with numbers on the field, field position and great possessions from the lineouts and the rucks and mauls) is that the Springboks high-ball and chase game is designed to force penalties rather than tries. Another reason, according to the Springboks coach Peter de Villiers, was that the Wallabies kept on killing the ball whenever the Springboks got a roll on.”
And in the words of the Australian author.
“There is an element of truth in this. Especially in the first half, the Wallabies gave away penalties rather than concede tries.
In fact, right at the end of the Test, too, Smith illegally knocked the ball from the hands of Pierre Spies while the Springboks were mounting a last attack near the tryline”
Need I say more???????????
ohtani's jacket said | August 10th 2009 @ 7:21pm | Report comment
Yes, please say more.
JF said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:20am | Report comment
What did you all expect? This is test match rugby.
The boks were superior at the breakdown and lineout. The wallabies made poor decisions and lacked any creativity or confidence to run the ball, game over.
From a rugby point of view, the highlight was watching the best in the world do what they do best, Matfield, Bakkies, Spies and Brussow took the game away from the wallabies – not M.Steyn or A.Rolland.
GreenandGold said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
Absolute Rubbish!! Two words that still fall short of describing this morning’s spectacle. It was Auckland all over again but the pain was x 10 worse.
Question marks over players heads:
- Palu? What the hell is he doing? A clear example of someone who is BIG but useless. One would think he could have the same impact as Spies but he finds a way to hide behind our pack.
- Burgess? Time is up mate, we cannot go on with your hot & cold performances. It is time to give the next Gregan a go. That’s right, enter Will Genia! He looks sharp and does the basics well.
- Turner? Sorry but Hynes was one of the reasons the Wallabies flourished in parts last year and he has to be reinstated.
SA can laugh & smile all they want right now…..Now its your turn to come to our backyard and see how good you really are away from home.
ozsupporter said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:28am | Report comment
I think what’s surprising is no one has commented on why Gits lost the plot. I’ve been following the game long enough and have never seen him do anything malicious. Maybe he’s also frustrated with the way the games evolving, no need for someone with quick footwork.
joeb said | August 9th 2009 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
Like Beale he’s more effective one position further out, as Andrew and others have said here.
Working Class Rugger said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:37am | Report comment
GreenandGold
Turner was given no real opportunities to do anything once again. Your summation of him is a little harsh. I doubt Hynes would be able to make much of a difference. What the Wallabies are desperately missing is leadership, direction and most importantly mongrel. What was displayed last night wasn’t either. Stupidity yes, but that’s about it. We don’t necessarily need a new Captiain but a leader would be nice.
ohtani's jacket said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
When the same thing happens three weeks in a row, I think it’s a little unwise to say Henry & Co. are bad coaches, Deans is a bad coach or that the All Blacks and Wallabies lack mongrel or leadership. They were actually quite fast paced games for matches that were full of penalties and turnovers. The pace, scoreboard, referree, pressure and lack of possession got to both the Wallabies and All Blacks. I dont believe this makes them bad teams.
Tactically, I think it makes more sense to counter attack than kick long, but the Boks are destroying any kind of platform the sides have to attack from. They don’t allow clean lineout ball, the scrums are always a mess and they disrupt anything that comes out of the ruck. In a sense, this is the South African attack. So, I think the way to beat the Boks is to stretch then like JOC did. If the Bok defenders are always advancing to stick a toe to the ball or chase a kick, it leaves a hole in the defensive line and both the Wallabies and All Blacks need to punish them for that.
Guy Smiley said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:48am | Report comment
Andrew that is pretty much a pitch-perfect summation. Pothale I don’t believe he’s having his cake and eating it – the point is that the ref was appalling and got lost and confused but refused to realise it. However this is running second to the general ineptitude of Australia – they deserved nothing from this game.
And the point about Fourie? Just what I thought, the first time his name was mentioned by the commentators was right at the death. Let’s not forget the Boks’ outside backs are extremely talented – Habana, Pietersen, Fourie, de Villiers, Steyn – what a waste not to use them! As for the much vaunted du Preez? Kick, kick, kick, kick. Good kicks but increasingly he offers nothing more, which is a waste of his sublime talent.
Ozsuppoter, good point about Giteau – I have never seen him play this bad or engage in such a dirty act before – not sure what he was on but he’d rather forget this game.
Ozsaffer you are delusional if you think this is not the Boks gameplan – it is executed to a tee and predicated on pressuring the opposition into making mistakes and giving away penalties. They do it superbly.
In summary – a dreadful game. Poor ref, abject opposition, a winning team playing with all the flair of the Comatose Accountants XV.
.
pothale said | August 9th 2009 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
Guy – re your assertion that the ref was appalling, I do not agree.
However, let’s stick with that you think he was.
What’s the specific evidence for this?
Moreover, if a ref was appalling then clearly his decision-making had an effect on the game and its outcome.
So if he was appalling as you assert, then was this to the disadvantage of Australia? And if so, to such an extent to affect the outcome of the game?
ohtani's jacket said | August 9th 2009 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
Of course you don’t agree, the ref was Irish!
Seriously, though, Rolland was correct in many of his rulings. There are times when it would be better for everyone if they just played on, but obviously Rolland doesn’t share that philosophy. His positioning is crap, but that doesn’t make him special. Most refs have crap positioning these days.
Knives Out said | August 10th 2009 @ 2:04am | Report comment
It seriously irritated me the way Rolland penalised one or two crooked scrum feeds but ignored countless others. The same thing happened last week with Owens. Where is the consistency?
The Edinburgh Pilgrim said | August 10th 2009 @ 4:23am | Report comment
Sorry KO but I don’t understand yourcomment??
pothale said | August 10th 2009 @ 4:37am | Report comment
As in if refs are going to start calling crooked feeds (which they should one presumes) then they need to do it consistently. People feel that Owens and Rolland missed a few in the matches.
Ozsaffer said | August 9th 2009 @ 7:06pm | Report comment
Guy Smiley!
I am not delusional, I realise very well that it is the Boks game plan, but as I said in a reply elsewhere.
Pressurise the opponents with calculated % rugby and 1 of 2 things will happen:
a) Try scoring opportunities
or
b) Poor disciplined negative play by the opponents resulting in 3 pointer opportunities.
Wallabies and AB’s have been choosing the latter and paid for it.
GreenandGold said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:54am | Report comment
working class rugger
I suppose so, but then again he hasn’t gone looking for the ball for a few games now. He was non existent against the Kiwis as well.
What about Burgess? Surely it would be valid to bench him and give Will the start.
Stirlo is an ‘okay’ captain but he tends to get injured quite a bit these days and if he isn’t injured he seems to vanish in some of these games.
One of the few bright spots was J O’Connor – He responded well and will continue to improve as the competition moves ahead.
onside said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:56am | Report comment
Andrew Logans piece is spot on.To me it reads more like utter frustration than a complaint.
And if it was a complaint then it was evenly spread over both teams and the ref. Put aside
winning for a moment,this sort of rugby ,at this level, is truly dreadful. Where South African
fans are concerned it seems the end justifies the means .Style is irrelevant so long as we
win. Maybe in the professional era they are right. Players are paid plenty of money to win
regardless of how it is achieved.But professional rugby has a very limited future if teams
develop a strategy based soley on winning using negative tactics.I take nothing away from
South Africas victory.They won Australia lost.Next. South Africans are very passionate
about their rugby.What do supporters think of the Springbok style. Are they happy with it.
Is this the type of rugby that wins the Currie Cup.Do South African supporters enjoy the
kickfests, punctuated occaissionally by an infrequent try.Some overseas subscribers to
this blog infer Australians are always bellyaching about results.The truth is Australians
arc up about the style. Super 14 rugby in Australia will not draw crowds to watch negative
rugby.even if their team is victorious.They simply will not pay good money to watch dud
rugby.Furthermore, as an appendage to last nights Test match, limited viewers watch the
replay on television.If the rugby is attractive to watch,win or loose ,rugby people will look
at the replay. But after last nights presentation there is more interest Sunday morning in
replays of the Dapto dogs ,than watching two top nations play negative rugby.Despite all
this International rugby needs to standardise its refereeing.Its a disgrace.That one man can
loosely interpret the rules according to his whim is plainly absurd. Rugby is a billion dollar
sport officiated by incompetant ex school house masters .To put it in perspective its a bit
like going back to using hand held stop watches to judge an Olympic race.Tell me another
professional sport in the world where the referees interpret the rules on the run. It is the
dark ages. And once again this is not a complaint in lieu of Australia loosing a game.It is
a fact.No two referees are the same.Each has a different idea in his head of how the rules
will be interpreted in his head.And that can change from one match to the next.The RWC
showcases rugby once every four years. But the teams that contest the finals do not
determine how the game will be played,the referees do. A final refereed by an official
from Australia or New Zealand will be an entirely different game than if it was refereed
by somebody from the UK. That is an undeniable fact .The cornerstone of all rugbys ills.
A friend of mine ,an international business ,man had four seasons tickets to all Springbok
games in South Africa .He spent a lot of time in the country and used the opportunity to
take clients to the games.The Australian Taxation Office questioned his claiming the cost
of the tickets as a business expense ,saying in its opinion the tickets instead should be
listed under pleasure. My friend increduously responded, pleasure? PLEASURE?, have
you ever seen the bastards play?
Even looser said | August 9th 2009 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
onside – I’ve been thinking very similar things to your comments on Rugby in Sth Africa. Like ‘what the hell are the fans getting so excited over’? One gets the feeling that for reasons beyond my comprehension they would cheer anything if it resulted in an increase on the score board.
I’ve seen some tremendous Sth African rugby in their Currie Cup but then when it comes to the International level and they dish up complete dross. Yes it wins the game but it doesn’t win the fans outside of Sth Africa. So I’m wondering why the Boks don’t play winning Rugby that is also exciting and attractive at the same time.
Case in point Boks pressuring Wallaby try line & George Smith has his brain explosion, gets pinged and sent off. Boks are miles ahead on the score board and the game is well and truelly sewn-up. Why opt for a penalty? Why not please the fans with a scrum and score a team try? But no another kick and the fans go nuts.
JustinB said | August 9th 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
winning it what excites the fans. Watching your team play entertaining footy, throwing the ball all over the park, and losing by 20 points – that doesn’t excite the fans (except the opposition fans)
Rusty said | August 10th 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
You will see more running rugby in the Currie cup and other comps but the nationl physche is tied to the Boks. We only care that they win
As for you case in point – the additional 3 pointer put the game out reach and limited chances for a losing bonus point. Good strategic captaincy plus at that point the Bok scrum was on the rack
The Other Reds Fan. said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
We were never going to win last night. A bonus point loss would have been, well, a bonus.
