Springboks thrash Wallabies by playing real rugby
By Spiro Zavos, 31 Aug 2009 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Bryce Lawrence, Richard Brown, robbie deans, Rugby Union, Springboks, Tri Nations, wallabies
377 Have your say
Related coverage

Ruan Pienaar for South Africa moves the ball past Benn Robinson (left) and James Horwill for Australia (right) during the match between Australia and South Africa at Subiaco Oval in Perth, Saturday, Aug. 29, 2009. AAP Image/Tony McDonough
The Springboks pulled out their number 1 game, as the rugby’s number one team should, to defeat a fumbling, gutsy and out-classed Wallabies team at Perth 32 -15. Forget the scoreline, this was a thrashing. It was only close in the way someone is close to a cliff as he hurtles to his doom after jumping off.
Before the Test John Eales rated this Springboks side as the best South Africa has produced in the professional era. I have suggested in the past that the side may well be one of the greatest South Africa has put on the field.
I place it in the same category as the 1937 Springboks (‘the greatest side to leave New Zealand’), a team that was the first to win a Test series in New Zealand, and Danie Craven’s 1951 Grand Slam Springboks who defeated Scotland, then a tough nut to crack, by a record score against a major team.
This 2007 – 2009 Springboks team has won the Rugby World Cup, has defeated the British and Irish Lions 2-1, and has won the Tri-Nations (a hard tournament to win because you have to defeat two of the three strongest sides in the world) once and probably twice in three years.
The All Blacks have a mathematical chances of retaining the Tri-Nations trophy but the Springboks have to be defeated by the Wallabies and the All Blacks and gain no bonus points and the All Blacks have to win their next two matches with bonus points for this unlikely (impossible?) outcome to eventuate.
I’ve been critical of the Springboks this season in South Africa for playing thuggish, 10-man kicking rugby football to get their results.
At Perth they gave a master class, especially in the first half when it mattered, of real rugby. That is rugby where running, handling, kicking, cleverness and aggression at the contact areas were of the highest order.
This real rugby, which provided a terrific spectacle, led to three tries for the Springboks in the first 32 minutes. Two of the tries, one in the first half and another in the second half, came from superb choreographed backline moves from scrums. The second try was from an old Springboks play where Fourie du Preez runs wide from the scrum, the centres make a diagonal run across him back to the scrum and du Preez flicks a pass to the flying Breyan Habana.
Beautiful! The opposition knew that Habana was lurking with intent near the scrum. But stopping him, after du Preez’s perfectly weighted pass, is another matter.
Habana is the master poacher, mainly because he is always looking for chances to poach from opposition errors. Du Preez is the conductor of the team, a player who is one of the all-time great halfbacks and with Daniel Carter, the best back in the world right now.
What can one say about the Wallabies?
They started off terribly. Richard Brown dropped du Preez’s first clearing kick. And this mistake set the tone for a mistake-ridden first half.
It looked like boys against men as the Springboks made the advantage line with ease while the Wallabies went through their phases and were often driven back from where they started.
Three successive lost lineouts meant the end of any fight-back the Wallabies launched in the second half.
And while the Wallaby scrum dominated the Springboks scrum, penalties were conceded at crucial moments. I heard George Smith (I think) tell the referee, Bryce Lawrence, after one of these penalties: ‘How can he bind when they’re not bringing their arm up to bind on?’
Whatever, the Springboks, John Smit particularly, were smart enough to get their penalties where Morne Steyn could kick the goal, and concede penalties out of kicking range.
There was one positive from the debacle in that the experiment of playing Matt Giteau as a play-making first five-eights should now be over.
Giteau looked the part once he got moved out to inside centre. Quade Cooper showed what could happen if a real playmaker is given the role for the Wallabies, although I expect Berrick Barnes to take up this position at Brisbane with Giteau moving out one position.
Luke Burgess must have played his last starting game for the Wallabies.
Before the Test the eminent halfback Des Connor, one of the few (only?) Wallabies to have also played for the All Blacks, noted that Burgess had his feet together when he passed. This meant he was off balance as he passed and without a steady base was always liable to be erratic in length, direction and height.
During the Test I watched for this, and Connor was right. Now my question is this. We’ve got highly paid specialist back coaches in Super Rugby where Burgess has played for the ACT Brumbies and the NSW Waratahs, why hasn’t this fault been exposed, worked on and eliminated?
Robbie Deans is committed to the present squad until the end of the Tri-Nations. I expect a slaughter of the innocents for the European tour, though, with tougher, more resilient players given their chance. Josh Holmes, for example, gave an outstanding display of inside centre play for Warringah against Eastern Suburbs. But this is a discussion for another day.
