Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- Tri Nations Tournament news
- New Zealand All Blacks news
- South Africa Springboks news
- 2011 Wallabies squad news
First things first: the 2009 Springboks have one of the great packs in rugby history. The pressure they brought on the Wallabies in the rucks, mauls, tackled ball situations and the lineouts in the first 60 minutes of the Test at Newlands, Cape Town, forced a committed and gutsy side to make errors of judgment and skill that gave easy penalty goals to the home side.
Aside from giving away a hatful of easy penalty goals, the Wallabies played for 9 minutes late in the first half and at the beginning of the second half with only 13 men.
First George Smith was yellow-carded for silly stupidity. Then Richard Brown was sent to the sin bin for a messy mistake where his timing after making the tackle was just off.
Later on in the half, Matt Giteau was sin-binned. Then at the end of the Test, Smith was sent off the field again.
The point here is that when the Wallabies had only 13 players on the field, the Springboks could not score a try. They were, in fact, out-scored two tries to one.
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.
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.
The Wallabies gave away 13 penalties and many of them were given away to stop the Springboks when they were on the rampage.
But the fact is that the Springboks backs are nowhere near the quality of the forwards. When they are forced to put together a fluent attack, they just can’t do so. A couple of phases in the backs in about all they can mount before the inevitable kick is put up into the air.
There was an interesting moment about an hour into the Test when Smith (rightly) contested a decision by the referee Alain Rolland. The acting Wallaby captain (Stirling Mortlock was off the field with an injured knee) pointed out to the referee that the Springboks had sealed off a ruck forcing the Wallabies to come in from the side to get to the ball.
‘I didn’t see the Springboks player but I did see the Wallaby player,’ Rolland said.
Alas, this sort of mistake was repeated by Rolland all match. When a Springbok illegally charged a Wallaby penalty kick, Rolland allowed the infraction by saying that play wasn’t effected.
The Springboks conned some penalties from scrums, even when they were shoved off the ball.
The Wallabies were pulled up for forward passes that weren’t, for incorrect feeds to the scrums despite the Springboks doing the same, for hands on in the rucks when the Springboks were sealing off rucks and mauls with impunity.
The complaint that the Springboks don’t play much or any rugby (a point I’ve made myself) needs to be put into context too.
For the first half, at least, before they ran out of gas after three consecutive hard Tests, the Springboks played a shrewd game of counter-attacks from the Wallaby kicks.
The big runners made in-roads through the Wallaby defence and then a couple of the backs tried to flash through the gaps created, before penalties were conceded to them.
After the first three Tri-Nations Tests in South Africa, it needs to be stated that the Springboks were too good for the All Blacks and for the Wallabies. The intriguing question is whether this dominance can be carried through to the Tests in Australia and New Zealand.
Last season the Springboks defeated the All Blacks at Carisbrook for the first time since 1921. They lost the other Tests in New Zealand and Australia. My guess is that the Springboks would be happy to win one of the three Tests this season out of South Africa.
If they do this, or go better and win two Tests, their status as one of the greatest of all Springboks sides will be confirmed.
So far in the 2009 Tri-Nations the home side has won all four matches.
You’d think that if this pattern is to be broken, the Springboks are the side to do this.
But will it be a case, as so often in the past, that the Springboks are too good in South Africa and not good enough out of Africa?
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

pothale said | August 10th 2009 @ 7:51am | Report comment
Yeah probably.
Harry said | August 10th 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
The test was lost very early on when the Boks successfully stopped any phase play starting from the Wallabies, and any chance of building pressure and continuity disappeared with lost lineouts and turnovers – the Boks pushed the ref into letting them get away with constantly playing the ball on the ground and infringing, but they, like the AB’s in Auckland 3 weeks ago, wer just far harder and more committed at the breakdown, and smashed us. It was game over after 20 minutes and its only because of the poor backline attack by the Boks that we weren’t beaten by 30 + points.
For the second match in a row the scoreline flattered the Wallabies, who were clerly 2nd best in Auckland, despite the revisionist history about Barnes hanging onto the ball being to blame. Until we show we can compete at the collision/breakdown and improve our set pieces we are going nowhere … fast. We urgenlty need a fit Rocky Elsom and a call to arms from the rest of the pack.
Justin said | August 10th 2009 @ 8:14am | Report comment
Harry I don’t think at effort at the beakdiwn was poor. I am amazed so many are saying Smith was so good when we had so many turnovers against us. It wasn’t counter tucking we were beaten at. So often with the Boks they are advantaged because they are coming forward to chase the bomb, we on the otherhand have to retreat and are outnumbered as a result.
The lineout was where the match lost, woeful discipline again and little benefit for having the points at scrum time.
Justin said | August 10th 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
Can you have a great pack with an average scrum? Their lineout is as good as you could hope for and they are bug and physical at the breakdown.
A deserved win. The charge of the penalty was extraordinary, surely that is automatically another 10 metres?
Let’s see how the Boks travel before any “great” tags are thrust on them…
sheek said | August 10th 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
I guess my first thought is, ” ‘playing rugby’ is interpreted very differently around the world”.