Knowing we would lose I didn’t watch the game at that hour. In fact I haven’t seen South Africa play this year, so I am relying on results and media and blog reports many of which suggest that SA has now got the greates team ever.
The media and blog reports don’t seem to match the scoreboard results.
The scoreboards tell me this:
1. An after the siren penalty saved them in the second match of the Lions series;
2. They didn’t exactly slaughter the Lions on the scoreboard in any games, losing the third;
3. The All Blacks played really badly and are down on form, but were in the games until about 3/4 time (so I am told);
4. The Australians also played poorly apparently – I would be more concerned if reports said that they had played well and were simply beaten by a better side;
5. SA rarely score more than one try per game.
World’s greater team ever? I don’t think so. In fact far from it especially when all of those results are home games.
I also know the following:
1. The Springboks haven’t set foot outside their country this year to play a single test and I believe that the Springboks as much as (if not more than) any other international team gains tremendous advantage from playing at home;
3. Every match they have played so far has had great weather – no wind or rain to challenge a goal kicker;
2. South Africa will not get any 4 try bonus points.
They seem to rely on one guy for their points. What if he has an off night, can’t handle the jeers, or there is heavy rain? I wonder if they have a plan B.
I have said it on this site before and I will say it again. Last night will be the Springboks’ last win for the 2009 Tri-Nations series. That doesn’t mean they won’t win the series, but I wouldn’t rule out Australia who still have a great chance of winning it if we play well and don’t get injuries.
I would swap Giteau and Barnes and I would start with Genia and have Phelps as my backup half, dropping Burgess altogether. Once he’s fit, replace Mitchell with Ioane.
If there was anyone, I would also dump Baxter even if it just because he (unfairly?) attracts suspicion and taints the whole pack and the whole team get penailsed. Besides, he isn’t that good anyway.
ohtani's jacket said | August 9th 2009 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
The Other Reds Fan, the weather wasn’t great in Durban (started raining in the second half) and conditions underfoot weren’t that good in Newlands. Steyn is just a fantastic kicker.
TommyM said | August 9th 2009 @ 10:13pm | Report comment
ORF- Agre with most every thing you say. But jeez, for someone who posts on here quite a lot about rugby, you don’t seem to actually watch any!!!
BTW- Our scrum went from dominant to AWESOME (one of the few positives) when Ben Alexander and Polota-Nau came on for Baxter and Moore. Not sure if anyone has sugggestede it elsewhere, but what about getting Smith to throw the ball in so? TPN would be good at the back as he’s played a lot of back row.
The Other Reds Fan. said | August 10th 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
Tommy,
My wife won’t let me get Foxtel. I have spent too many Sundays waking up after only four hours sleep after staying up in great anticipation only to watch the Wallabies put in yet another inept performance. I see Ben Alexander as our hope for the scrum. I wonder what we could have done with Rodzilla and if he’s coimng back. I wish TPN could throw straight.
TommyM said | August 10th 2009 @ 4:53pm | Report comment
ORF- I feel for ya buddy!! If you can’t get down the pub, I’d highly recommend changing your internet company to iinet- they stream all the Aussie S14 games (as well as ANZ Cup and Currie Cup games) for free on their website if you’re with them
Working Class Rugger said | August 9th 2009 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
I have defended Burgess so far this year but its just not clicking. Give Genia a shot. Yes, J’OC was showing something promising. The only solace I can take is at the youngest in the squad are showing good signals for the future.
GreenandGold said | August 9th 2009 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
Just a bit off track here but how poor was FoxSports last night. I am an aussie supporter but it seemed as though Kearns and Clarky were sitting at home and commentating after a few beers. Sure it was great to see Cooper score in the first 3mins but they were screaming like we had won the world cup.
Further to this, we could not hear the crowd at all.
I admire their passion for the Wallabies but I think some of their comments were a bit too much last night. Oh well it provides for some entertainment I suppose.
Peter K said | August 9th 2009 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
I thought by and large the referee did a reasonable job. Far far better than Joubert and a bit better than Owen. All 3 yellow cards were deserved, very cynical or dangerous play.
Most penalties he gave were correct.
He missed forward passes. He also was not consistent inblocking runners to kickers, we got penalised but ignored Turner getting blocked time and again. He got us for a crooked scrum feed once but ignored them from both sides the rest of the game. The Touch Judges were inconsistent too TPN was called for not in straight and at least 2 from the BOKS were as bad as his first one and no call made.
He allowed players to not roll away, and wrong side of the ruck and looked first for holding on, typical and foreseeable NH refereeing. Not one penalty for not rolling away despite blatant holding down and trapping but many for holding on to the ball.
Peter K said | August 9th 2009 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
I forgot to add and only 1 scrum penalty that was wrong, Robinson when SMit was boring in. Just 1 error is quite good for refs against the Wallabies.
TommyM said | August 9th 2009 @ 10:16pm | Report comment
I though Brown’s yellow card was very harsh. That was not a professional foul- he was the tackler and didn’t realise the ruck had sort of) formed, so not deliberate.
I think TPN may be getting a reputation like Baxter (but for his throwing). See above suggestion…
stillmissit said | August 9th 2009 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
Excellent article Andrew.
I would like to add a few points because we are going around in circles and giving ourselves heart attacks with criticising poor refs and he was poor.
1. We must spend at least 1/2 a day watching footage of the ref of the game to understand what the hell he is trying to do. We seem incapable of either doing this or if we do of learning anything from it. It strikes me that the Wallabies just throw their hands up in the air and say ‘what a dickh–d’. We don’t work the ref properly or use him against the opposition. Why would we think that we have the role of being the carriers of the torch of open running rugby? The idea is to win the game first.
2. If you reviewed this match I bet you every penalty against us was deserved. So what does that tell us? It tells us the Wallabies are stupid bastards who are amateur at cheating and then claim that the opposition is getting away with murder, which is often true but that takes you nowhere on the paddock. BTW the missed stuff by Roland was jaw dropping not just from him but also the touchies (I refuse to call them asst refs).
3. The tactics against a known situation ie high kicks and furious chasing were very poor.
a) No chasing of our kicks therefore no pressure on their kicker
b) Little if any support for Wallabies ball catcher
c) No counter attacks in numbers from their kicks
4. We ran most of our attacks from set pieces and faced a strong defence yet were able to score twice. What could we have done in broken play?
All in all another naive game from an improving (slowly) Wallabies team who should have stepped up but dont know where the stairs are.
Footnotes: I have been a great supporter of Burgess but a better player has arrived in Genia, time to move over Luke.
Giteau and Barnes swap has been in general agreement on the roar for at least a year. Selectors seem to be slow learners or poor judges don’t know which. Maybe they believe the ‘world class 5/8′ bullshit and he is ‘as good as Carter’ rubbish. Lets get real and stop deluding ourselves.
Jack of said | August 9th 2009 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
stillmissit – As you saying swap Gits & Barnes? ie Barnes to 5/8? If so I couldn’t agree more. Gits is a decent 5/8 but could be one of the best at IC. Barnes would do a fine job at 5/8. Hopefully he will demonstrate this at the Tahs come 2010. Meantime please Robbie swap them now.
And didn’t Genia add some spark? Also really liked the way the bench was used but would have hooked LB much earlier.
TommyM said | August 9th 2009 @ 10:19pm | Report comment
Wouldn’t be surprised if we see Giteau at 12 outside Toomua at the Brumbies actually, with Leleafano at 15.
The Other Reds Fan. said | August 10th 2009 @ 6:03pm | Report comment
I wish they would spring the same surprise in Queensland. Mark McLinden wants to play 10. I am not a Cooper fan, so if they keep him (and there’s no-one else, so I think they have to) I am hoping to see Cooper at 12 if anywhere.
Corvus said | August 9th 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
Take Morne Steyn, Brussow and maybe Du Preez out of that side and the Boks are just as brittle as any other.
The Wallabies had plenty of warning of the Boks game plan and they seemed to ignore it. Pure stupidity. We watched two Boks v AB games where exactly the same game plan was played out, yet in the 1st half the Wallabies gave away one penalty after another in their own half. There’s a lot of talk about discipline but none it is seeming to get through.
Is it me or did the Wallabies start to look more threatening as soon as Burgess was hooked. Seems Deans has seen the writing on the wall as he didn’t wait long to do it. Burgess has moments of brilliant play but when things don’t go right (and when does it in this arena) he folds. His loose pass lead directly to the Boks only try.
Also well done to the Aussie scrum for all the good that it did. Now it’s time to work on the line out.
fred said | August 9th 2009 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
green and gold,yes agreed ; the foxsports team were embarassing and galling.
next we have what appears to be an inhouse journo spinning that deans is building a team for all seasons and situations with an eye for the rwc 2011—–and this doesnt happen overnight and is very difficult when he loses tahu,mcmenamen,lote and ioane(gosh,deans didnt want 3 of them–what tripe)
so we are building.multiskilling to allow playing anyway”play whats in front of them” no prescriptive playing for the wallabies only the bok have the”luxury”of playing that way(more tripe)
apparently there are so many complexities and therefore choice in a rugby game that developing a comprehensive approach is the solution;;.like learning the whole syllabus and getting a d grade instead of concentrating on the same questions that come into the exam each year
who writes this stuff?
i thought australian rugby have already won a couple of rwc and reached final in 2003 and now we are meant to swallow that this paralysis with analysis is the gifted way to proceed
this is arrant nonsense
bennalong said | August 9th 2009 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
OJ
You must be depressed. That piece on Rolland was wishy washy crap. Of course a lot of his decisions were right. Try being on the receiving end of the ones that weren’t when long arms result and the scoreboard ticks over
Pothale,
Of course poor refereeing could have affected the outcome. Have YOU ever played a game where you were out -gunned and being penalised – long arm – for indiscretions that conferred no advantage. Or have the referee respond to a complaint about the scrum from your opposing prop by immediately penalising you,the dominant scrummager.
ohtani's jacket said | August 9th 2009 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
Ho, try have it happening to you two weekends in a row.
bennalong said | August 9th 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
Peter K
Brown tackled, got straight to his feet and grabbed the ball, in the manner he’d trained. I do not believe a ruck had formed but bodies had arrived. It was NOT cynical or dangerous and warranted at most a penalty (and three points!)
davido said | August 9th 2009 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
The REFS having been driving me crazy for some years now. The rules either need to be simplified, clarified or simply removed.