There are two slightly cautionary points for the Springboks to consider as they continue their march through Australia and New Zealand.
First, the victory at Perth is only the third win in Australia by the Springboks since 1996, all of them at Perth which is almost a home ground for the side with all the ex-pats living there.
Second, the Springboks lost the penalty count 15 – 4, mainly because of illegalities at the ruck and maul which referees have tended to overlook in the past.
So next Saturday’s Test at Brisbane will provide a challenge for the Springboks to close out the Tri-Nations by winning outside of Perth. Can they do? It would be surprising if they don’t.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Bryce Lawrence, Richard Brown, robbie deans, Rugby Union, Springboks, Tri Nations, wallabies

August 31st 2009 @ 7:14am
Shahsan said | August 31st 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Totally agree, Spiro. It is as if the Boks made a pact to not kick at all, to make a point. In fact, the first up and under all night was made by Peter Hynes.
The Boks performance and attitude reminded me of when England came here before the 2003 World Cup and showed everyone they could run the ball if they wanted to and put Australia to the sword in Melbourne. On that same tour they also showed that they could play 10-men rugby if needed, and that with 13 men they could hold out even the ABs in New Zealand.
These Boks defiance is simialr. SA were saying: we can kick and chase to perfection like no one else but we can keep the ball in hand better than you guys can too. So shut up with all this talk about one -dimensional rugby or that the laws are flawed.
There are many ways to win a rugby game — thats teh ebauty of the sport — and theyve now shown they are masters of not just one way.
August 31st 2009 @ 1:21pm
Jim Boyce said | August 31st 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
Shahsan – Someone should have looked at the 2007 RWC tapes. In the first round England played South Africa and the Boks annihilated England with basically this team. They ran it from all over the place and their final score was over 50. Knockout tournaments are notorious for games becoming more and more conservative as they near the Final.As a result they went back to the meatgrinder which they do very well too. Spies and Brussouw have been added to the scene which has made for an even faster forward pack. Much of this was established under Josh White and Smit, Matfield and du Preez have continued and taken it to another level. The team is now a very experienced unit and know the tactical changes they have in their bag.
August 31st 2009 @ 1:36pm
Shahsan said | August 31st 2009 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
It’s true. It’s a fine team, easily one of their best, and all the recent debate about running rugby and making law changes has unfairly maligned a team that have put three strong teams to the sword and beaten them all.
And now to do it with a running game, away from home, speaks volumes. I wonder what their mind set will now be: just get the point they need on Saturday and then try to blow the All Blacks away the following week? Or pull out all the stops this week and then run all the subs against the ABs?
Also, I did make your point previously about knockout tournaments and how play tightens up at the end: This is true of every tournament.
I seem to be one of the few in Australia who thought it was a great World Cup overall. Those games near the end may not have been running try-fests but they were all gripping, and teams did what they had to. That is the nature of the beast.
It’s the same even with the so-called beautiful game’s world cups too. All their games after the quartfinals are no reflection of what went before or what is usually possible in regular, less-pressured round-robin type matches.
August 31st 2009 @ 5:57pm
Jim Boyce said | August 31st 2009 @ 5:57pm | Report comment
Shahsan – Yes the soccer World Cup was like that. Where is Cruyff when we need him. Given the political pressures on the Bok team it is really remarkable what they have achieved and their esprit de corps. I think some people would be more comfortable with a human sacrifice. Given they are in a competitive sporting environment in South Africa, I just hope they keep trying to win. Two great South African teams in soccer and rugby , in a country with no small political problems, now that is something to aspire to.
What about Australia, we seem to be playing to a Management Manual. Rugby can be a beautiful game but different countries have different conceptions of that model. Australian rugby has lost its hard core, the guys who do little things well and keep on doing them. South Africa is playing to its conception but we are miles away from it. Hopefully we might return to it in Brisbane.
September 1st 2009 @ 12:56am
Colin N said | September 1st 2009 @ 12:56am | Report comment
“They ran it from all over the place and their final score was over 50.”
I thought it was 36-0. It was a fine display nonetheless, but was typical South Africa.
September 1st 2009 @ 1:07am
Darryl SA said | September 1st 2009 @ 1:07am | Report comment
By typical South Africa, you mean in that they won?
September 1st 2009 @ 1:15am
Colin N said | September 1st 2009 @ 1:15am | Report comment
What do you think I meant? (Genuine question)
September 1st 2009 @ 1:31am
Darryl SA said | September 1st 2009 @ 1:31am | Report comment
No no, that’s cheating. You’re not allowed to answer a question with a question. It’s a rule somewhere. Might have even been one of the ELV’s.
