The Wallabies give the Springboks a real rugby lesson
Columnist By Spiro Zavos, 7 Sep 2009 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- 2011 Rugby World Cup, robbie deans, Rugby Union, Springboks, Tri Nations, wallabies, Will Genia
242 Have your say
Related coverage
Australian player Rocky Elsom makes a break during the Tri-Nations match between the Australian Wallabies and the South African Springboks at Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane, Saturday, Sept. 5, 2009. AAP Image/Dave Hunt
The stirring, rousing Wallabies victory over the Springboks 21 – 6, which had the excited 47,000 crowd at Brisbane chanting ‘Wallabies! Wall -a-bies!’ with each frenetic phase of play, was the victory that had to be achieved.
A new generation of Wallabies, with the best of the old-timers, showed promise of being a competitive side leading into the 2011 Rugby World Cup.
I liken it to the victory by the Wallabies in the third Test against the All Blacks at Wellington in 1990, and the last-gasp penalty kick victory at Raustenburg by the Springboks against the All Blacks in 2006. Both the winning sides had to have a victory to stop a long losing sequence or else suffer the axing of all the senior players.
It’s history now that the embattled Wallabies and the Springboks went on to win their RWC tournaments in 1991 and 2007.
The analogy is not entirely four-square. The side that Robbie Deans (and where are the criticisms now of him as a coach?) sent out had actually been culled, one way or another, of senior players who are past it. No Al Baxter, no Nathan Sharpe, no Lote Tuqiri, no Phil Waugh, and no Stirling Morlock.
The pack without Baxter and Sharpe scrummed very well and once again exposed the liability of playing John Smit for his captaincy, even though his prop play is weak. Will Genia playing his first run-on Test fitted in like a young George Gregan. If he continues his improvement he will be a long-term halfback in the quick-passing, strong running tradition set by John Hipwell, of blessed memory, who handed out the team jerseys.
For the Springboks, it was a case of sow a wind and reap a whirlwind. Before the Tri-Nations tournament I wrote a piece suggesting that ‘arrogance’ might derail the winning chances of a very good side. That arrogance was expressed in wearing armbands ‘Justice4Bakkies’ in protest of a judicial finding by an IRB committee against the Bakkies Botha for reckless play leading to the injury of a British and Lions prop, Adam Jones.
The arrogance continued when the Springboks scrum was over-powered and (rightly penalised) at Perth and a ‘please explain’ letter was sent to the IRB in complaint of the NZ refereee Bryce Lawrence. The IRB, through its referees manager Paddy O’Brien, another New Zealander, said that the scrum penalties were correct and that Lawrence was the most accurate scrum referee going around.
Now fast-forward to just before the Brisbane Test. Smit is being interviewed. He is asked about the scrums, and here is his incredibly arrogant answer: ‘I hope the referee is more accurate tonight than last week’s referee.’
This arrogant refusal by the Springboks and their management to acknowledge that that their players have infringed, even when it is made clear to them by the IRB, came back to bite them in the 32nd minute of the Brisbane Test when Brett Robinson pulversied Smit in a crucial scrum and won a vital penalty. Throughout the Test the Wallaby scrum had the total measure of the Springboks scrum.
It was noticeable after the Test that Peter de Villiers finally conceded that the Springboks scrum coaches will have to look at what they’ve been telling the players because yet another referee, this time the Englishman Wayne Barnes, found faults with their methods.
Aside from the victory itself, the best aspect of the Wallabies win was the manner in which it was achieved. It was a victory built on the good things the Wallabies did, rather than on the mistakes made by the Springboks. It was an victory that featured lively and enterprising play rather than adopting the ‘win ugly’ approach the NSW Waratahs embraced in their ill-conceived Super Rugby campaign this year.
The youngest players in the sides, Tatafu Polata-Nau and David Pock in the forwards, and Will Genia and James O’Connor in the backs contributed heavily to the victory. The average age of the forwards is 26, the average age of the back is 23, apparently. This is a team with lots of growth in it and a high degree of skills and flair.