Kicking v Running. It is simple…. running is entertaining. Kicking is not.
Ozsaffer said | August 9th 2009 @ 7:12pm | Report comment
WINNING IS ENTERTAINING – LOSING IS NOT!!
bennalong said | August 9th 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Corvus
I think it was more to do with Giteau going off and Barnes taking control. There was also the shift of trying to play tight defensive rugby. Perhaps that’s how you defend against negative rugby. More negative rugby. The future looks bleak.
bennalong said | August 9th 2009 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
OJ
I could tell.
Joe said | August 9th 2009 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
I miss the ELVs
westy said | August 9th 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
Andrew how do you write a critique of the Wallabies performance and not mention one of the worst performances by an Australian lineout. it is hard to do. We may have been watching different games.
Ziggy said | August 9th 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
Having now read, for the first time, one of Mr Logan’s contributions I am grateful for it will save time in the future. It may stun him but it is actually very disruptive to play against a side that is being obstructive, constantly infringing and as a result ,continually penalised. The stop/start disrupts momentum and makes it difficult to chuck the ball around. Better just to kick them over and keep the pressure on. Now I’d like to hear more about the Giteau head explosion, the constant deliberate obstruction of the Bok kick chasers, the almost 100% diving off the feet in the rucks etc. The Wallabies went out with a defensive and negative attitude and payed the price against an awesome Bok pack which was brilliant in executing total dominance of the line outs and the loose play. Our Wallabies were outstanding in the scrum. George Smith was remarkable and without him we we would have got a real hiding.He was MOM as far as I was concened.
Andrew Logan said | August 9th 2009 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
Onside….you read it correctly. The original first line of this article which was edited out by a zealous editor was…
“Dateline – 3.05am. No time to fine tune what I’m about to say, so it is full stream of consciousness stuff, underlined by frustration that the Wallabies once again just couldn’t do it.”
westy said | August 9th 2009 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
On a more serious note it is an indictment of rugby when you can switch regularly to the cricket without missing much game time. May be this is the future for international rugby simultaneously show another major sporting event so you can watch something during stoppages . At least the Saffers could go and buy their BBQ meats and not miss much.
cookee said | August 9th 2009 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
fred,
have to concur with your summation ;all this spin and obfuscation of the essential facts–a failure of another team to overcome the “kiss” principle of the sth african team.
in short ,a failure of the wallabies and coaching staff;dress it up how you will
Andrew Logan said | August 9th 2009 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Sorry Westy….but you try producing an in-depth-covering-all-angles-play-by-play column of 1000 odd words at 4 in the morning while the latest loss sits like a half a dozen beach sinkers in your gut alongside 4 Tooheys Olds and a glass of shiraz. I thought I did well not to put a fist through my screen to be honest.
So I didn’t mention it, but you’re right, the lineout was terrible. Mea culpa.
Knives Out said | August 10th 2009 @ 2:05am | Report comment
Christ Andrew, maybe you should consider a green tea or cranberry juice. That’s gna hurt..
westy said | August 9th 2009 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
Andrew my apologies . I agree with much of what you wrote just had a different ranking that is all.
tarpo said | August 9th 2009 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
You don’t give 8 of your own lineouts to any top tier team & expect to dominate.
Rugby is a game of pressure, the more pressure you can impose on your opposition the more mistakes they wil make.(this is not negative play, you can apply pressure by running at the oppo trying to force them into missing a tackle)
The Wallabies didn’t give themsleves a chance to build enough pressure because they lost 5 of their own throws in the first half alone. There was very lttle contesting of the Boks lineout = no pressure applied.
When Aust did get some continuity they started to look threatening.
The constant whinging from the Fox commentators about the Boks not playing rugby, test matches are about winning, they were comfortably in front doing what they had to do. Don’t blame the Boks for being effective, they alone did not make the rules. I had to mute the sound on Fox they are just too annoying.
The Ref was not great, but I thought a lot better than Nigel Owen last week.
Paradoxically, I thought Burgo was much improved this week compared to ABs game, but then he couldn’t possibily be that bad again.
Palu has to go, picked up the ball at the back of the scrum well, but that is where it ends.
Oh if TPN could throw consistently!!, he was throwing at least as good as Moore last night, & much better around the field & at scrum time.
Sharpe was quite good around the field, but his greatest supposed strength, the lineout was in trouble, he also didn’t contest Boks throws.
Best (1/2) game of test rugby I have seen from Mumm for a while.
Barnes to 10, Hynes in for Turner, Time for Morty to do an Umaga & bow out at the end of the end, 2011 is a bridge too far.
JR said | August 9th 2009 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
OK, So i’m a Bok supporter..
Let’s look at what the Wallies did well today.. They scrummed well, and good for them.. They trained hard and it paid off.. Also that first try was great.. Barnes pinned the boks back well with great kicking so the boks only managed 3 pionts when the wallies were 13… Great kicking.. Good result for those 10 min for Aus.
Not so good.. Lineouts were poor. Boks grabbed a few lineouts. Breakdown not good enough.. Penalties at breakdowns will always be great or poor depending from which angle you want to see it… This happens in every game.. With every ref.. Pressure too much..
Stop blaming the boks for winnig the way they are… It’s actually very simple. If the boks are so one dimentional then I want to see the wallies and the All Blacks play their expansive games and beat them.. If they cant, then don’t blame the boks. If they can then great. If your game plan is better go for gold.. Don’t blame the way they play and say they shouldn’t be nr 1. Beat them with your own game and be nr 1.. Simple. that’s what the wallies did in the past…
Maybe if the wallies worked harder on the lineout and breakdown and got the ball to their backs.. Who knows..
As for this article.. Andrew. If you are saying that the boks aren’t playing rugby. Then what are the wallies doing losing to a team that’s in your opinion not even playing… Simple fact. The basics are part of rugby and so is forward domination, getting pionts on the board and pressure… What would rugby be without pressure or pionts..
Looking forward to the next game in Aus…
JustinB said | August 9th 2009 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
After each SA vs Lions game, I would scour the web, reading articles and comments about the game, and in each case it was the ref’s fault and the Lion’s letting themselves down. After the SA vs All Blacks games, the ref also copped it each time and the All Blacks copped it for gifting the game to the Boks. And so, after the Boks have beaten the Wallabies, presto! the ref takes a pasting and the Wallabies get blamed for handing the game to the opposition.
Amazing really, that the Boks can play 3 different teams yet it’s always the ref and opposition mistakes which win the game.
Yes the rules suck and have led to this boring kick-fest – we should never have started stuffing around with the rules in the first place – and I’m pretty sure it was driven by the early years by Australia. Rugby was fine for over 100 years until O’Neill started poaching league players and pushing world rugby toward a weird league-union hybrid. And so now we have the half-assed rubbish rules which reward kicking. Take a bow John O’Neill.
Midfielder said | August 9th 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Dare I say … Eddie Jones … if I compare EJ to Deans not counting Italy and Pissant tests … maybe Steady Eddie was not as bad as many on this site made out….maybe as Sheek says we are paying a price for not having a strong domestic competition producing the juniors required to compete at this level…. Comments discuss
GreenandGold said | August 9th 2009 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
Eddie had Larkham & Gregan back then including Matty Rogers to name a few. We are improving albeit at a snails pace right now.
No doubt our domestic competition is not as strong as what NZ or SA have to offer. The youth are not encouraged to take up rugby and it is sad to see talent wasted on rugby league. It was a blessing that Barnes made the right call early in his career to opt for the union path.
Blue Sue said | August 9th 2009 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
Westy
Of course, the only positive of staying up to watch that rubbish last night, was when the head hit the pillow at 2 45 am this morning we turned on the radio and had the privilege to hear a very exciting 25 minutes where the Aussies took 5 for 20 at Headingley ( was very nearly 6 as North dropped a catch off the last ball of the day).
That was a very small consolation!
katzilla said | August 9th 2009 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
I fell asleep during this game.
If not for the fact my team was playing I would have fallen asleep the previous two weeks also (infact the second week I thought I was actually asleep and having a terrivle nightmare)
The common denominator? No not SA and their game plan.
Not the ref either.
The poor execution and game plan employed by both the Wallabies and NZ.
If things go right at home then both these teams should give SA a hiding.
But i doubt we’ll see that much of a turn around, playoff for second place in sydney?
Cotter said | August 9th 2009 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
Has no one mentioned Gits brain snap in the hope that no one noticed and he won’t be cited? Our mate Bakkies would (deservedly) get 4-6 weeks had he done that and this discussion would have been full of it.
JR said | August 9th 2009 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
I aggree, what was he thinking.. If it was one of the boks.. Now where are the one eyed supporters now and why has it taken this long to even get mentioned…. Makes one think hey…
Don’t get me wrong. Matt is a brilliant rugby player, but WOW.. Very dissapointed. Never expected something like that from a quality player…
MarkH said | August 9th 2009 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
At the end of the day possesion will win games. Im sick of the kicking by australia for what?
All I can say is Smit should wear a dress as he is now know as Ben Robinsons Bitch. He got owned.
Blue Sue said | August 9th 2009 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
and may I add ……
The rugby served up last weekend by the Sydney Juniors and Country Juniors ( ages under 14 to under 17) at Easts was absolutely fabulous. Some very close, hard fought games where some of the skill levels of these kids was the sort of stuff we didn’t see last night.
One of the toughest contests was between some big, skillful Islander kids in the Sydney teams against some small, fast, tough kids that never say die from the country.
If you had been there, I am sure you would have been confident that we do have some great kids coming through. The SJRU, NSWRU and ARU just have to work damned hard together to keep them in the sport, as there were rumours around about quite a number of them already having League contracts!
Midfielder said | August 9th 2009 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
GreenandGold
Eddie had Larkham & Gregan … maybe but where they at their best with him … and towards the end did Gregan hold his place on name or form… and where are there replacements take out the RL players and find a second 15…
Football had a very similar problem a number of years ago and has invested heaps of their limited money in developing a number of players… RU like football plays on a world stage and there is no where to hide..
Football today from it’s A-League could find replacements if European players where out … in fact many of the top juniors are playing in the A-league… Slightly off topic but keep and eye out for a young kid playing for SFC called … Danning… some say the next Kwell …
Sheek, TT, Westy, Onside and some others have been talking of this problem and warning for a number of years of the lack of elite juniors… Its OK for the coin to go the Melbourne … but will Melbourne produce the forwards with some mongel in em to take on the AB & Boks… maybe that talent is in WS…
TBH I am not close enough to offer a expert opinion… however could the Shute Shield produce a test player … if needed ….
