Why can’t they play like this any more?
Roar Guru By Sam Taulelei, 13 Aug 2009 Sam Taulelei is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- 2000 tri nations, All Blacks, Christian Cullen, Jonah Lomu, Justin Marshall, Rugby Union, Springboks, Tana Umaga, Tri Nations, tri nations rugby
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Tri Nations Tournament news
- New Zealand All Blacks news
- South Africa Springboks news
Mention the 2000 Tri Nations, and people will recall memories of the breathtaking first Bledisloe Cup Test in Sydney, a match that was inspiring, entertaining, gripping and showcased “the game they play in heaven” at its best.
A game to rival the 1973 Barbarians Vs All Blacks match as the greatest of all time.
However, there was another Tri Nations Test played in 2000 that can lay similar claims for consideration, a Test that is overlooked and seldom discussed when fans debate the merits of great Tri Nations contests from that year: the second Tri Nations Test between the Springboks and the All Blacks played at Ellis Park, won by South Africa 46-40.
It was a match equally as thrilling and entertaining as the first Bledisloe Cup and one where finally everything fell into place for coach Nick Mallet. The Boks, who had gone try-less in their prior two Tri Nations encounters, unleashed some breathtaking rugby and outscored the All Blacks six tries to four, with Springbok centre Robbie Fleck in outstanding form.
I don’t know what it was about Tri Nations rugby in 2000, maybe New Zealand, South Africa and Australia caught the Y2K bug that year and reprogrammed themselves to play more attacking rugby, a necessary dose of medicine after a World Cup year that didn’t exactly cover itself in glory (Special note: laws were unchanged from 1999)
It’s also a timely reminder to fans critical of the Boks current style of play and unsavoury incidents this year that they are also capable of playing beautiful, expansive rugby.
The teams named that day were:
SOUTH AFRICA
Thinus Delport
Breyton Paulse
Grant Esterhuizen
Robbie Fleck
Chester Williams
Braam van Straaten
Werner Swanepoel
Andre Vos
Rassie Erasmus
Corne Krige
Adrian Venter
Mark Andrews
Cobus Visagie
Charl Marais
Hennie Le Roux
NEW ZEALAND
Christian Cullen
Tana Umaga
Alama Ieremia
Pita Alatini
Jonah Lomu
Andrew Mehrtens
Justin Marshall
Ron Cribb
Josh Kronfeld
Taine Randell
Norm Maxwell
Todd Blackadder
Kees Meuws
Anton Oliver
Carl Hoeft
Recommend this story.
August 13th 2009 @ 6:43am
Matt said | August 13th 2009 @ 6:43am | Report comment
Good vid. Seems much quicker and less (robotic) and structured than now. Players attacking the line, support in numbers and depth. Forwards not clogging the backline. And oh joy, no kicks every phase!
August 13th 2009 @ 6:52am
sheek said | August 13th 2009 @ 6:52am | Report comment
Sam,
I don’t know what happened in the early 2000s myself.
However, I’ve another thought. Schoolboy matches are usually regarded as more free-flowing, with the kids playing under the same laws, supposedly interpreted the same way by the ref. Or are they?
Schoolboys, even 1st XV standard, haven’t yet developed the sophistication & knowledge of their elders. Yet they generally concede fewer penalties at schoolboy level. Why is this? Is there a compelling factor on refs to interfere more often the higher the standard? Or do the refs themselves get caught up in either/both the limelight & gravity of the situation?
August 13th 2009 @ 7:36am
bruski said | August 13th 2009 @ 7:36am | Report comment
I think it is quite obvious as to what happened to the early 2000′s! Defenses have improved out of sight, they work on them non stop at the top level which fortunately for club and school boy rugby they don’t have the time to do.
League is in the same boat also, it is a game of waiting for the opposition to make a mistake and then take the points or field position for a repeat set of six until the line breaks. Similar to the Springboks now!
Wouldn’t it be great if Rugby was to become a little more free-flowing again like Soccer and AFL are now. The problem is I cannot see what rules you would change for this to happen, would it be an idea to take 1 player off the field and have 14 instead of 15? Who would you take off, the blind side flanker?
Anyway that is a whole other discussion!
August 13th 2009 @ 8:07am
pothale said | August 13th 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
Yep – it’s lovely misty-eyed stuff but as bruski says modern-day defences (9 years later!!) wouldn’t allow such a try fest to happen – and let’s face it, some of the tries conceeded, you’d be screaming at both sides for giving them up. and one of them ones at the end looked like the player was in touch, but there wasn’t any video evidence back then to check.
By my assessment, about three of those tries would have been scored today. And Morne Steyn would probably have got the missed drop kick at the end!
August 13th 2009 @ 12:10pm
ohtani's jacket said | August 13th 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
Actually, the TMO was introduced during the 2000 Tri-Nations after being successfully trialed in the 2000 Super 12. It didn’t look as though Cullen was in touch to me.
Some of those tries could still be scored if New Zealand and South Africa had better backs. The All Blacks clearly don’t have backs with the pace or skill of Tana Umaga or Christian Cullen and South Africa do not have a centre like Robbie Fleck at present. Nor does du Preez attack like Swanepoel did that day. I agree with the poster who said this was the type of Test where tries were contagious, and some of that goal line defence was poor from the All Blacks, but they weren’t a very good side in 2000 and the highlights do not show the awful decisions they made in the game.