The Springboks now go to Hamilton to play the All Blacks in search of a win or a bonus point loss that will virtually assure them of the 2009 Tri-Nations. The referee is the Welshman Nigel Owens who could be in for a testing time. My guess is (and I hope I’m wrong) that the Springboks will give away their experiment of trying to play more with the ball in hand. We’ll see a return to the ‘win-ugly’ style of incessant kicking and the leash will removed on Botha to throw himself (literally) into the rucks and mauls.
As for the Wallabies, they have two weeks to prepare for their final Tri-Nations Test in 2009 at Wellington against the All Blacks. The challenge now is to record a rare victory in New Zealand in the same enterprising manner as that achieved at Brisbane.
The goal now must be a winning momentum rather than the occasional brilliant flash in the pan victory.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- 2011 Rugby World Cup, robbie deans, Rugby Union, Springboks, Tri Nations, wallabies, Will Genia
September 7th 2009 @ 2:11am
Knives Out said | September 7th 2009 @ 2:11am | Report comment
‘The side that Robbie Deans (and where are the criticisms now of him as a coach?)’
Oh Spiro, who honestly would have expected this sort of comment from you? Is this a dig at all those Roarers that started to doubt the Dean myth after the 4 losses in a row? Do those criticisms become redundant after one home win? Does this single win justify the embarrassingly melodramatic hyperbole that has been shovelled in his direction by certain sections of the media? Probably not. Deans deserves criticism (for his mistakes) and support (for what he has done right) in equal measure.
P.S. Why the anti-Springbok vitriol?
September 7th 2009 @ 8:19am
OldManEmu said | September 7th 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Deans is far from safe is this Roarers humble opinion.
September 7th 2009 @ 8:28am
Darryl said | September 7th 2009 @ 8:28am | Report comment
Couldn’t agree more Knives Out. Spiro is very good at putting a positive spin on anything from NZ and will attack the Boks at every opportunity. And nobody wants to beat the Boks more than me. Where are the criticisms now Spiro? Where they were before, no where to be seen. He’s had an easy ride. Australia’s funny in that being a “good bloke” will take you a very very long way.
The Boks centers still had it all over the wannabies mid-field, plus I still feel our wings were not great (the boks are very good in this area though). Not a lot of counter-rucking from the boks either, so I’m dubious about our forward play.
Tatafu is my favourite player. Bang!
September 7th 2009 @ 10:14am
Tom said | September 7th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
Agreed, Deans was supposed to IMPROVE the Wallabies side. One home win in a Tri Nations is not an improvement over even the depths of the Eddie Jones years.
September 7th 2009 @ 2:15am
ThelmaWrites said | September 7th 2009 @ 2:15am | Report comment
I also hope the Wallabies will examine long and hard how they won, so the lesson is not lost upon them.
Elsewhere I’ve said that the most gratifying thing to me about the Aussie win is that the attack is using the full width of the field, and changing the point of attack. It reminded me of France v Wales in February this year. Just reduce the errors and finesse the moves.
September 7th 2009 @ 2:21am
Knives Out said | September 7th 2009 @ 2:21am | Report comment
‘Just reduce the errors’
I recall mentioning this to LAS the other day: Sean Fitzpatrick made a telling comment post-match that the Australians had to concentrate for a full 80 minutes because you could see that there were little lapses of concentration around the park. It’s a Catch 22 situation where the more inexperienced you are the more likely you are to make these smaller mental errors. I thought that last week Australia made some significant breaks with the ball in hand but like the NZ test in SA, if the ball had gone to hand on occasion a lot of tries could have been scored but instead a lot of little errors crept into the general. Yesterday saw fewer mistakes (but still quite a few) which suggests the players are gelling. Time is the greatest healer.
September 7th 2009 @ 4:53pm
ThelmaWrites said | September 7th 2009 @ 4:53pm | Report comment
Knives Out
I recant!