September 1st 2009 @ 1:40am
Colin N said | September 1st 2009 @ 1:40am | Report comment
“Might have even been one of the ELV’s.”
Yeah, and look how crap some of those were.
September 1st 2009 @ 1:23pm
Jim Boyce said | September 1st 2009 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
Colin N – I must have got it wrong re the score but what do you mean ” typical South Africa” when some people say they are a one trick pony. My point is that they have that game in their repetoire. By the way it was Jake White rather than Josh who sang the blues, I seem to have got over-exuberant. Darryl SA has a point, this isn’t a quiz contest.
September 2nd 2009 @ 2:34am
Colin N said | September 2nd 2009 @ 2:34am | Report comment
“Darryl SA has a point, this isn’t a quiz contest.”
Are you referring to me? If that’s the case, if he had answered my question then I would have replied as such.
“but what do you mean ” typical South Africa” when some people say they are a one trick pony.”
Because they effectively still are. I don’t like that word, because there are many ways you can win a game of rugby union, but if you’re referring to the backs then they are still a one trick pony. Three tries were scored from first phase ball again, and the other off the back of an Australian mistake, which is basically what they have done for the last year or so. Against England, in that huge win, they hardly played any running rugby, but scored tries from English mistakes, and were clinical in their approach.
They (South Africa) started well and moved the point of contact, using the backs, but it just got very scrappy, when poor defence and well thought-out pre-planned moves led to the South African tries, not superb back play.
September 2nd 2009 @ 1:21pm
Jim Boyce said | September 2nd 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
Colin N – I think we have a different definition of superb backplay. Fourie and De Villiers are not centres in the Horan, Gascott, Sella mould but should not be underrated nevertheless. Du Preez is a class act and combines both ways, loose forwards and backs. Habana and to lesser extent Petiersen are potent weapons. The Fourie and Habana tries in Perth were well worked back line tries and there were similar examples in the 36-0 occasion. ( Watching that game, I thought the Boks took their foot off the throttle in the latter part- bench replacements etc, but obviously I got excited about the score. Thank you for pointing that out.). South African backs have never been steppers but their forte is strength and speed eg Van Vollenhoven, Gainsford and they have habit of interchanging breakaways and wings eg Van Zyl and Spies. The S14 would indicate that they have started to rediscover the strong running South African centre. In summary I think there repertoire is broader than you give them credit.
September 2nd 2009 @ 10:06pm
Ben J said | September 2nd 2009 @ 10:06pm | Report comment
Deans said that scoring tries from 1st phase play is almost unheard of so the Boks are doing what most cannot. Having sweeping backline play and phase after phase is not as difficult as 1st phase tries. 1st phase tries are the holy grail of rugby.
September 3rd 2009 @ 12:17am
Colin N said | September 3rd 2009 @ 12:17am | Report comment
I think De Villiers and Fourie are superb talents, and no one can doubt their skills, but they’re just not on form. Fourie, at the weekened, seemed close to his best, but he’s been restricted by the selection policy.
Morne Steyn is selected for his kicking, hence it very rarely got past him. If you take Leicester Tigers, for example, they were severely restricted by having Hougaard at fly-half, who was selected for his kicking ability (even though that wasn’t very good. In fact, he wasn’t very good at most things), and thus restricted Leicester’s attacking potential. A change of coach and having Sam Vesty at fly-half (who isn’t a renowned kicker) meant it brought more backs into play and allowed the likes of Mauger to dictate play, a player who had a poor first season, partly because of the tactics and fly-half employed by Leicester.
“aving sweeping backline play and phase after phase is not as difficult as 1st phase tries.”
No, it is. That’s why South Africa have yet to score from a sweeping back-line move. They are well thought out, but all they need is to be well executed and the players to do their jobs. It’s not exactly off the cuff. Fourie’s try was a result of poor defence, but Habana’s second was well executed. There is individual talent in the backs, but I don’t think they’re set up to play that way.
September 3rd 2009 @ 1:22am
Darryl SA said | September 3rd 2009 @ 1:22am | Report comment
It’s a little known fact that Morne Steyn was actually more of a running flyhalf than a kicking flyhalf when he first arrived at the Bulls. Unfortunately the Bulls style flipped that around, but as a Sharks supporter, I have to say that the Bulls just this year ran their backline more than I’ve ever seen them run it, and it may or may not be linked to the arrival of Pieter Rossouw as their backline coach. At any rate, here’s the article on Morne Steyn and his early years, if anybody cares to read it: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=2200&set_id=6&art_id=vn20090809084230751C787560
The point is, I guess, that if he is encouraged to run the ball and not kick, he has it in him. Only time will tell.