I am not trying to be hard …. it’s just poor old Eddie J, copped heaps and as I see it Deans is doing no better … and I am not having a go at Deans … maybe we simply don’t have the players or the systems to develop juniors and a structure to develop players to the elite … maybe Sheeks warning are coming true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Link said | August 10th 2009 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Midfielder, good post.
It’ll get worse after RWC 2011, watch the exodus to Europe / Japan by Aus players.
It happened to NZ after RWC 2007, they’re only now building up their depth again.
Aus Rugby doesn’t have nearly the same production line as NZ Rugby.
sheek said | August 9th 2009 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
Okay, two things.
1. This might be as good as the Wallabies get for the moment. Until the next generation gets some rugby experience behind them, we mightn’t be able to expect anymore from this team. That’s life. The Wallabies’ best isn’t good enough, but at least they’re trying their very best (I think).
2. If, as rugby fans we’re happy with the way the laws of the game have evolved, & we’re happy with the way the game is being refereed, then perhaps I’m in the wrong place. If we’re not happy with the spectacle being presented to us – then what are we collectively going to do about it?????
Apologists need not reply!
Howi said | August 9th 2009 @ 3:09pm | Report comment
I understand the points in your article, Andrew. But I do not begrudge the Sprinboks for the way they play. This is international rugby, not a backyard match. The boks have developed a game plan and promoted the players that will make it work. If it is not the style we want to see, that is not SA’s fault. They want to dominate the world and they are playing within the laws (as experimental as they may be) to make that happen. Every other nation plays with exactly the same laws and rules. We can say the boks keep winning by not playing rugby, but nobody is beating them. Nobody can yet bring an attack that will nullify their style of play. Nobody can beat them at their own game.
We should pause to note the scalps that South Africa has acquired so far this year:
British Lions (2-1)
All Blacks -World No 2. (2 – 0)
Wallabies -World No 3. (1 – 0)
I don’t think this is the end of the list either.
onside said | August 9th 2009 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
Hugh McMeniman cannot play for the Qld Reds next year because he has a $2m contract
with Kubota Spears in Japan. He would willingly play with the Reds who are short of players
for a base salary to cover exs ,but will have to settle instead for park rugger.The reason is
the ARU forbids anybody playing Super rugby unless they are available for selection for the
Wallabies.Furthermore only one player from overseas can play fo a Super team.OK nothing
new here.
QUESTIONS.
1.If the quality of players available for Wallaby selection is not up to the standard of other top
ranking countries ,is Super structure best serving Australias interests .
2.Would Australian Super teams be of a higher standard having say several, or for discussion
purposes, unlimited players from overseas.
3.If Super rugby was therefore both more competitive and of a higher standard,would those
Australian players able to earn a place in such a Super team inturn develope into far more
accomplished internationals, thereby making the Wallabies stronger.
Even looser said | August 9th 2009 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
My wife may see it clearer – On the wallaby performance and my spewing comments at 3am this morning as the boys went into ‘Dick Head mode’ in Durban. The little lady of the house spoke out.
“Why doesn’t Australia pick better players”? she asked. I explained that they probably are our best and that teams such as New Zealand & Sth Africa have these amazing provincial competitions that help develop players and their skills. We in Australia don’t have such a comp.
“Okay” she said “but then what’s so hard about throwing the ball in straight at lineout time, into the scrum, catch, pass and all of that normal sort of stuff”? “Besides” she added “Our scrum looked pretty good tonight”.
What could I say? I don’t know and never have known why the hooker can’t throw straight. Equally I don’t get why the 1/2 back can’t pass off the ground and in front of the 5/8’s chest. “Good question” was my best reply.
“And” she added (as if I wasn’t already frustrated enough….now I’ve get her stating the bloody obvious to me “if that Springbok really does kick 300 balls a day everyday and that’s why he’s so good. How many are we kicking each day”? Er I don’t know the answer to that one. Not enough obviously.
So as if rearranging my entire life so that I could manage to watch the game live from 1am to 3am wasn’t bad enough, then along came the most inept performance by some of the boys and to add insult to injury SWMBO comes out with simple questions & statements that puts it all into perspective.
Yes Rugby is a simple game. Do we practice enough of the simple skills?
Nashi said | August 9th 2009 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
Just to stir the pot……
SA to give them credit appear to be the best coached team in the world under the current laws. They play to their strengths and within the laws.
NZ seem to be well coached but according to Richie just incapable of sticking to the game plan or are missing the one player that sets them apart from everyone else, DC.
Aus are just poorly selected. Several big name players have been given ample opportunity to be match winners, yet fail to deliver. Let’s move on.
So does all this mean PDV is the best coach, Morne Steyne the best 10 going around and do the rest of the SA team perfectly complement the game SA are playing.
Tactically best under these laws…. tick.
Best current 10 under these laws……tick.
Best loose trio, 2nd row, halfback to make sure Steyne gets the ball on his kicking tee as often as possible…..tick.
Wake me up after the next world cup please….
Matt said | August 9th 2009 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
The Other Reds Fan,
You would have Phelps at reserve half? Why not, couldn’t be any worse than what we have, and if it’s a wet game he will kick arse.
I
TommyM said | August 9th 2009 @ 10:32pm | Report comment
Forgive my ignorance, but who the hell is Phelps??!!
Jolly Jupes said | August 9th 2009 @ 5:17pm | Report comment
Fred makes a good point – where did this lone article come from that announced a list of “reasons” for the failure against the Boks. All about hope and developing blah blah but there are some here and know questions that are getting missed
Why do we obsessively blame the referee when we lose and accept that 3 yellow cards in a test match is not a sign of deeper issues – It is scandalous – Giteau’s effort is put down to a brain explosion? Had it been Lote it would have been something else. We tolerate certain individuals and not others. Giteau collapsing in a nightclub has never been explained or sanctioned, George Smith has had a couple of drink related incidents in Canberra that have even involved police and the courts, yet he has never (as far as I can remember) been sanctioned by the Brumbies or the ARU – Lote has not had any involving the law but he got shown the door and ironically now is being used as a reason for failure in the post match spin
If you want to have a good lineout then you need to pick serious lineout forwards. We always select a bunch of openside flankers and concede lineout jumping and lifting height. The reason is we want to be more competitive at the ruck, but we get outplayed by one opponent (McCaw and last night Brussow)
Our set piece has gone backwards from last season – Foley’s absence is noticeable
Our only real tactic seems to be kick chase otherwise it is Giteau changing the direction of the play and scoring himself the other stock attack tactic. We ave scored a couple of good set piece tries but limit it to one effort per game. We clearly have tactics at the ruck because we are fervent to the extent of stupidity. In each game the captain spends much time debating with the referee interpretations about “defenesive rucks” and while I enjoy the competitive spirit I think we are intellectualising this are to a higher level than the referees even understand. If we applied this to our attack and the skills we have available then we might threaten more.
We seem to be intent on out muscling rather than out skilling (not a word) our opponents – We will struggle for depth on this approach
Dexter William said | August 10th 2009 @ 1:54am | Report comment
“Our set piece has gone backwards from last season – Foley’s absence is noticeable ”
He was the forwards coach of the 2007 WC – nough said. Is he your best mate that you need to promote him?
Darryl SA said | August 9th 2009 @ 5:53pm | Report comment
There’s a scene in Nemo, where Nemo’s dad goes to a support group with Bruce the Shark. When he says he doesn’t have any problems Bruce looks at his shark mates and together they chime “DENIAL!”
Reading Mr Logan going on about the ref displays one typical symptom… “DENIAL!”
But please do keep it up. As a Saffer who for years bemoaned a number of refereeing howlers against us, and copped it from Aus fans for whinging, it’s wonderful being on the other side of the table. Makes for pleasing reading. Whinge away Mr Logan!
P.S. Respect to Ziggy for fronting up honestly. I actually thought the Wallabies played very well considering we scored I think only 3 points during the time of your 13 men on the field. The Boks threw away some good points scoring opportunities through committed Aus defense and poor ball handling by the Boks, and we didn’t play well at all, I thought. But one does wonder how we would have played without the negative ball-killing play thrown at us. As Ozsaffer put it – well, actually, he put it perfectly, so I won’t repeat what he said.
Andrew Logan said | August 9th 2009 @ 6:12pm | Report comment
Ah Darryl……if you hadn’t started out by citing one of the great animated movie scenes of our generation, I’d be tempted to berate you for jumping to a conclusion that suited you, rather than actually reading what I wrote. But hey…what a combination in one scene…..Barry Humphries, Eric Bana, Bruce Spence……Brilliant stuff!
As far as me being in denial, I have but one thing to say. I don’t think I’ve ever eaten a fish!
Darryl SA said | August 9th 2009 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
Well there’s a redeeming factor for you yet Andrew, you have a sense of humour. This is just a game after all, so a sense of humour thrown in is always healthy. Good on ya.
Rusty said | August 10th 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
lol
Worlds Biggest said | August 9th 2009 @ 6:27pm | Report comment
What a terrible advertisment for the game. Absolute rubbish alround. Here I was in good spirits after the Aussie Cricketers put on a great show only to be ONCE AGAIN let down by a soulless Wallabies outfit. This team is simply just not that good. Another good start only to clock off ( after 2 minutes ) and the house of cards disentegrates with a whimper. The Wallabies lack real leadership on the field and some Senior players go MIA when they are desperately needed to steer the ship. Thus the Wallabies are a rudderless outfit. Lineout, woeful, breakdown work woeful, Giteau was hugely disappointing once again, the lack of composure was astounding. The Boks have a powerful pack and superboot 5/8 and play to those strengths all be it terrible but effective rugby. I agree that Barnes & Giteau need to swap, Genia to start, AAC to 13 and JOC to Fullback. Can someone SOS Elsom and Vickerman. Palu once again MIA. TPN needs to be developed as a prop. So many question marks around this team. I feel like Wallaby supporters have been looking for answers for 5 years now.
Ryan said | August 9th 2009 @ 6:27pm | Report comment
Andrew, I’m not sure you are qualified to write about Rugby Union.
Test matches are about winning and silverware, not about the style of play.
The Springboks are a formidable outfit at the moment and play to win. If a kicking game results in a win, then they have played smart rugby.
As world champions, and winners of the recent Lions tour, it is evident that the Springboks are a composed team in top form whose focus is on winning every game.