Please see my post further down the thread. (At last count, Spiro’s article has received 102 posts.)
September 7th 2009 @ 2:41am
Frank O'Keeffe said | September 7th 2009 @ 2:41am | Report comment
Spiro,
A pleasing thing about the reaction of people here at The Roar following the game is they put the win in perspective. It was great that the Wallabies won, but they have to continue what they did in Brisbane. England showed this year they could put it together for one game against France, but what else have they done before or since that game? I think it’s a bit premature to say, after one win, that this shows Australia will be a competitive side going into the 2011 World Cup. Australia are yet to show a trend in improvement of form. The win was good, and your summation about the contributions of Robinson, Pocock, Genia and O’Connor is accurate. They all played very well.
The Boks are shockers when it’s coming to criticising refereeing. Paddy O’Brien had the benefit of reviewing Lawrence’s performance and said there was nothing wrong with it. If they don’t want to accept that then they can keep getting penalised. Maybe they have different ideas about how the scrums should operate, but it’s only the referees idea of how they work that matters. The fact that Smit got dished-out for a second week running by Robinson doesn’t seem to register with them.
But for all that, the Kiwi’s are even worse when it comes to anything to do with Wayne Barnes. Everything is a wrong decision. Barnes made a few mistakes, but he was no where near as bad as that ref in the 2nd South Africa/New Zealand game this year.
The more I watch rugby the more I’m beginning the realise there are no great refs in world rugby. What’s more important to me these days is that the refs are consistent so there’s no inbalance of decisions in favour of one side. The Wallabies got a few bad decisions by Barnes and the Boks got a few bad decisions by Barnes. Barnes didn’t make that many mistakes and it ended-up that he didn’t effect the result of the game at all.
September 7th 2009 @ 2:46am
Knives Out said | September 7th 2009 @ 2:46am | Report comment
‘ England showed this year they could put it together for one game against France, but what else have they done before or since that game?’
Lose to Ireland, beat Scotland, beat Argentina and then lose to Argentina leaving them with their best 6N finish since 2003 and a drawn series with Argentina, scoring 20 tries in 7 games. I agree with your general point, however. Nothing beats consistency, that’s for sure. To that extent, this current Australian team has similarities with the English team. Both are generally inexperienced and both are trying to fully acclimatise to a specific game plan.
September 8th 2009 @ 6:31am
johno said | September 8th 2009 @ 6:31am | Report comment
Barnes made a couple of very basic bad mistakes. he allowed George Smith on various occasions to play the man, Fourie Du Preez (and not the ball) after making a tackle. He missed the knock that led to JOC’s try, or it should have at least been a accidental offside. He missed the knock / deliberate slap down of the ball from De Vlliers / Fourie’s break.
He nailed the Springboks thrice for advancing in front of the kicker the Wallabies not one time.
But then again it’s par for the course for somebody of his questionable stature.
As for Bryce Lawrence, well, he’s a New Zealander, he knows that his team is in with a shout at the tri Nations title if he can influence the scoreline. We will just have to wait for the World Cup year for the refs to give everybody a fair go again, that seems to always influence their performances for some reason.
September 8th 2009 @ 6:38am
Darryl SA said | September 8th 2009 @ 6:38am | Report comment
johno, it’s just bad mojo to blame the ref. The home team generally gets the rub of the green from the ref to a degree, it was the same for us back in SA, it’s the same for the Wallabies here in Aus, and it’ll be the same for NZ in NZ. The visiting team needs to rise above that and not look for excuses. Fact of the matter is that the Wallabies almost scored a number of tries and the Boks barely threatened to score one. Blaming the ref, or as I see PdV is even blaming travel fatigue now (when NZ got beaten twice then came to Aus and beat Aus) is just silly. Just take it on the chin PdV. Something like “we were beaten by the better team on the day, and we’ll try to learn from these mistakes and be a better team next week”, or whatever.