September 3rd 2009 @ 6:32am
vegasbaby said | September 3rd 2009 @ 6:32am | Report comment
Funny how you have turned scoring tries off 1st phase play as a negative. Perhaps if the wallabies had put up a better defense, the saffas might have been given the opportunity for 2nd phase tries as well.
September 3rd 2009 @ 6:59am
Colin N said | September 3rd 2009 @ 6:59am | Report comment
“Funny how you have turned scoring tries off 1st phase play as a negative.”
How? Explain? I don’t see where I’ve said scoring off first phase ball is a negative thing.
“Perhaps if the wallabies had put up a better defense, the saffas might have been given the opportunity for 2nd phase tries as well.”
That’s a good point, but it would also mean watching the game again and seeing how many scrums South Africa had during the game and what happened afterwards, and if they were as clueless as it seemed, or they just simply kicked the ball away.
September 3rd 2009 @ 7:06am
vegasbaby said | September 3rd 2009 @ 7:06am | Report comment
“but if you’re referring to the backs then they are still a one trick pony. Three tries were scored from first phase ball again”
certainly not a positive comment. And arguably not a neutral one. So the only option left is negative.
On the one hand the majority of AU/NZ supporters claim that SA plays one-dimensional, predictable rugby. On the other, they can’t beat seem to beat them. Surely the biggest weakness for any team in any sport is to be predictable. If you are, any coach worth his salt should be able to easily devise counter methods to negate the benefits. You see it all the time in sporting events when a team that was behind on the scoreboard at halftime comes back in the second half. One of the main reason is the coach sitting in the stand watching the strategies and methods of the oppostion and devising counter methods. The coach of the team in the lead at half time typically asks his players for more of the same.
AU/NZ are apparently at an advantage because they don’t need to wait for half time to see how SA are going to play… yet they still can’t find a solution.
August 31st 2009 @ 1:39pm
mark said | August 31st 2009 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
i dont understand what the fuss it about the springboks and their strategies! the whole thing about “real rugby” makes me wonder if you’ve ever played or understand the game of rugby spiro. i feel that many are very critical of the boks, its seems to be a common occurence, the top team always has to deal with this nagging criticism, no one can never just admit that a team is better than the rest. yes…the boks are on another level, it is now the rest of the world’s time to respond to the challenge the boks have presented, can they bridge this gap that has clearly emerged.
everyone has to play under the same rules and laws, all the countries are fielding their best teams, get over the strategies and enjoy test rugby!!!
August 31st 2009 @ 5:44pm
Severian said | August 31st 2009 @ 5:44pm | Report comment
We just want a game that has room for the kind of rugby the Boks played in the first fames of the series back in SA, as well as the kind they played in the first 25 minutes in Perth the other day.
Very few people would be complaining about 10 man rugby if running rugby was still being played by any of the top teams. Defences and laws have evolved so that the only viable method to win big tournaments is to play in a conservative style.
September 1st 2009 @ 12:56pm
mark said | September 1st 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
shahsan, severian, jim, good comments, i could use you guys in my forum. check my site out sportsnewsfanatic.com. thanks look forward to seeing you guys post!
August 31st 2009 @ 7:27am
Ziggy said | August 31st 2009 @ 7:27am | Report comment
Total kicks across each sides 4 games
SA 136 kicks 34 ave
Aus 133 kicks 33.25 ave
NZ 117 kicks 29.25 ave
Kicks per game (from least to most)
Game 2 – SA vs NZ 52 kicks (27-25)
Game 3 – SA vs NZ 54 kicks (35 -19)
Game 6 – Aus vs SA 56 kicks (28 each)
Game 1 – NZ vs Aus 65 kicks (38-27)
Game 5 – Aus vs NZ 74 kicks (39-35)
Game 4 – SA vs Aus 85 kicks (46-39)
Try count
SA 8
Aus 6
NZ 4
Quote from Ian Jennings:-
‘The difference in kicks between Oz & NZ is probably accounted for simply by the Blacks’ brain-dead strategy in game three. The difference between Oz & SA, on the other hand, is probably explained by Oz’s thrilling the crowds with their exciting brand of free-flowing rugby, while the Boks were putting everyone to sleep by booting everything in sight. Or something like that.’
August 31st 2009 @ 10:30am
Jimmy said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
This sort of intelligent, objective analysis has no place in these discussion. Please go somewhere else otherwise you may raise the IQ of this group above room temperature.
August 31st 2009 @ 11:08am
LeftArmSpinner said | August 31st 2009 @ 11:08am | Report comment
Ziggy, what exactly is your point/conclusion?
August 31st 2009 @ 12:25pm
Ziggy said | August 31st 2009 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
Spiros faint praise, once again implying the Boks ‘boring’ play vs others etc, etc. The facts are different.