Who cares whether they kick or run the ball? As a Springbok supporter, I care about the points they put on the board and how many test matches they win.
Go the Springboks! Continue playing smart rugby!
Peter Gregory said | August 9th 2009 @ 6:29pm | Report comment
In all I’ve read down to here, there have only been about two or three brief mentions of the scrum – just saying it was good – and only one mention of Al Baxter – to the effect that he wasn’t all that good anyway.
I wonder if I watched a different game from everyone else?!! The single strongest impression I am left with from the match was just how good the Wallabies pack was once Baxter was replaced. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. As soon as they were freed from the greatest encumbrance on Australian rugby for – how many? 60-odd Tests?? – they started pushing the Boks all over the paddock, shattering scrums at will. I noticed it, the commentators I listened to were noticing it, so I’m wondering why nobody else here has commented. To see an Australian scrum hammering a Springbok pack to the extent they did post-Baxter last night was an absolute joy. SURELY Deans cannot simply go on rewarding his congenital inability to hold up a scrum and give what is obviously a pretty decent pack otherwise to get on with the job.
TommyM said | August 9th 2009 @ 10:39pm | Report comment
Peter- Absolutely agree. Wonder if it had something to do with with TPN on for Moore as well though. AS I suggested previously elsewhere- Smith to throw in and TPN to the back??
Oh, and one more thing….. WHY????????? do people continually propagate the myth that the Boks have a ‘Monster’ pack? The Wallabies forwards tipped the scales at 900kg in last night’s game. Boks were I think around 870kg. It’s simply inaccurate.
Spencer said | August 10th 2009 @ 1:45am | Report comment
Fully agree Peter Gregory. The group I watched the game with (including South Africans) all commented on the consolidated drive at the scrum once TPN and Big Ben came on. Absolutely drove through the middle of their scrum. Also Mumm had a much improved performance.
As a Reds man I will freely admit that the reason the Tahs scrum was so good this year was TPN. G Smith to throw to the lineouts and TPN to act as a third (mobile) prop.
Now is the time for Deans to start the young guns.TPN, Alexander, O’Connor and Genia. These 4 plus Robinson and Horwill (once they find the right rocket for his arse) are the future core of the Australian team. Also switch Giteau and Barnes (as suggested elsewhere).
greencap said | August 9th 2009 @ 6:41pm | Report comment
Mmmmm. Here comes the first two in a row for the World Cup…..
hehe. Smug.
rugbygirl said | August 9th 2009 @ 6:51pm | Report comment
giteau has one bad game and everone wants to drop him…
stupidest comment ever, giteau is the best 10 in rugby at the moment
its hard to play well when ur forwards arnt playing well (first half anway)and burgess is giving him terrible ball
ella, lynagh, larkham, carter and wilkinson have all had bad games no-one suggest they should be immediately dropped
anger..
Fuzz said | August 9th 2009 @ 7:30pm | Report comment
Best in Australia maybe,
All Blacks in Auckland Giteau went missing hardly noticeable
Vs Springboks at Newlands resorted to dirty play as he was simply cancelled out of the game.
The players you mentioned are all in a different class to Giteau hence the reason many have not and did not call for their heads
How good has Carter looked in the last two ANZC matches ok Canterbury lost against Harbour who in turn went down to Tasman this weekend but Carter was instrumental last night in Canterburys win over a ailing Auckland.
If he isn’t selected for the Sydney test I will be slightly annoyed.
Dexter William said | August 10th 2009 @ 2:03am | Report comment
Are you Giteau’s’ sister?
If you have followed the forum, “we” did not say that he should be dropped, but should play at 12 which he is probably is best at.
Unless it is ego of being the 5/8 (American Footy quarter back) that Gits is after, he should realise that it is a teams’ sport. Horan is a 12, and he is our best player by far in the last 20 years.
Nick said | August 9th 2009 @ 6:55pm | Report comment
did any of you watch the second test of the B&I lions vs the springboks?? It was probably one of the best games i have ever seen in my entire life and the game was played under the same rules! The difference here is that aus and new zealand were massacred so now the rugby is ‘unattractive’ to their fans. Games between these 3 nations have always been tough and i don’t see anything wrong in playing a strategy to not only beat opponent but also dominate them. Honestly the excuses from the aus and nz fans have ranged from crap coach, to bad ref, to the weakest teams ever so the springboks are not that great to the game is boring we must change the rules. Aus and Nz are good teams, they are better than any other NH team but the Springboks are on a another level. I rate this team one of the best ever but ofcourse they still have to prove it. As David Campese qouted ‘only the springboks can beat the springboks’.
Fuzz said | August 9th 2009 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
Nick you can not be serious!
Massacred?
I’m sorry but that would have to be the some of the biggest chest thumping I have ever read on this site.
yes the Boks won but it was hardly convincing and far from a massacre.
You also tend to forget that the All Blacks still have a superior win loss record over the boks and have a far superior Tri-nations record than Australia and South Africa combined. The Springboks will come back to earth with a thump on their away leg and I’m not just talking about the plane hitting the Tarmac
David campeses statement is a load of rubbish the All Blacks have proven many times that they can beat the springboks, more times than the boks have ever beaten the ABs
Nick said | August 9th 2009 @ 7:51pm | Report comment
To me it looked very convincing as they were dominant almost the entire game! I mean massacre in the sense that i felt that after the first 20 mins nz and aus had no chance of winning those games!! 70% possesion against the all blacks, that is almost unheard of. I am not forgetting anything about the all blacks record, i take my hats off to them for their consistency. I am talking about the current crop of all black, aus and boks teams and at the moment it is my opinion that these boks are dominant! David Campese was also talking about the current crop, no one can deny the dominance nz have had over the past couple of years. In the end there is no point of debating this point until after the away games for the boks. That will be the true test! I just believe that they can do it…
LeftArmSpinner said | August 9th 2009 @ 9:53pm | Report comment
Nick, IMO, the first 20 was a classic test match, as we were used to and dont get often these days. hard, uncompromsing physical. I thought after a qucik aussie start the Boks got into their rythym and tactics. I cant fault their strategy nor their implementation. They were simply better at more of the crucial elements of international rugby: lineout, territory, discipline, breakdown goal kicking. They were dominant, no question. It was not a massacre.
How the Abs and Wallabies respond will be interesting. first, you need more ball and in better field position. Better discipline may result in the boks having more ball. what will they do with it???? Just use that mongrel pack to drive forward………
My conclusion is that they must be beaten up front. meet mongrel, speed and strength with more mongrel, speed and strength.
I dont understand how the Wallabies lineout can have declined so quickly, when compared to the Boks lineout in such a short period of time???? is this the cost of losing Foley from the national coaching team???
Nick said | August 10th 2009 @ 12:01am | Report comment
leftarmspinner
I agree 100%, the only way to beat the boks at the moment is to meet them upfront! The B&I lions did and they gave the boks alot of trouble!! I just don’t know if the all blacks and wallabies have the players to meet them upfront this year?? I predict an overseas whitewash, it is a bold one but we will see…
Fred said | August 9th 2009 @ 7:15pm | Report comment
Manure Andrew, The wallabies were beaten up, no other way to put it. They were a bunch of pussy cats against a physically superior force… The Boks didn’t need to play much rugby. Apart from Rocky you simply don’t have the forwards to go toe to toe with the biggest and best. The Wallabies have never had a pack that put the fear of God into anyone, but were always a step ahead in terms of their ingenuity behind the scrum.. Nowadays even a team like Ireland can slice teams apart behind the scrum so where is the ace card for Australian Rugby? Robbie Deans may be the best coach in the world but if doesn’t have the cattle he’d be better off heading back across the Tasman once the NZRU bid adieu to Graham Henry & co
cookee said | August 9th 2009 @ 7:20pm | Report comment
JUPES it will be interesting to see if giteau gets cited —-if not no opponent can be criticised from hereon
this is surely a case of judgement gone out the window due to the overaroused build up to this fixture.
how can genia tackle someone blatantly without ball to halt chase ,this deliberate foul deserved a yellow card.
hooker moore should spend more time on his throws and less time loitering offside.george smiths cynical yellow card at end the tip of the iceberg.
these actions are indefensible and deans as leader must address this issue and promote discipline thru action not words or doesnt he see this as necessary in his build up to 2011
fred said | August 9th 2009 @ 7:32pm | Report comment
FRED 2, you make some solid sense but the myth surrounding robbie deans guru status is exposed as this man is not the worlds best coach at this level clearly
Michael Lee said | August 9th 2009 @ 7:49pm | Report comment
It is amazing, only 2 international teams constantly look at outside excuses for their poor play- England and Australia. Biassed commentators included. If the boks are a 1 trick pony, the Wallabies are a minus 3 trick. They can handle well but thats all. WHAT HAPPENED TO GITEAUS CHARGE OF DU PREEZ, oh thats ok but Bothas clearing out was definitely an outrageous citing and illegal. C’mon take a leaf out of Richie Mcaw’s book, the players are at fault period. Ozzies open both eyes. If you guys would have won it would have been trumpeted worldwide. We have neutral refs, so whats the problem, is it because you know better.
Go All Blacks, you will find your greatness again
Spencer said | August 10th 2009 @ 1:50am | Report comment
Michael – If, as you say the Wallabies “can handle well”, would that not be one trick?
By the way it’s Aussies, not Ozzies.
And dont be an inscure little AB, suck. The Kiwis also think Saffas are doff.
You really are easily amazed!
westy said | August 9th 2009 @ 8:03pm | Report comment
I will excuse Giteua this time for the brainsnap. But Jupes is right. Anyone who cares to review this rugby site our reaction to Lote committing a similar error would not be the same. I personally am not proud of this difference in treatment.
Congatulations to the Boks. if you want to play field position you must have confidence in your set pieces . Australia’s scrummaging was generally good. Why you would try and kick for touch late in the game when your when your lineout was non functioning was mind boggling.
LeftArmSpinner said | August 9th 2009 @ 9:42pm | Report comment
gentlemen, this was not a rubbish game, not in the slightest.
The Wallabies V Boks game did provide what I expect from an international rugby game: Lots of anticipation in the lead up to the game, passionate, emotional, very physical, cut and thrust, massive pressure that was built consistently and that took its toll. players at their limit, their real limit. just ask Matt giteau and his brain explosion.
Not enough ball in hand, but we have discussed this ad infinitem.
I thought it was also a good advert for yellow cards. they added another demension to the contest, forced the remaining 13 to adjust tactics and tackle more. It was good, and a far cry from this impression that yellows damage the spectacle. they add to it!!!!