September 7th 2009 @ 3:55am
Photon said | September 7th 2009 @ 3:55am | Report comment
Well done to the Wallabies they were great, Spiro I hope you grow up one day, as good as the Wallabies were what they did was prey on bok errors, they scored one try from a scrum something robbie deans himself said should never happen and the other came from a dumb pass. Other than that they kicked penalties and drop goals, the primary mistake the Boks made was to try and run the ball prior to securing position, this test was just durban and newlands in reverse, of course because the side you support won it goes down as a classic in your book. Your article represents gutter journalism of the worst kind.
September 7th 2009 @ 9:08am
onside said | September 7th 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Photon,
‘gutter journalism ‘ is a bit harsh.
September 7th 2009 @ 9:19am
Temba said | September 7th 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
HAHAHA no onside photon has it about right, maybe harsh but it’s not without reason that he says this. He agreed that the Wallas won a good game and pointed out the author’s impotence as this site main rugby “journo”
September 7th 2009 @ 7:49pm
Cats said | September 7th 2009 @ 7:49pm | Report comment
Photon – couldnt put it better myself! A week ago his emotional IQ which probably amounts to zip, portrayed a headline along the lines ” Springboks thrash Wallabies by playing real rugby at last” – this week he has his period so the heading reads “The Wallabies give the Springboks a real rugby lesson”…. well Spiro which one is it – or do we have to wait till you are emotionally stable to give an unbiased view???
September 7th 2009 @ 9:38am
fox said | September 7th 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Ha. Insolence! No wonder the reputation of Springbok fans is so terrible. Even in defeat the serial arrogance is evident. Mitigated, qualified praise followed by barbs and excuses. What a nonsense.
Photon, isn’t there a south african site where you can go and find comfort in your little bubble, away from the truth or perspective from outsiders? Surely there is a bliog somewhere tracking each minor unpenalised or “wrong” pentalty that might inspire an armband or two, perhaps even a letter to the IRB?
I think you will find that the Wallabies dominated the game and forced the errors they so cunningly scored from. Your criticisms of the victory could be so easily be turned and pointed at the Springboks’ own victories this year: Apply pressure around the park and capitalise on mistakes. Works doesn’t it? Truth is your forwards were lazy (through fitness or arrogance who can say?) and were exposed at the breakdown and in the scrums. Look at the Perth test and you will see that is exactly what won the Boks that test. The difference is that, unlike the Boks and their first three victories, this Wallabies side was actually positive. If it wasn’t for some fierce, last gasp heroics by Habana and Du Preez the Wallabies would have bagged two more deserved tries that came from positive ball in hand rugby.
From our perspective, this might just be the beginning of something big, but it might not. There’s still a long way to go to gain consistency. The Springboks have led the way in this area. No doubt they will bounce back. Come on, you had to lose one sooner or later. The Wallabies will just humbly take the victory and push on, hopefully in the same direction: forward.
Perhaps th reason your ire at Spiro is so vivid is because he actually doesn’t humour the South African rhetoric like so many other journalists. He sees it for what it is and isn’t afraid to point it out. I do concede though, that this was hardly a “famous” Wallaby victory; i’ve said that elsewhere just to stir. For most of us it was just a relief.
Best of luck for your trip across the ditch.
September 7th 2009 @ 3:57am
goshthe4th said | September 7th 2009 @ 3:57am | Report comment
from an all blacks perspective i can tell why you are very happy..it is all because the wallabies kept the tri-nations alive…first of all the walllabies were playing in front of many wallabie supporters and therefore they had the confidence to play…i jus saw that the springboks underestimated the australian squad and they were quite shocked to see how the young guys stepped up to them…what they worked on never went according to plan and i give the wallabies credit for picking up those areas…it was jus their day on saturday and i promise you that next time when both those teams win..the springboks are sure gonna be the ones teaching the aussies a lesson
September 7th 2009 @ 5:18am
Knives Out said | September 7th 2009 @ 5:18am | Report comment
To all (perhaps South African Roarers mostly), I watched the game but kind of in a relaxed state (not being an Australian or SA rugby fan) and I have noticed that on an English rugby blog site all of the South African contributors are lambasting Wayne Barnes for their loss. Is this perception specific to those guys?