August 31st 2009 @ 8:25am
Jolly Jupes said | August 31st 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment
Spiro – you are quick to blame the provinces for Burgess’s passing technique deficiencies but the most highly paid backs coach is actually Deans and he had him playing for him for 12 months without a discernable skill change – Everyone says he is a mentor coach and we know he has worked with him specifically as this was reported last year so why is there no change. The Wallabies join the provinces in late Jan and finsh late May which is closer to 4 months and the rest of the time they are on Wallaby duty or on leave. The Wallabies have a full time skills coach, and a playing program that has significant gaps ideal for skill develoment so you would think that these things could still be belatedly addressed
August 31st 2009 @ 8:36am
Knives Out said | August 31st 2009 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Addng to that, JJ. Burgess must have been in the Wallaby camp for nearly three months (?) last season. Incidentally, regarding the technical point of his passing, some 9s have strong enough wrists and forearms to simply flick the ball out, so in general terms a wide base isn’t necessarily necessary. Although it is certainly easier to accelerate from a broader position to the next ruck.
August 31st 2009 @ 9:12am
fred said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
JJ,TOTALLY AGREE,its almost a case of stubbornly holding onto a player youve chosen and not having to admit your gifted selection is flawed.a coach should coach and pick players open to coaching otherwise just bring in a business manager to complement the spin doctor deans has in house.
all we hear is lack of depth;what bs when you look back at yesteryear when the best was got out of each player in short notice and a strategy to fit.
deans is flummoxed as the players he brought in to work his poorly conceived strategies have failed.exposure.
put simply;the gifted selections and tactics and lack of behavior modification are there for all to see;and further ,discipline is not on the agenda cos the gutsy decisions deans wont make on the guise of fatally wounding his young charges when in fact the truth is closer to kowtowing to the players.deans is in survival mode
August 31st 2009 @ 11:22am
LeftArmSpinner said | August 31st 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
No boys. there is a lot to like about Burgess and I suspect that his problem is one of confidence. My logic is this:
1. when he first came on the scene, he added a real spark to the team (tahs and Wallabies)
2. His tackling says that he is mentally fully committed and not afraid of anything or anyone (remember the try saving tackle on SBW and numerous covering tackles)
3. His weak pass is so basic, so very basic that it is either a completely incompetent, unbelievably incompetent system at brumbies, tahs and wallabies that we should all pack up and go home or that he is out of form and lacking confidence.
4. He is made of the right stuff when it comes to the mental side, just look at his path to the Wallabies. He will go all day and this is a very important commodity in this wallabies team.
5. A part of Burgess performance is also a reflection of the forwards performance. Slow, ugly, “backfoot” ball and forwards in the way make it that much harder to find the 10 and get it out in front of him to get the backline moving.
6. Finally, his errors are highly visible and his good work virtually invisible. e.g. he threw the pass from the tap penalty for Giteau’s try.
But, I conclude that Burgess needs some breathing space, recover his confidence and then come off the bench as an impact player and maybe this will see his pass start to meet the required standard
In the meantime, Genia will get his chance and deserves it. We are better off now than last season in terms of depth at 9, subject to a resurgent Burgess finding his confidence again.
August 31st 2009 @ 11:42am
ohtani's jacket said | August 31st 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Leftie, this is Test match rugby, not some wildlife centre for baby Wallabies. Burgess ought to go back to club rugby.
August 31st 2009 @ 12:53pm
Jim Boyce said | August 31st 2009 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
Left Arm Spinner – That is a good summation. Genia should be given a run on at Brisbane. Hopefully we will see the full range of his abilities. So far we have only seen his pass. Burgess has a lot of qualities that you have identified and many of those go unremarked. However where does Burgess go for game time to refesh his abilities and this should not be off the bench. Ricky Januarie is not Du Preez, which Genia was up against in Perth.
In passing, that was a smart play by Du Preez to score that try as only O’ Connor was behind the 10, if any one of the others tackled it should have been a penalty try.
August 31st 2009 @ 1:18pm
Sam Taulelei said | August 31st 2009 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
LAS
I’d suggest something more radical as I can see the same thing happening to Wil Genia as what happened to Burgess and then what? – you’ve screwed up the careers of two promising young halfbacks.
Play Giteau at halfback, he’s a player that needs his hands on the ball for most of the game in order to wield his influence, first five isn’t his natural position but at halfback he can concentrate on his clearances rather than the tactical requirements and then use his speed off the mark to probe around the fringes when the forwards begin to tire and get lazy in defence.
Berrick Barnes and James O’Connor as your inside centre pairing. O’Connor is wasted at the back and Barnes passing game can put him into midfield gaps for his footwork and speed to exploit.