The boks were a better rugby team. their tactics are simple but clear. Kick for field posession, regain possession with a dominant lineout, and quick and strong at the breakdown. From this, they have the ball in the right territory of the field. This can only put pressure on the opposition, errors happen, and these days, that is 3 points each time with a kicker like Steyn.
Add to this the speed outwide to hit on the counterattack, (tho not last night).
The Boks were better at the breakdown, overall, and played with greater intensity. Aussies matched them in the mongrel stakes, but this was not enough despite the aussies being better in the backs.
The aussies lost the ball, be it at the breakdown, or at the lineout or in the kicking duels. You cant do that and expect to win.
Burgess passed well, with the exception of one or two. around the park he was great. barnes kept his head in the most difficult times. Our backrow was outplayed, but Smith kept trying. AAC was great in the air, O’Connor played well, also in the air. Mitchell was supportive of 15. Robinson was very good for the whole game. Alexander was also good when he came on. TPN still cant throw. (enough is enough!) Horwill is not his 2008 self, nor is Palu.. equally, the Boks began to fall away in the 3rd quarter. was this due to the three games in a row or the Aussies pressure. I suspect a bit of both but more the former.
Spencer said | August 10th 2009 @ 1:56am | Report comment
Give it up LAS. Burgess is finished!
Will Genia passes the ball like a bullet.
Starting team for Sydney:
Robinson
TPN
Alexander
Horwill
Mumm
Elsom
Smith
Brown
Genia
Barnes
Hynes
Giteau
ACC
Turner
JOC
bob said | August 9th 2009 @ 9:55pm | Report comment
As a pom…. I think the article sucks… the wallabies did well, the ref was poor, but come one, what the hell happened in the last 2 weeks to turn the wallaby pack from an average, easily collapsed pack to the triumphant scrummagers of this weekend? they made the boks look like amatuers… well done to the forwards.
It wasn’t Aussies night, but it wasn’t a kickfest, and it was a brave and proud effort… and the signs are all there that by next year Ausi will back to the powerhouse they once were… and it will be built on the forwards and especially the scrum, as any great team must be. I don’t know who came in to change things, but hats off to him. I don’t think they can beat the boks next week, and who cares, you wil all trade the trinations of this year and next, for the RWC of 2011 and that, my freinds, is just what Deans and whoever turned those forwards round, might just deliver. Now go back, edit the rest of the game out and watch the scrums… bloody beautiful.
OldManEmu said | August 10th 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Bob – I think the asnwer to your question is that, certainly at scrum time, the referee wqas not so easily conned, and The Beast and John Smit are nowehere near as good scrummagers as their AB counterparts.
S. T. Rine said | August 9th 2009 @ 10:27pm | Report comment
Ref had nothing to do with W’s losing eight of their own lineouts, Giteau’s infantile smash of kick retriever (maybe he wanted to be off field during the pasting), Mitchell, et al pretending they were Boks & just kicking ball back kinstead of running it,
Smith’s (rare) yellow card.
No, agree game was awful, but Bok supporters loved it.
Best rugby to watch today is the Air New Zealand contests.
Jools-USA
Fuzz said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:06pm | Report comment
Jools
Air New Zealand Cup is already a free for all and thats how it should be, after the opening two weeks I think it will be hard for the NZRU to justify to any union how they can be dropped.
Tasman beat North Harbour on the weekend who in turn beat Canterbury in the opening weekend.
Wellington had a very unconvincing win over a Hawke Bay outfit backing up from an absolute demolition of Auckland.
Taranaki fell apart after a good first half, the ref in this match however I believe had a very significant impact and i can’t help but think Northland has taken Manawatus place as the sympathy team and I believe they will get many more line calls and results go their way. Southland are on a roll and have in their first two matches knocked off two Super 14 teams the sweetest this weekend over their Highlanders partners. Bay of Plenty struggled last week yet had a cracker against Lelias Counties but how much can we take from this it is Counties after all. the biggest player base in the country and arguably the worst team.
This weekend should be interesting and I expect to see many more All Blacks take to the paddock and rightfully so. After two weeks Auckland is rooted firmly to the bottom of the table with two losses while the top four is made up of three provinces and only one Super 14 base in the top four.
There is an air about this years ANZC that hasn’t been here for a while and I look forward to a thrilling season.
Neil said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:11pm | Report comment
“Test rugby has regressed to a kickfest – a contest of which team has the best kicker – and a complete guessing game about how the referee might decide to interpret the various infringements”
hilarious. this from a professional journalist.
remind me again why someone has the opportunity to kick for goals? did morne steyn win 8 penalties by himself? oh, it was because of the constant infringing and negative play at the break down.
if your team refuses to allow us any ball to play with, you’ll find we are quite content to take the points every opportunity.
australia and new zealands incredibly negative and professional fouling at the breakdown is breaking rugby. the irb needs to do something immediately to stamp out the unbelievable negativity and professional fouling by nz and australia.
it’s turning the game into a penalty fest.
ohtani's jacket said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:31pm | Report comment
Please, South Africa’s entire game plan is based on forcing turnovers and penalties in the opposition’s half. Given that the kick the ball away, they’re hardly entiled to have it back. One of these days they’re going to be hammered in the penalty count and John Smit is going to make his sad face and the entire South African rugby community will swear it’s a conspiracy against the Boks.
If you think for a second that the Boks aren’t infringing, you’re out of your mind. They had two players sent off last week for professional fouls. They’ve been milking shit left, right and centre the past three weeks. I can only hope we have neutral refs on the away leg.
Neil said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:32pm | Report comment
so you admit it’s the cynical penalties that are making the game negative?
ohtani's jacket said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:44pm | Report comment
I have a lenient view on cynical play. I thought Giteau’s challenge on du Preez was awful and Smith did the same thing he’s been doing his whole career. Brown made a split second decision and paid for it. I do not believe that attempting a turnover and being penalised for it is cynical play.
South Africa are happy to win penalties and take the points on offer. With the amount of territory and possession they’ve enjoyed, the argument that it’s negative play from NZ and Australia that’s preventing South Africa from scoring is just bollocks to me. On the rare occassion that South Africa do run it, their forwards make strong hit-ups but their backs are awful.
I’ve been harping on about it, but they had a 15-13 man advantage. If Australia were playing negatively, they were well and truly punished for it. South Africa made a hash of that 11 minute advantage and they were actively trying to make a linebreak. They had a five metre lineout and couldn’t score. They had a five metre scrum and couldn’t score. What about Bakkies calling for the ball and knocking it on? Only Bobby Skinstad could put a positive spin on that.
South Africa went into that game to force Australia to make mistakes. Fair enough. But to cry that those mistakes are cynical and negative is ridiculous. South Africa are simply a poor attacking side.
pothale said | August 10th 2009 @ 1:06am | Report comment
“I can only hope we have neutral refs on the away leg.” – Othani
Neutral to who, OJ? South Africa? New Zealand? Fiji?
ohtani's jacket said | August 10th 2009 @ 2:02am | Report comment
An Aussie ref will do. They usually penalise the Boks. That ought to up the number of lost lineouts, but reduce the Boks scoreline by multiples of three.
pothale said | August 10th 2009 @ 2:28am | Report comment
So he won’t be neutral then. You want an Aussie ref to ref the game between Australia and South Africa or just the NZ v Aus match or the NZ v SA match?
Are the refs not already decided, by the way?
Out of curiousity, do you think the same should apply for NH games?
And what about June and November internationals?
ohtani's jacket said | August 10th 2009 @ 2:58am | Report comment
Oh, it’ll be neutral. The only way to offset the bollocks is a little bias. That way it’ll even out in the end and be neutral. Do you catch my drift?
Aussie refs for the NZ/SA Test, Kiwi refs for the SA/Australian Tests. I think it’s already been decided.
pothale said | August 10th 2009 @ 3:04am | Report comment
Ok. So who’s reffing the next match? I know I’m being lazy and could go look it up.
And in response to my other query, do you think only NH refs should ref the NH tests?
And what about the June and November internationals – toss a coin as whether it’s SH or NH?
ohtani's jacket said | August 10th 2009 @ 11:23am | Report comment
I think SH refs should ref Tri-Nations games and NH refs should ref Six Nations games and there should be a balance for the June and November Tests.
I believe the next ref is Kaplan. Lawrence was supposed to ref the first BC Test, but pulled out for some undisclosed reason. Joubert was supposed to ref the third BC Test. Not sure who will ref that one.
Neil said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:15pm | Report comment
browns cynicism that led to his yellow card was the prime example of this.
the bok backline had 2 men out the outside and were ready to play wide when suddenly, from off the ground on the wrong side of the ruck the flank decides he’ll just kill the movement and let them take the three.
stop being so blatantly one sided and try figure out why rugby for you guys is becoming negative actually. not because of springbok tactics, but because of cynical and professional fouling at every opportunity by the australian team.
ohtani's jacket said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:32pm | Report comment
They can’t play wide! They showed that when Habana had to cut back inside.
Neil said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:40pm | Report comment
then prove it with your defense. don’t cynically infringe and destroy the movement.
ohtani's jacket said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:46pm | Report comment
Like J P Pietersen?
Fuzz said | August 9th 2009 @ 11:54pm | Report comment
With you on that one OJ,
Lets defend like the Boks forearms at the ready fingernails sharpened and ready for action.
Take no prisoners inflict as much injury as possible
Spencer said | August 10th 2009 @ 2:02am | Report comment
I refer you to Law 15.4(c). The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then may play the ball from any direction. http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws
Facts:
1. Brown was the tackler
2. Brown released the tackled player
3. Brown regained his feet and played the ball (from any direction)
Neil.. you are not alone in your reflex reaction to this issue, however you are nonetheless, wrong.
Ivan said | August 10th 2009 @ 4:05am | Report comment
Spencer, you do not know your rules bud, The Tackler may only get up to play the ball from any side IF he is on his feet and playing the ball before the ruck is formed. In this case Brown tried unsuccessfully to do a Brussouw. We saw mccaw do the same thing and he too was penalised. The Wallas were frustrated into giving penalties for infringements because the boks have become so adept at the breakdown. Plain and simple. all this referee is inconsistent and only called it to one side etc. is rubbish. It was not entertaining, but then force the boks into plan b. If you cant then dont expect them to go out of 2nd gear. Oh and Giteau is lucky that he was not playing against a NH team as he would probably have been banned for 8 weeks for his well aimed elbow on du Preez…. So much whinging, the boks must have been very lucky to win 3 weeks in a row. The funny part is that they havent even started playing.