August 13th 2009 @ 8:25am
wannabprop said | August 13th 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment
Who was the ref for this match? Notice the short arm before the Boks 5th (I think) try? No matter what the rules (sorry LAWS for the pedants), it’s clear the referees haven’t kept pace with the development (regression?) of the game. You could see this official was on top of his game – talking to players (and them listening). Admittedly defences have improved, but could it be that as negative play has progressed in the professional era (and I’m tempted to lay the blame at coaches for this, just as it is for Rugby League) with constant kick and chase tactics (thank you Argentina), multiple infringements at the ruck, etc a vicious cycle has developed where the refs haven’t been able to keep up, and players (and coaches?) no longer have even the slightest respect for the official. I’d like to see how the current defences would hold up if the game (ruck) was allowed to flow as in the vid (thanks btw Sam). If the game was played in the right spirit, the laws wouldn’t come into question so much.
August 13th 2009 @ 9:09am
Rusty said | August 13th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Now dont those names bring back the memories! I remember watching that game in the Temple Walkabout, great game, good spirits between supporters and snake bites all round!
August 13th 2009 @ 9:22am
Knives Out said | August 13th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Oh God… I was enjoying that until the mention of a snakebite. Gives me a headache just thinking about it.
August 13th 2009 @ 9:34am
Jerry said | August 13th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
I’ve just got back from a holiday (NZRU poaching mission) to Samoa and watched a couple of earl TN tests on the plane on the way back. NZ v Aus in Wgtn 96 (first ever TN match) and vs SA in Auckland in 97. I was astounded how good the handling and precision was.
August 13th 2009 @ 11:09am
Hayden said | August 13th 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
I love those in-flight games. I don’t think they show any that the AB’s lose, do they?
August 13th 2009 @ 9:54am
LeftArmSpinner said | August 13th 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
fast ball at the breakdown, allowing the backs to adopt a creative mind set and use their skills, speed and step (Fleck and Umaga). Still brutal, but fast and expansive. Having said that, this was one of those games that evolve on the spot “you scored a try, we will score two.”
August 13th 2009 @ 10:13am
onside said | August 13th 2009 @ 10:13am | Report comment
If it were possible to remove two players from each side ,professional rugby would again be freeflowing.
Please dont arc up about the suggestion ,and its nothing remotely to do with league.Consider the following.
Todays professional players are not only huge, but they are also strong ,fast , and huge.Compared with
twenty years ago todays players are giants.Wonderful Pacific Islander DNA has added a different shape
and a heathy diet has added height to kids that have come through the rugby ranks and grown up to be men..
Rugby for the professional is a fulltime job.Big bucks demand results.The foundation of every professional
team is not ‘lets go out there are win’,but instead,’ lets make sure we dont loose”. Hence the advent of the
super athlete who plays in defence.Defense is king.Protective padding and a plenty of reserves compounds
the problem. And guess what, the grounds are exactly the same size as they were way back when. Rugby
has certain urban myths.that sound good but are often misleading. It has always been said rugby is a game
for all sizes.In professional rugby this is no longer accurate.Sure, the frontrowers are not likely to be riding
trackwork at Rosehill any time soon, but most them can run 50 metres in just over even time.They can be
faster and more skilled than many backs of yesterear.(even though some disguise it well).The point is these
blokes are not the large lumps that trained once a week and played on Saturday arvo until they ran out of
puff two thirds way through the game,creating heaps of room for the more nimble to strut their stuff.The
other myth is rugby is the running game.Yes it can be,but the fact is in the professional era ,it simply isn’t.
Rugby is the stopping game.The game continually stops. It rarely flows. Now here comes the tricky part,I
have no idea what two positions should be removed ,or how it would effect the game. Save that nobody
is all that fussed with where the game seems to be heading . If it were possible to take four players off the
park and give punters a full 40 minute s per half ,it might help a bit.
August 13th 2009 @ 10:35am
Gary said | August 13th 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
How about getting rid of three players, the front row
August 13th 2009 @ 10:57am
onside said | August 13th 2009 @ 10:57am | Report comment
Ok Gary,,two and the ref
The trouble with these sort of suggestions is people focus on the ‘cant do ‘,rather than at least a ‘maybe’
There have been years of debate on ELV’s,blogaholics complain daily about not enjoying the game,on and
on it goes, stadiums are not full,endless dissatisfaction, and all of it fair dinkum.Remove a few players and
open the game up.It sure as hell would be easier to sell to new customers.If old rugby buffs ,blokes who
have followed the sport all their lives ,refuse to go to games anymore ,please tell me,what hope is there
of attracting new supporters.
August 13th 2009 @ 1:10pm
Lion Red said | August 13th 2009 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
How about increasing the size of the field to allow more open space. Over the last 100 years of this great game there has been significant development with players ability, speed, shape and strength and the laws of the game. The only thing that hasn’t changed is the parameters of the field.
August 13th 2009 @ 1:52pm
AndyS said | August 13th 2009 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
But that is an awful lot of infrastructure, all around the world, and would mean a dedicated field for rugby rather than a shared facility with soccer…overall, probably a backward move for the game as a whole.
August 13th 2009 @ 10:14am
Mr Denmore said | August 13th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
Fantastic game. Yes, defences were more porous and less structured in those days. But this was much more fun to watch in my opinion. I appreciate others like the more attritional game being played today. But I don’t think it’s much of a commercial proposition. Those were the halycon days of professional rugby. It retained much of the chance-your-arm flavour of the amateur era, while still enjoying the benefits of professionalism – greater fitness and skills. it’s a shame how it’s gone downhill.