We Aussies tend to view rugby as a ‘running game’. Our approval or disapproval of a match is therefore based on how often we witnessed movement of the ball. We’re inclined to worship backs over forwards.
The Saffies have an entirely different view. For them the structures – scrum, lineout, restarts, kicking – & contest of the ball (possession), ruck, maul, tackling (offensive defence) -are the things that make a team great. And winning. Tries have little to do with it. Saffies tend to worship forwards over backs.
Statistically the Saffies are right & Aussies are wrong. The Saffies have understood ever since their tour of the UK & Ireland in 1906-07, that having a powerful scrum & lineout, the means to aggressively secure & dominate possession, & point-scoring field position, are the keys to winning rugby.
We Aussies meanwhile, rant on about running rugby & scoring tries, all the while losing more tests than we win. If we’re obsessed with tries, we should follow rugby league!
A quick word on the laws. There’s almost an Oepidus Rex fatalism to the law changes – by changing some laws they have simply brought to pass the things they were trying to avoid – incessant kicking, numerous penalties & a stop-start game.
Sometimes less is better. it’s impossible to codify every little action that occurs on the pitch. Otherwise, we end up with the current tangled web that rugby union has become.
fox said | August 10th 2009 @ 8:16am | Report comment
Spiro, let’s face the harsh truth: this Wallabies team should have won this test. They played all the rugby, even if was executed poorly and refereeing decisions were consistent only in their inconsistency. Unfortunately this side lacks grit.
Not that the whole palaver can be solved by one player, but the pack desparately needs Rocky’s relentless aggression. He should also be made Wallaby captain (whether he likes it or not). George Smith is one of the all time greats, but he is not a leader of men. He is, by his own admission, a shy man. The pack needs a leader that instils admiration and respect gilted with a touch of fear.
The Wallabies were (as they say in South Africa) “pewer”. Shocking. Shameful. Inept. Unforgivingly inaccurate. Only Barnes, Smith and the replacements including O’Connor stood up. I don’t care if they were palying in South Africa or Siberia. The effort just wasn’t good enough. I hate it when losses are followed by an outpouring of calls for sackings etc. but it’s time some players were ushered into international retirement: Nathan Sharpe for one (replaced by Mumm), a lacklustre Palu should at least be benched and, while it pains me to call for the head of such a fearless leader and player, the time has come for Mortlock to be used off the bench, if at all. I could be wrong but to me he looks like he has ceased to be world class in his position.
Even if we knock both the AB’s and Biks over at home, it would prove little. We must win on the road. Some players have proven, by their featuring in most away test losses, that they are not up to it.
Sunday morning’s was a match that made me wonder why we even care.
ozxile said | August 10th 2009 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Fox, agreed. Smith is not a captain. The captain should be bona fide leader – not the most senior player. There are probably only three prospects on the side today – in this order, Barnes, Elsom, and Robinson. Note that Giteau is not on this list. He is not a 10 and he is not a captain.
Justin said | August 10th 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
Mumms got as much grunt as my 2 year old nephew
he made one very good run and was invisible as usual.
pothale said | August 10th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
“this Wallabies team should have won this test. They played all the rugby, even if was executed poorly and refereeing decisions were consistent only in their inconsistency. Unfortunately this side lacks grit.”
“The Wallabies were (as they say in South Africa) “pewer”. Shocking. Shameful. Inept. Unforgivingly inaccurate. Only Barnes, Smith and the replacements including O’Connor stood up. I don’t care if they were palying in South Africa or Siberia. The effort just wasn’t good enough. ”
These two statements would appear to contradict each other.
In my view, the Wallabies should not have won the test – they weren’t good enough. Full stop.
fox said | August 10th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
No. They weren’t good enough. A shambles even. That’s my point. It was there on a platter. There were countless drives into opposition territory for little reward. We spent more time in their quarter than they did in ours. That stat can be challenged for its usefulness, but the fact is we didn’t convert.
Knives Out said | August 10th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
I really don’t see why there is a sudden call to arms about the brand the Springboks utilise. South Africa has always, always played this way so why has nobody ever moaned before? I suspect because at they moment they are doing it more successfully than previously. If SA go on to lose their away games and either come 2nd or 3rd then I can’t imagine too many Wallaby fans would be full of such pantomine ire then.
Also, I don’t recall any Wallaby fans moaning when Australia kicked and defended their way to victory on the recent European tour. There seems to be a myth that Australia is a great running nation, when that hasn’t been the case for a long time. Australia has always been a pragmatic rugby nation and it suited the fans when they were so successful at the turn of the century so it should also suit them now.
fox said | August 10th 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment
Come on. You can’t tell me you get excited every time the ball is hpisted in the air (doesn’t matter by whom), someone makes a mistake, a ball is pounced on and a try is scored. That’s not what got me into the game, but then again I did grow up watching farr-Jones, Lynagh, Horan, Little, Campese & Co. Suppose when you grow up with that as the basis of your rugby experience you tend to be a bit jaded when the game turns into forcings back.
Knives Out said | August 10th 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
I don’t really get excited by that either, but my point is that such kicking is nothing new so why are people moaning?