TommyM said | August 10th 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
S. T. Rine said | August 10th 2009 @ 12:58am | Report comment
Fuzz,
Watching Air New Zealand games (thanks to Setanta), I am constantly reminded of the depth of NZ rugby & why
ABs are consistently world’s best..
At what age do they teach NZ babies how to pass out of the tackle……three?
Jools-USA
mattamkII said | August 10th 2009 @ 2:18am | Report comment
Spencer – correct. McCaw does the exact same thing several times a game.
Darryl SA said | August 10th 2009 @ 2:22am | Report comment
Biased refs? Excellent! After a decade or two they’re finally on the Boks side. We’ll enjoy it while it lasts then. Goodness knows Aus and NZ have had their fair share.
Jolly Jupes said | August 10th 2009 @ 4:31am | Report comment
Dexter – good comeback “nough said” I merely make the point that the best fwds performance were the Tahs this season, coached by Foley – the forwards did better last year as I dont remember the Baxter debate surfacing unitl this seasons test series. If you are happy with the set piece this season then you are easily pleased
Its a bit dumb going back to a reference about 2007 as you could use the same arguement about Deans contribution in the 2003 RWC when they bombed out. Or Heyneke Meyer coming last twice in the S14 and being sacked. Then he comes back and wins it. Things change as do peoples fortunes – Again if you are happy that the set piece is progressing then you can rest easy Losing 8 or 9 lineouts in a test is poor so lets blame the ref then
Peter Marks said | August 10th 2009 @ 5:03am | Report comment
Criticising the Springboks for using the existing rules of the game to the maximum advantage is disappointing and unproductive; they play a simple but brutally effective game, high on pressure and low on risk taking. Good on them. It’s the job of other nations to come up with better plans and better teams. I don’t find it attractive myself, but then again I thought that England was equally limited (and equally effective) when it based its games on Jonny Wilkinson and a forward pack. That strategy, tellingly, also was able to secure a World Cup. I’m sure there are differences, but the similarities between these sides are worth considering: great lineouts (Martin Johnston/Victor Matfield); difficult to stop rolling mauls; tough scrums (England far better than the current Boks, though, who got bossed around at times by the Wallabies); solid and mistake-resistant midfield with the ability on occasion to set free fliers (Habana/Robinson), and flyhalfs who rarely missed. But to me that England team was superior to the current Boks for several reasons: their scrum was dominant, and Wilkinson was far more tactically astute than Morne Steyne has shown so far. Players such as Robinson and Cohen got the ball in backline moves that Habana and the very-average Pietersen can only dream about.
How to rate the current Boks team against other good sides. There are several factors that stop them (at this point) being seen as anything like great. First off, they need to win away from home consistently. They might well do this in the current Tri-Nations series and on their northern tour, but South African teams historically are different propositions away from home. All their wins this year have been home games, which for any team provides advantages. They can’t be blamed for that, of course, but it surely helps the Boks’ game plan to play in conditions where a 65 metre drop goal is worth a crack, and you can punt from inside your own 22 with the expectation that that the ball might roll into touch 10 metres out from the opposition line. When you have Matfield and Botha attacking the subsequent lineout there’s a real incentive to play to that strength. Steyne’s undoubted qualities as a goalkicker have all been on a hard surface. He needs to kick as well under pressure when the ground is slippery underfoot, the wind swirling, the ball heavy or greasy. The same conditions also have some effect on lineout security, even for players of the quality of Matfield and Botha.
Give the Boks credit: to beat the Lions, All Blacks and Wallabies, with only a loss to show for the six games is impressive. That record would be even more impressive, though, if the All Blacks were functioning well, which from the start of the season they have failed to do. Frankly, the All Blacks haven’t put together more than 25 consecutive minutes of top quality rugby in any single game this year. They were less than average against the French in the first test and embarrassing against the Italians. They had good patches against the French (in the second test), in the second half against the Wallabies, and for much of the second half in the first test against the Boks, but in most of these games they were well off the place before they fought back. That showed tenacity, but nothing like the sort of control the All Blacks were able to assert at their best last year. The Boks need to beat an All Blacks side playing well in New Zealand to lay claim to being a high quality team. The current Wallabies, to me, are a competent side at best, and far short of the great teams of the early 2000s. Compare Eales to Sharpe, Kefu to Brown, Larkham to Giteau, Gregan (at his best) to Burgess, Burke to Ashley-Cooper and Mortlock to Mortlock and the drop in quality is frightening. That Wallabies team would murder the current Wallabies, and I think it would comfortably handle the current All Black and Bok sides. I’d say the England World Cup team would also succeed over all three of this year’s Tri-Nations teams. Again, it’s not South Africa’s fault that the opposition in the Tri-Nations is playing poorly, and much of the poor play does have to do with Springbok pressure. I’m naïve enough to think that a fit Dan Carter will add the cool-headedness and tactical skills needed to lift the backs out of their current alarming slump. Not immediately, but in time.
One interesting statistic that I’ve not quite processed: although from the sinbinning of Giteau in 35th minute the Wallabies effectively had 14 men on field for 30 minutes, the Springboks only scored a penalty in the 54th minute. The Wallabies ‘won’ the second half (no real comfort in that, but interesting in itself). Does this suggest that the sort of game the Boks play is so physically sapping that even they can’t keep it up for 80 minutes?Does it indicate that they took their foot off the Wallabies’ throat? Does it point to the fact that for all the pressure, if you can hold your composure and not give away penalties, the Boks have nowhere else to go? James O’Connor showed that flair and adventure can ask quick and troubling questions of any team.
A final point: I made the argument in an earlier post that Donald’s kicking game was substandard and mechanical, that he needed to use his boot cleverly, perhaps with chips and grubbers. I now suggest that he spend time replaying the brilliant kick John Smit put in that set up Matfield’s try. Any back would be proud of the skill, timing and real time thinking behind that touch of genius. It showed a feel for the subtleties of the game that I fear Donald does not have.
Knives Out said | August 10th 2009 @ 5:38am | Report comment
A reasonable, rational, objective analysis. Good read.
Rusty said | August 12th 2009 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
Great post Pete, top erm “Marks”
pothale said | August 10th 2009 @ 6:46am | Report comment
Excellent read. Lovely writing.
Why not give us one of your own as an article, Peter Marks?
Sam Taulelei said | August 10th 2009 @ 7:01am | Report comment
Always enjoy reading your comments Peter.
Mitch O said | August 10th 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Pitiful. Tri Nations rugby has deteriorated into abysmal penalty and drop goal rubbish. Yet again the game was won by the side that tried to play the least rugger.
It’s difficult to figure why this is the case. Why have ruck infringement penalties become the order of the day? I thought the aim had been to clean up this area of the game?
Perhaps it’s time for a restructure of the points system: 1 point for drop kicks and 2 points for a penalty. Frankly watching Steyn (or anyone for that matter) take pot shots from 50 metres out makes me want to barf – go play football if you haven’t got to nuts to have a go at running the ball.
Clearly the incentive to build a game around scoring trys isn’t strong enough. And pedantic referees are only to keen to exercise their influence on the game by picking on misdemeanours while blatant offside play goes unoticed – effectively squeezing the life out of creative play.
Benny said | August 10th 2009 @ 8:52am | Report comment
Was i the only one that thought SA were offside on almost every box kick? halfbox box kicks and flankers charge downfield despite being on the edge of the ruck clearly 2m ahead of the halfback…
my god it was a boring game but…
Hoy said | August 10th 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
I noticed that too Benny.
I wonder what who would win if this Springbok side, played England circa 2003? Would the world end?
Benny said | August 10th 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
A dvd of that game would immediately put all sleeping pill makers out of business
Worlds Biggest said | August 10th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Leftie, I don’t agree with you at all re the quality of the game, it was sh*te. Both teams made a lot of errors, the ref didn’t allow any flow, it was not a good spectacle at all even for the purist. Your mate Burgess did some good things but once again Genia showed him up with crisp bullet like passing. The Wallabies scrum in 2nd half was very good and offset the shambles that was the lineout and our breakdown work. The Wallabies really lack leadership. When we need composure there is no one to steady the ship.
OldManEmu said | August 10th 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
First things first. In defence of Andrew Logan – not that he needs it.
A few posts have questioned the author’s credentials, capacity and qualifications such that permit him to write about Rugby. Such comments are pretty childish – it is fair enough to disagree with a person’s view but because you disagree it is not fair enough to pull out the old “Oh yeah, well what would you know, my Dad’s bigger than yours” type line. If that is the best some of you can do in debate then give up and get off the site.
I thought the central theory of the piece was clear enough and encapsulated in the following – “Test rugby has regressed to a kickfest – a contest of which team has the best kicker – and a complete guessing game about how the referee might decide to interpret the various infringements. If this is rugby’s showpiece, then we are in dire straits.” Who could argue with that?
The Springboks were in my view SUPERB. Never in my years of watching the game have I seen an international team stick to the game plan so ruthlessly. High ball, pour through, crowbars through the window at the breakdown, take the points, contest each and every lineout. Has their been a more dominant lineout in the post supporting/lifting era of International Rugby? If there has I cannot recall it. Spies, Smith, Botha, Matfield (and Broussow when he comes on) – four options makes it hard to compete.
I thought Berrick Barnes was the best player on the field – he knocked over every big forward that ran at him and played a lone hand in guiding the otherwise rudderless Wallbies around the field. The Boks had the Steyne duo and Du Preez so it was three against one in the smarts department – and for me this is where the game was won and lost. Physically I thought it was an even contest, the game was won in the five or so inches between the ears.
pothale said | August 10th 2009 @ 10:17am | Report comment
OME – are we not in danger of losing the plot over three matches out of hundreds played this year. Suddenly the end is nigh, because the Boks have decided to go with the game plan they have.
I just don’t buy it.
Australia and New Zealand are not going to play the way the Boks are. And frankly, I don’t see many of the NH teams either unless forced to by lack of quality resources e.g. Italy.
I think people are losing their heads unecessarily.
OldManEmu said | August 10th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Pothale – you and I are in furious agreement.
pothale said | August 10th 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment
I read that three times to make sure you hadn’t put ‘dis’ in front of the last word.
Now all we have to do is persuade everyone else to hang up their ‘End is nigh” boards and get back to watching rugby on the 22nd. Or is that the Boks again?