At 13 if Digby Ioane wasn’t injured then this would be a no brainer but as the best of an uninspiring bunch I’d stick with Ashley Cooper.
Play Turner at fullback as he’s more decisive and a better tackler than either Hynes and Mitchell.
August 31st 2009 @ 5:33pm
Justin said | August 31st 2009 @ 5:33pm | Report comment
Burgess cant pass, never has been able to. All this lack of confidence maybe true but its a crap excuse for someone who is horribly deficient in their primary skill. All the confidence in the world wont fix poor technique.
Gits cant pass either so please forget that notion…
August 31st 2009 @ 10:00am
Ben C said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
To be fair, Deans is a backs coach but was a fullback and not a halfback. He bears some responsibility for not taking some steps earlier but what about Richard Graham who is meant to be the backs/skills coach?
Also there was a story earlier in the year about Burgess turning to his old club coach for some passing training as he had not had any skills training on passing at the Waratahs all year.
There’s no needs to be stingy, there is enough blame for everyone to get some.
August 31st 2009 @ 9:10pm
MW said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:10pm | Report comment
I remember watching Todd Louden tutoring Luke Burgess before Waratahs games last year. He would place the ball at the base of the posts and pass it to Louden. As I was not privvy to the conversation I cannot report more. I agree with LAS. It is a confidence thing. And I think most posters to The Roar should be more patient.
September 1st 2009 @ 3:37pm
AndyS said | September 1st 2009 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
And was Louden standing still?
All of the back line need passing practice, and lots of it. But Burgess in particular should be able to take the ball directly from the ground under pressure and put it in front of a player running diagonally. That is his primary job, in the same way a hooker has to be able to throw (that would be handy for the Wallabies too…). All the other things he brings are secondary relative to that, otherwise we would just play another back-rower at 9.
September 1st 2009 @ 3:43pm
Armchair-critic said | September 1st 2009 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
Interestingly i have always thought Pocock would make a good halfback – he has a pass as good as Burgess, but i guess that says more about Burgess
August 31st 2009 @ 8:31am
Luc said | August 31st 2009 @ 8:31am | Report comment
The game acutely highlighted the complete lack of depth in Australian rugby at present. The last two days have seen a chorus of calls for Luke Burgess’ head. Fair enough, The reality is though, that his current understudy, Genia, is no better. Look at other world rugby powers and there are multiple players shadowing every move and error of the incumbents. This is not the case here. This is the reason George Gregan was able to play 100 plus tests. For most of his career he played with no pressure or threat to his position.
This attitude permeates the current WOEllabies squad. They are an arrogant lot who seem to hold little pride in the jersey for they know they will be retained next test. The current WOEllabies backline is possibly the worst since the early 1970′s. (Consider this question: how many of the current WOEllabie’s backline would find a place in the Kangaroo’s backline? Exactly!! None.) The WOEllabies squad is beginning to resemble the Russian mafia more and more – it’s much harder to get out than in.
I think we just need to accept that we are not very good at rugby anymore and stop thinking the sky is falling in every time a loss occurs. Our obvious lack of depth means we need to get used to losing. In reality, the WOEllabies success rate in recent years has been very poor anyway. So perhaps the collective delusion of Australia still being a rugby powerhouse needs to end.
August 31st 2009 @ 5:35pm
Justin said | August 31st 2009 @ 5:35pm | Report comment
“Genia, is no better”
I would suggest you have been watching something else as blind Freddy can see the difference in the 2 players passing quality…
August 31st 2009 @ 8:39am
Ziggy said | August 31st 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment
I have said it elsewhere and I will say it again. This is not yet a great Boks side. Great sides do not lift the pressure. They massacre. Great sides do not have weak scrums. Unbelievable as it was they almost allowed the Wallabies to win at the very death – something they tend to do in all their games. Great sides continue to play for the whole game, not just 60 mins.
September 1st 2009 @ 7:36pm
Cats said | September 1st 2009 @ 7:36pm | Report comment
Ziggy – even the Australian commentators where puzzled as to WHY the ref had blown SA scrum….. it is quite obvious – the ref being a Kiwi used the scrum as an area of contention to whistle against SA so that Ozz stood a chance of winning in order to stop the Bok onslaught towards SA winning the Tri-Nations – simple as that!! If you compare and look at the recent scrums the SA scrum is by far more powerful and superior than the australian junior scrum… but we all know the old addage that cheaters never win!!! I can go on to say that SA rugby have requested reasons from the IRB Refs council for the penalties given in the scrum. AND I may add that your singular opinion on the boks remains just that – most of us are humble enough to recognise that the Springboks are a GREAT, GREAT side – I sense a hint our sour grapes entwined within your opinion!