Mitch O said | August 10th 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
Surely an international rugby team that doesn’t possess a backline with the skills to attack shouldn’t be winning games in the modern era?
We’re not talking about an evening test match in Dunedin on a rainy 4 degree winter night. We’re talking about 3 games in beautiful SA conditions (albeit one rain affected game). That yielded 7 tries and seven grillion penalties.
It’s time to increase the gap between constructive exciting point scoring (known more commonly as tries), and dour boring point scoring (known more commonly as penalties and drop kicks).
Rusty said | August 10th 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Given that SA scored 4 of those 7 tries are you saying neither the Wallabies or All Blacks should be winning? Spot on there champ.
Mitch O said | August 10th 2009 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
Classic warped thinking Rusty. The bok’s play a deconstructive style of rugby – the main facet of which is constant offside play. The reality is the rules, as they currently are, pander to this approach.
Ray said | August 27th 2009 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
Bleet bleet bleet Mitch O. Sore loser, bet if your team was winning that way you wouldn’t complain. Get over yourself and lose with humility.
Mike said | August 27th 2009 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
Ray,
Maybe Afrikaans is your first language, in which case i will excuse you, but its spelled “bleat”, not “bleet”!
Ray said | August 27th 2009 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
Now what makes you think that I am Akrikaans or even South African? Thanks for the pointers Mike, I’ll leave the language of love up to you then? =)
Hammer said | August 10th 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Pothole and Harry are right the Wallabies were very very poor on Sat … no way were they derserving of anything other than perhaps a larger scoreline against them ….
sure the ref was pedantic … and the more I see these NH blowers the more I think they can only seem to ref one team at a time – as highlighted by the comment ‘I didn’t see the Springboks player but I did see the Wallaby player’ – but he wasn’t a factor in this loss … the Wallabies front for approx 20 mins per game in the tight ones … and for about 60 mins in the lesser fixtures …
The AB’s were poor in the previous 2 weeks and made some dumb mistakes – but were still in both games midway into the 2nd half … the Wallabies however were gone before halftime … they’re not inproving under Deans – they’re still a the same level they were when he took over … and when they finish a distant 3rd in this tri-nations – some serious questions should start being asked whether he’s actually up to the task
… and finally I know this game was boring and I may have fallen asleep – but wasn’t Smith binned only once and that was the second half
LeftArmSpinner said | August 10th 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
firstly, forget refs and other excuses, the boks deserved to win all of their games this season so far.
My take is that the boks are good, very good. Sure they are big, mean and strong. But they are also quick: quick to the breakdown, quick around the paddock. this is a very difficult package to compete with.
they are also a very good team, in terms of leadership, set pieces and forwared pack.
But they are not perfect. Their scrum is vulnerable on occasion. Just ask Smit as evidenced by his bleatings to the ref. they dont have a back line that can move the ball wide and forward. We havent seen if they can defend for long periods, retaining their structure and concentration. So Wallabies and ABs attack their weaknesses.
But the Wallabies can do better. A bit like an M Ali “rope a dope” approach.
Choke off their current game and force them to play their B game, if they have one. Put simply, dont give them the ball.
1. under pressure, don’t concede penalties, particularly dumb ones
2. fight for field position from the kick off, kick to contest the kick off and dont kick to them and allow them to return the kick off with their own kick for touch and with interest.
3. Mix up the line out more;
4. Starve them of possession and gain territory by retaining possession and multiple phase ball in the forwards (a la Brumbies in days gone by), and in the 10 and 12 channels with backrow support
5. As the boks tire and get frustrated, take the penalties or just keep the pressure up and then spin it wide for tries and points
6. When the boks have the ball, allow them the ball, and use the Wallabies strong and well organsied defence to challenge the Boks to get across the try line. I suspect they wont and will revert to the field goal, and an admission that they have failed to score.
Meanwhile, we sh
vinay verma said | August 10th 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
I like running rugby too but not when my team is losing. Aren’t the Wallabies capable of thinking on their feet? I’d much rather build the pressure by thinking rugby before we start any extravagant back line moves. Possession is nine thenths of the law in any endeavour.
Jon said | August 12th 2009 @ 11:06am | Report comment
Dude,
All 6 points is exactly what the other teams are trying against the Boks but fail. The Boks are simply better at doing exactly what you are proposing the opposition teams should be doing.
And just because the backline have not scored tries and created oppurtunities does not mean that its a bad backline. The gameplan is the reason the backs havent scored, and not the skills of the backs themselves.
The only way you will beat the Boks is if you dominate them in the aspects of play where you are being dominated by them.
Dominate them in the breakdown, and you’ll have half the game won. Have the better tactical kicking game and the lineout to back that up and you will start to make headway. Trying to pass the ball wide and moving it quickly will not work – see the two All Blacks games, they failed dismally trying to do exactly that. The Aussies tried the phase based approach which also did not work. The Boks get better the more phases they defend through, you have to try and break the defenses down on 2nd or 3rd phase, if you allow them to get organised on defense you just make it harder for yourself.
And that has been Bok rugby since the dawn of time.