Wilso said | August 10th 2009 @ 10:57am | Report comment
Loges, no doubt the Boks are clinical and ruthless with the execution of their game plan – but mate, it bores the shit out of me: hence, the preference to spend 3 mins reading the Roar (at my leisure mind you) rather than 80min watching (at 1am). Only a few more rule tweaks are required and we will end with Sth African Rules (and a headache for the AFL). Give me Club Rugby any day.
Benny said | August 10th 2009 @ 11:10am | Report comment
To those again knocking burgess (cause he is the reason they don’t score tries – not the forwards who can’t recycle ball or the fact that simply no team scores tries anymore [especially against the SA's backline built like flankers]) did you see the cover tackle on habana 30mins in that would have been a guaranteed try? had to laugh when Greg Martin in commentary (a known burgess hater) ‘couldn’t identify’ who made the tackle despite it being obvious
bennalong said | August 10th 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
OME
I sentence you to 8 hours replays of the last three Boks games
Pothale would lap them up. You?
countryboy said | August 10th 2009 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
To all you whiners about the rules and the Springboks style of play – the very same rules and the same Springbok team participated in the best 3 match Test series I’ve seen in years, that of the British Lions.
I’ve yet to come across a single Pom or South African who didn’t think that those three games were fantastic and enthralling viewing.
So tell me, how can the Bok style of play or the rules suddenly be at fault for producing boring rugby? In the famous words of another whining Australian, ‘please explain’.
retired rucker said | August 10th 2009 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
Put all the whinging about the state of the game aside for a minute and asses the game from wallabies fan who wants to win at all costs;
We got fairly and squarely rogered. The wallabies let them selves down and the ref was OK. Dean’s honey moon is over and he needs to stop with all the positives only PC drivel and let us know how shit they played and get stuck into the premedonas.
Areas of disgrace;
1.Line out was, you can’t win a game when you loose 8-9 of your own lineouts. There is noway moore and TPN are ever going to be good enough throwers if they are’nt yet. Get someone in the pack to throw who is coordinated – Robinson, Smith, brown, pockock ect , there is no need for the hooker to throw!
2. Not competing against the SA lineout half the time is admitting defeat, unaceptable tactic.
3. Kicking the ball away without at least one but preferably 2-3 chasers is stupidity as you are again(ala lineout) conceding unpressurised ball
4. Discipline was a joke and good riddance(from force) gits with that high shot, imagine if Bakkies did it to him we would’nt hear the end of it
5. Selections where shite: Burgess should never have got a game after the AB’s- back to club rugby, Genia starts and Valentine back up.
Baxter has been a liability for 5 years, wallabies are better off without him.
Palu is unmotivated and should feel disgraced and hand in his boots, surely there is another 8 out there?
Barnes is clearly a better 5/8 and leader than gits and they should swap positions now.
6 The south africans have shown NZ and WAllabies for along time there ball strip tackle, and both teams haven’t even atempted to neutralise this,are they even practising 2-3 hours a week of holding onto the ball?, pathetic – mortloack was stripped 3 times, wake up!
7.Inability to think on their feet and change tactics to plan a-z when kicking possesion away and linouts aren’t working!
The forwards need to take a blood oath before sydney too only beable to crawl off the ground, leave nothing behind, they sem not tofire as a unit. Maybee Rocky is the next captain?
Anyway the scrum was awsome with Baxter off and as an exgrunt gave me something positive to take to bed!
Michael Lee said | August 13th 2009 @ 4:17am | Report comment
Well done, well written
that’s all that needs to be said
BMW said | August 10th 2009 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Retired Rucker,
I could not agree more with your comment about TPN and Moore and the woeful lineout throwing, there is nothing in any law book or coaching manual that says only the bloke with 2 on his back has to throw into the lineout. Another option would be to go ultra old school and have a winger throw the ball in with a prop/hooker or back rower standing at inside centre, so simple but I am sure the attacking team would make yards while the opposition scratch their heads in confusion!! The time for whinging is over, I think most, if not all of the rugby watching public are sick of the whingeing, it is time for some improvement from the wallabies… all refs make mistakes and saturday night was clearly no exception but it is always the losing side who notice it more.
I am just glad I am not the ARU trying to promote the ‘blockbuster’ out at homebush next week, on the form of the wallabies they would be lucky to fill the bundy bar at the SFS.
-BMW
Bulldog said | August 10th 2009 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
As a former avid rugby supporter and player – I suggest you all get your TV guides out and mark down the next time the Wests Tigers NRL team are playing, then at the appropriate time turn on your TV tune it to the right channel, sit down and enjoy the game.
Jolly Jupes said | August 10th 2009 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
Retired Rucker/BMW – you clearly do not understand the nature of developing a skill. No there is no law against another person throwing in the lineout but where are they going to learn the skill and secondly maintain the skill. If you think it is just a matter of tossing the ball in then why does every (99%) teams in world rugby at almost every level use the hooker to throw it. The answer is he practices the skills appropriate, just like the goal kicker, the second row who jumps etc etc. Whether the thrower is good under pressure is the same arguement as a golfer – some are clearly better than others. No problem – find another one but are they going to be able to scrum, tackle and carry the ball like TPN – I doubt it.
BMW said | August 10th 2009 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
JJ
Some valid points, not many but some.
Surely we would replace a goal kicker if they were missing 9+ goals a match.. whether it was accurate or not, Gordon Bray made the comment that Morne Steyn takes something like 300 shots at goal a day. Do the wallaby hookers each throw 300 lineouts a day?
As for your comment about where are they going to learn and maintain the skill? For $100k + a year I am pretty sure I could learn and maintain the skill. Let’s not forget that they are professional sportmen, that is their job full time and one of the neccesary skills for a hooker in this day and age is the ability to throw the ball into the line out straight, now I am not for a second saying that the occasional mistake can’t be accepted but give me a break, TPN has always had a problem with his lineout throwing, granted he is an amazing ball runner and can scrum and tackle with the best of them but his lineout throwing under pressure crumbles. It is well documented that when he plays for Parramatta he plays in the backrow and is not out of place. Maybe he is better suited there? In the modern game hookers are required to play as a 4th backrower in a lot of phase play anyway. There is no doubt both TPN and Moore are talented footballers in their own right but while the approach is to have the number 2 throwing the ball in it is indeed a skill they need to not only develop but maintain.
Lets not blow too much smoke up his backside though by saying that TPN is not replaceable,
retired rucker said | August 10th 2009 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
Jolly,
I’m all for TPN keeping his spot at hooker if he can throw straight 95% of the time. Now I don’t know his personal situation but if I was him I would be practising 2-3 hours a day until I got that 95-99% and then I would maintain that by doing at least an hour a day until I retired, he is a proffesional!
So lets asume he has been doing this since he has got a super 14 contract at the minimum, I’m not aware if he’s been around at this level for 1-4 years, whatever He can’t and probably never will be able to throw straight 95% of the time so lets move on.
Or maybee he is perfect in practice and can’t handle the real pressure, time to move on, for another thrower that is.
If he hasn’t been practising professionally he should be sacked.
So my point is find a naturally gifted thrower(in the team) and start training them up, some people are gifted this way, they pick up a ball,bat club and can throw,hit,strike sweetly due to genetics! You then build from there.
I(2nd rower-lineout specialist) was fortunate to play with 2 hookers in grade that only missed on wet gale force days and they trained 2 days a week, its not that hard!
retired rucker said | August 10th 2009 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
Jolly,
My response is similar to BMW.
I asume that TPN has been giving this skill the 10-15 hours a week a professinal would, since he has been awarded a s14 contract. In that case he clearly fails to deliver the 90-95% rate required, so IMO its time to find some naturally gifted members of the team and train them up, to have options.
If TPN is perfect in practice and caN’t handle the pressure its time to find another thrower.
Some people are gifted with ball, bat and club in hand, its called genetics. They can then train to be the 1st and 2nd throwers.
I(2nd row line out specialist) was fortunate enough to play with 2 hookers in grade that only very rarely missed the mark, usually on wet windy days, thay trained twice a week, It’s not that hard! Even at wallaby level- it should be bread and butter stuff.
retired rucker said | August 10th 2009 @ 4:45pm | Report comment
my posts are disapearing WHF?????
Am i being sensored?
Ziggy said | August 11th 2009 @ 7:13am | Report comment
Probably. If you criticise Spiro et al too much they won’t post you. Have a look at his latest load of bias against SA in Rugby Heaven – SMH.
Jolly Jupes said | August 10th 2009 @ 9:16pm | Report comment
RR/BMW – I agree about the professional approach and repetition but it is not a closed skill – The hookers can throw at a wall, tree or whatever you like but you cannot practice the game circumstance as easily. For this you would need 15 other forwards availble to replicate and this would be difficult 15 hours per week, that said the Wallabies did have 3 weeks to prepare. I am not disagreeing just making the case that the skill is alot harder than it looks and shoving someone else into the skill set is difficult changing the player is realistic
Cutter said | August 10th 2009 @ 10:08pm | Report comment
“Berrick Barnes on the other hand, stepped up to the plate while Giteau was serving his ten in the bin, and kicked with aplomb. With quick ball delivered by Genia after Burgess had been hooked, Barnes settled the Australians to the point where they looked like they might pull it off, but then Giteau rejoined the fray and spoiled it all.”
Andrew – Genia didnt come onto the field (about 60mins in) until well after Giteau had returned (in the 4th minute of the 2nd half). So, if it happened, it was actually Burgess delivering quick ball to Barnes while Giteau was off.
JC said | August 11th 2009 @ 5:32am | Report comment
Loges, Mate I am late on this article but I can’t disagree more.
The Boks are just better. They have a dominant set piece, murder you at contact, make fewer mistakes and their kicking game is second to none.
I am not saying the rules are perfect but there is a game without kicking and it is called rugby league – enjoy that on a Saturday afternoon and the headlines on a Monday morning.
Drop girls reflect pressure into points and remain an integral part of rugby’s uniqueness.
The Boks can be beaten. The Lions showed two 40 min periods quite clearly. If you run the ball at them, keep it and win your set piece they can be broken down. Both the Wallabies and the All Blacks made numerous breaks but don’t have the tight five the Lions have to pressure the Boks.
Plus SA have scored some cracking tries. The Captain’s grubber ahead for big Victor was fantastic to watch. As was the comeback in the second test against the Lions.
Stray passes, lose 9 lineouts, have three people sin binned and you don’t deserve to win. Forget the ref, Australia was smashed at the break down and will continue to be so until they can bring a level of strength and aggression to match the Boks. Don’t blame the rules, the ref or the opposition – that’s called whingeing.
Go well.