September 7th 2009 @ 6:17am
Lee said | September 7th 2009 @ 6:17am | Report comment
As a Saffa, I don’t think it was Barnes fault at all. yes there were calls he made that I didn’t think were right e.g when Genia lost the ball over the line, Barnes called it “held up” and gave the Wallabies the scrum – the phrase “held up” never came out of the TMOs mouth, and to me it should have been a 22 dropout as teh TMO clearly said Genia lost the ball. over the line. But overall I felt that some of his calls went our way and more went the Aussies way – not because he was reffing badly but because the Aussies were the dominant, home side and thats how it goes – see our first 3 Tri Nations games this year for examples of this too.
To me the reason we lost is that the Wallabies turned up, and we didn’t. The Wallabies were playing for pride and we thought we had the game won before we started warming up. It was that simple. I haven’t seen the Boks get that dominated in the rucks in a long time and maybe it is the wake up call that we need. All teams gets complacent when they have been doing well and hopefully this makes the Boks players realise they aren’t invincinble.
Disappointed in a week where the Wallabies played well and put things together, that all Spiro can do is write an article critising the Boks. Your team won Spiro, lambasting the opposition only makes your vistory more and more hollow.
Now please Wallabies, do the business in Wellington.
September 7th 2009 @ 8:24am
Mungehead said | September 7th 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
A Saffa, but you’re calling on the Wallabies to win in Wellington? So you’re already resigned to losing in Hamilton?
September 7th 2009 @ 9:13am
Lee said | September 7th 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
I am not sure, the Boks looked very tired against the Wallabies. If I thought they would lose I wouldn’t be driving down to Hamilton to watch the game. I am just not 100%…
September 7th 2009 @ 9:40am
Mungehead said | September 7th 2009 @ 9:40am | Report comment
They did look tired. My guess is that the ABs will win this game by a narrow margin, and the next one, but that the Boks will probably pick up the title on bonus points at the end. Your comment surprised me though. If I was a Saffa, I’d be calling on the team to prove their class, be masters of their own destinies and prove the win now, or lose the lot and serve them right. Wouldn’t you be even a little ashamed to win the Tri-Nations only because the Wallabies beat the ABs in the last game? Ok, the Boks would still be the champions but it’d be so much more satisfying to seize the victory yourself. IMO. If you can. This is your last game so now is the time.
September 7th 2009 @ 10:15am
Lee said | September 7th 2009 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Exactly, nothing would make me happier than winning this on our own. With no help from other teams, however I am still a little unsure.
I really can’t see the ABs suddenly “clicking” and runnning in 4 tries. It has only happened once in this series so far, and the Boks had been playing well leading up to Perth so it wasn’t a case of suddenly “clicking”.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how you win, as long as your name is on the trophy at the end of the comp.
I would love us to win in Hamilton(and win well to silence the detractors(read Spiro)), but as Brisbane showed history plays a part and our record in NZ isn’t great. Perhaps I am just a pessimist.
September 7th 2009 @ 12:34pm
Chris said | September 7th 2009 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
Nice one Lee. Its refreshing to read a humble and balanced posting. Not all of us (myself included) are as gallant in defeat. Something to aspire to.
September 7th 2009 @ 1:24pm
Lee said | September 7th 2009 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Thanks Chris, but I definately have my moments as well. But if we didn’t get that passionate no one would watch sport
September 7th 2009 @ 2:27pm
big Kev said | September 7th 2009 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
Lee, pretty sure in the Genia no try, that FDP knocked the ball on when stopping Genia from scoring and the the TMO indicated this to the ref. Good call. Having said that were the defenders retreating? I think it should have been another penalty….