It amazes me that even though Australia had the advantage of the ref’s whistle they still couldnt capitalise on it!!
With respect to your comment on “unbelievable as it was they almost allowed the Wallabies to win….” almost being the operative – they didnt allow the australians to win. Great sides win games period!!!! Chew on that Ziggy!
August 31st 2009 @ 8:53am
sheek said | August 31st 2009 @ 8:53am | Report comment
I don’t mean to sound like an apologist for Deans, but how can we know he hasn’t tried to rectify Burgess’ technical problems? Perhaps Burgess has been either unwilling or unable to change.
I can only apply practical logic here – it would have been in Deans interest to redress Burgess’ weaknesses, allowing that he had positive skills in other areas. Failure to do so would have been negligent on Deans’ part & opened him to ridicule.
So why would he not try to have solved the problem? Maybe the issue is with Burgess, not Deans.
To suggest Deans has done nothing makes no sense to me whatsoever.
August 31st 2009 @ 9:26am
Cotter said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Further to your point Sheek, it has been suggested in various forums (and I agree) that Deans is struggling with the basic difference in attitude between NZ and Australian rugby players. Also, apart from the obvious changes, some (one) of the Australian ‘untouchables’ are (is) under no threat to their (his) position in the team. It is no secret here in Perth that many close to the Force are not too sorry to see the back end of an extremely talented – and disruptive – superstar. Despite his undeniable match winning abilities. It is, after all, a team game. Perhaps Deans and co could spend some time with the Sydney Swans and investigate their No Dickheads policy. But then he probably doesn’t need to, from afar it seems that is how the Crusaders operated over all those successful years. Implementing it would be the trick. Yeah I know it’s sacrilege and it won’t happen. Perhaps that’s part of the problem. Will be interesting to see how the Brumbies go in S14, on paper they should blitz it.
August 31st 2009 @ 1:22pm
sheek said | August 31st 2009 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
Cotter,
I would agree with what you’re saying. The cultural differences between Kiwis & Aussies can be significant in one or two areas.
August 31st 2009 @ 9:43am
Knives Out said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
The same applies to the provinces, Sheek. But either way his passing is damaging to the side and it is damaging that Deans has refused to acknowledge that.
August 31st 2009 @ 9:49am
mother teresa said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
KO.and stubborness has nothing to do with big balls does it knives;closer to fool on the hill
August 31st 2009 @ 10:32am
Knives Out said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
I suppose so. MT.
August 31st 2009 @ 11:25am
LeftArmSpinner said | August 31st 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
genia was injured and so there was no real “other option” for Deans
August 31st 2009 @ 5:14pm
Bonza said | August 31st 2009 @ 5:14pm | Report comment
Sheek – then the question is if a mentor coach who has a reputation for developing players (you might have even said this a few days ago) cannot make changes to Burgess technically or Burgess is resisting then why is he still in the team? Deans makes the call
August 31st 2009 @ 7:55pm
cookee said | August 31st 2009 @ 7:55pm | Report comment
bonza,yes what does deans do.zip.
that sheek must be his brother ;deans not accountable for anything;gets paid for turning up and the team loses and its the players at fault—————-give me strength
August 31st 2009 @ 8:54am
pothale said | August 31st 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
(Consider this question: how many of the current WOEllabie’s backline would find a place in the Kangaroo’s backline? Exactly!! None.)
And also consider this question, since Spiro raises the Grand Slam Tour in his article, and expects a ‘slaughter of the innocents’ in picking the squad. How many of the current backline would find a place in the Top 4 teams of the 6 Nations? I wouldn’t say none, but…
August 31st 2009 @ 11:33am
LeftArmSpinner said | August 31st 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
It is a very good point and for that to be resolved, there needs to be major changes in the structure. the so called rugby nursery is falling apart under the banner of tradition, GPS rugby: 7 comp games a year, one is a bye, thanks to Syd High’s withdrawal, one is against Grammar is is a joke. One is against a relatively weak team in the cycle. So, three of the 7 games are non events. Call that a season???? call that a nursery for hard, character building rugby. Not on your nelly!
Then go to public school rugby: they play knock out comps, and speaking from experience, my son’s school team lost their first game (like half of all the public school teams) and that was the rugby season over……………I kid you not.
Then at rep team level, at U15, when kids are making the choice between league and union, Norths, Easts and Penrith didnt field a rep team in the state carnival……………
August 31st 2009 @ 3:24pm
big Kev said | August 31st 2009 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
Of course none would, it’s a different sport! How many current Kangaroos backs would find a place in the Wallabies backline? None, based on the Tahu experiment none would….. of course we can all say what about Inglis, Folau, Lockyer, Jennings, Slater but we said the same about Tahu!