September 7th 2009 @ 2:29pm
CraigB said | September 7th 2009 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
Lee- “Genia lost the ball over the line, Barnes called it “held up” and gave the Wallabies the scrum ” Too right Lee that was a mistake by Barnes. It should have been a penalty try for tackling a player in an offside position. Neither player retired the required 10 mtrs.
September 7th 2009 @ 4:33pm
TommyM said | September 7th 2009 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
Lee
Yes that was a strange decision. But in fact, rather than being a Springboks scrum for lost forward it should in fact have been a penalty try. The penalty was 10m out. Genia ran and was tackled by two players before the line who had not retreated behind it.
Barnes wasn’t helped by the baffling ramblings of the TMO- though I actually wonder if he wanted to explain that it should be a penalty try, but couldn’t because he could only rule on the grounding or what happened over the goal line. Am I correct to assume that this is the inly advice have can give? Any rule officianados? If this is the case, it’s gotta change ASAP.
September 7th 2009 @ 5:43pm
Lee said | September 7th 2009 @ 5:43pm | Report comment
I think the ref can ask if it was a “try or no try” or “is there any reason I canot award a try” I don’t think he is strictly alowed to ask anything else. Try or no try means the TMO has to see the grounding physically, check if the player went out etc, Is there any reason I cannot award a try means that the ref has seen the ball on the ground but is unsure if it was a double movemnet or the player lost it and then regathered it before the ref got there, the TMO doesn’t have to see the grounding in this case but just has to advise if he see’s anything wrong. Please someone correct me if I am wrong.
I am not sure about a penalty try – Genia took it quick and yes the Boks players weren’t back ten but neither player moved forwards towards him, Du Preez had to move backwards. Of course, it was a 50-50 call and an Aussie fan would say penalty try and a bok fan would say not. What I am saying though is that the call for it being held up didn’t seem right to me considering what the TMO had said to the ref. I will also add that I don’t remember the commentators saying anything about a penalty try and given their allegiances I would say they would be screaming for it if they thought there was a whiff.
The decision to go penalty try is solely the refs and he obviously didn’t think it was one.
September 8th 2009 @ 1:17am
Lindommer said | September 8th 2009 @ 1:17am | Report comment
Lee, as a referee and after a very careful look at the incident in slo-slo-mo and a re-reading of the Law book I can tell you it should’ve been a penalty try. This is what the TMO hinted at when the referee asked him what should happen next, “Well, there was a penalty”. Ayoub was trying to prompt Barnes to consider what happened immediately after the penalty was awarded. Your remark “neither player moved forward towards him” concerns me as to your knowledge of the Laws of rugby: no opposing player can do ANYTHING to an attacking player after a penalty until they’re onside. du Preez and his mate were never onside as they hadn’t retired the required 10m. Barnes should’ve put his arm out to indicate advantage the moment the two Boks went for Genia and awarded a try to either Genia or under the posts.
September 8th 2009 @ 1:33am
wannabprop said | September 8th 2009 @ 1:33am | Report comment
Lindommer
Great to get a referee’s input. Not for a minute questioning your analysis, but if the TMO was ‘hinting’ that a penalty try should be awarded, that suggests a flawed system to me (too much ambiguity under pressure). And why wouldn’t Ayoub have stated firmly (if he thought it should be awarded a try) after “Well, there was a penalty…”, “… and the tackler was offside”.?
September 8th 2009 @ 2:01am
David said | September 8th 2009 @ 2:01am | Report comment
Wasn’t Du Preez automatically onside when he crossed the try line?
September 8th 2009 @ 4:32am
Jerry G said | September 8th 2009 @ 4:32am | Report comment
” they hadn’t retired the required 10m.”
You sure about that?