August 31st 2009 @ 5:36pm
Justin said | August 31st 2009 @ 5:36pm | Report comment
Leave the league comparison out, its irrelevant…
August 31st 2009 @ 9:02am
Temba said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
The experiment of playing Ruan Pienaar at 15 was a massive success. It’s the best selection I have seen in ages but only for the run on side.
The bench is still a problem. It should be used to blood new player not give over the hill out of form guys a run. January should not be there, we need an able replacement for Du Preez.
Burgess should not start, he was terrible. Gittue should be at 12 with Barns moving to 10.
Let’s hope Barn and Sharp are back for the Brissy match and that both teams continue the style of play from Perth. This will give us a close match with lots of running.
Well done to the Boks they proved everyone wrong. The headline in the age: “Springboks had more then one trick up their sleeve”
August 31st 2009 @ 10:20am
van der Merwe said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
What did Pienaar do?
August 31st 2009 @ 10:27am
Temba said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:27am | Report comment
He didn’t miss six shots at goal…
He combined with the backline switching in and out of 10 and 15 a couple of times. Steyn would of knocked that ball on the sideline. Not bad considering he is not a 15. The bloke has talent, he just needs a spot perhaps 15 it is?
If anything it great to have a guy that can play well in 3 of the most important spots of the game.
Du Preez on the other hand was phenomenal, he has to be a front runner for IRB player of the year.
August 31st 2009 @ 8:02pm
cookee said | August 31st 2009 @ 8:02pm | Report comment
nothing
August 31st 2009 @ 11:04am
Darryl said | August 31st 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
Excuse me Temba but surely you can see that this thread is dedicated to depressed and angry wallaby fans looking for shoulders to cry on. Please take your “how the boks can get even better” rubbish to another more appropriate thread.
August 31st 2009 @ 11:33am
Temba said | August 31st 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
Its OK Darryl, let it all out.
Ill lend my dirty thuggish one dimensional shoulder for a crying session.
August 31st 2009 @ 12:27pm
Ziggy said | August 31st 2009 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
That’s better. I’m proud to be part of the thuggish, boring rugby culture as well.
August 31st 2009 @ 12:47pm
Rusty said | August 31st 2009 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
lol thats a good one
August 31st 2009 @ 9:08am
pothale said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
As opposed to” Springboks had more than one kick up their sleeve’. boom boom.
August 31st 2009 @ 9:15am
johnny-boy said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Frankly, it time for Deans to go home imo. He has had plenty of time to correct the bleeding obvious but is proving to be a typical, stubborn, south island farmer and grossly overrated, by myself included.
The number of obvious mistakes after saturdays embarassment are to numerous to ignore.
1. Baxter should have gone before
2. Brown should never have been given the opportunity to start after 2 successive yellow cards. He wasnt feeding at the trough he was gorging
3. As somone else said – who on earth is calling long throws with TFP. Can u believe it. Its unbelievable.
4 Smith doesnt want to be captain and consequently isnt a good captain – how bleeding obvious does it have to be ?
5. Burgess is a joke. The 1st 15 minutes it looked like he wanted to stop and have a cup of tea before passing – unbeleivable.
6. Giteaus’ confidence at 10 is shot but it’s a measure of his arrogance that he wants to keep playing there.
7. If Barnes keeps getting injured at 12 – for goodness sake move him to 10 – he’s too valuable to ‘sacrifice’ at 12.
8. Dont play AAC in foreign territory at 12 – look what happens dopey. Why do smarty pants coaches think it is a master stroke to play players out of position these days. You could get away with it years ago with freak players but not these days. Coaches want to look like genius’. Instead they end up looking plain stupid.
Time for Deans to start packing his bags. Australian coaches put your hand up.
August 31st 2009 @ 9:44am
mother teresa said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
johhny
yes i think deans is overrated cos as you suggest there are too many examples of dumbness;
should concentrate on the trade and less on the tricks of the trade.
clearly we overrate this coach;you,me and him.time to go
August 31st 2009 @ 10:08am
Ben C said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:08am | Report comment
I don’t think he should leave, but he needs to be pulled aside and told:
(1) get Foley back for forwards coach, Graham is assisting the Force and Williams will apparently be helping the Reds so there shouldn’t be an issue with Foley working for both the Waratahs and Wallabies
(2) loyalty to the players is a fine attribute but can be taken too far
(3) at the moment we need to pick players for mental strength then playing ability then athleticism rather than the other way around
August 31st 2009 @ 8:05pm
cookee said | August 31st 2009 @ 8:05pm | Report comment
2. loyalty to players ,read as loyalty to self