September 7th 2009 @ 10:48am
van der Merwe said | September 7th 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment
No, I agree with Lee. The Wallabies played superbly. The Boks looked flat and if it weren’t for defensive brilliance from the likes of Habana, du Preez and Fourie the scoreline might have looked a lot worse for them. In a non-relaxed state, Barnes did seem to forget himself in his eagerness to avenge the Board’s honour, but Lawrence also favoured the home side the previous week and yet the Boks won that game comfortably. What were they expecting this time?
September 7th 2009 @ 4:50pm
Ben J said | September 7th 2009 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
Althought there was probably a few curious calls in the game the Boks have only themselves to blame for this loss. The Boks scrum and their kicking game let them down enormously, no the ref was fine.
September 7th 2009 @ 7:54pm
Cats said | September 7th 2009 @ 7:54pm | Report comment
Knives Out – I will point out that the ozzh*les have their day as well as far as the ref goes, however on the day the Ozzies were better for sure – cannot dispute that, but the ref did bugger up big time – on various occassions he blew penalties against SA but had an ozz player in good view to see that he was comming in from the side of the ruck…. interesting that the game analysis by Naas Botha provided tons of errors which the ozzies should have been penalised for versus 1 which should have been blown against the boks – so sit on your toilet comfortably and regergetate that!!….. and we know you’re an Oz supported poepall!!
September 8th 2009 @ 1:58am
David said | September 8th 2009 @ 1:58am | Report comment
This is probably because Naas Botha spent some time after the game showing decisions the referee had made that he thought were inexplicable (and in most cases were). I personally think he had a shocker of a game, but this was not the reason for the loss. I think Australia simply played better than the ‘boks. That happens in sport. You win some and you lose some.
September 7th 2009 @ 5:45am
Nelson said | September 7th 2009 @ 5:45am | Report comment
Knives out I don’t think Barnes did too badly at all . A few line balll decisions went the home side’s way but that’s to be expected. Credit to the wallabies for a good win but there are so many tests in this format of the tri nations it was inevitable they would eventually get one (and i was saying the same thing about the boks in 2006)
September 7th 2009 @ 5:59am
Frank O'Keeffe said | September 7th 2009 @ 5:59am | Report comment
Knives Out,
If you’re talking about ‘Keo’ then you’re talking about the most biased South African website on the planet.
September 7th 2009 @ 6:02am
Knives Out said | September 7th 2009 @ 6:02am | Report comment
Oh, I know that, Frank. No, an English equivalent of The Roar (of sorts) but dedicated solely to rugby.
September 7th 2009 @ 6:09am
Dingbat said | September 7th 2009 @ 6:09am | Report comment
Spiro you just can’t help yourself can you? Once again you refer to the Bakkies ruck clearing incident (which “victim” Jones himself has said should not have been a yellow card offense). Then you refer to a letter the Boks sent to the IRB regarding interpretation at scrum time as “arrogant”…? Sure, the Boks may be battling in the scrum, and sure they may be having a tough time interpreting the laws, but why is the mere sending of a letter to the IRB asking for clarification “arrogant”?
Spiro sside from the typical vindictive poisen you bring to your articles, it must be said the Aussies completely outplayed the Boks, and I have no idea what to expect from the Boks next week against the AB’s. If high bombs bring victory, then let it rain high bombs. The end to this Tri-Nations could be very, very exciting!!
September 7th 2009 @ 9:50am
fox said | September 7th 2009 @ 9:50am | Report comment
Because they could have gained that clarification by watching the tape and/or asking the referee involved. But no, they had to go to the Principal and (wrongly) dob. Nobody likes a dobber, especially when they’ve made up the offense!
September 7th 2009 @ 10:12am
Dingbat said | September 7th 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
fox, what’s the protocol? you’ll probably find access post-game to the ref who blew the game is not protocol.
September 7th 2009 @ 10:26am
fox said | September 7th 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment
The protocol is to just take on the chin, really. I recall Bledisloe I and the Baxter incident on our attacking scrum (and others) and Deans’ reaction to that comparatively vital ruling and game. He showed visibly that he was displeased, but knew it was irreversible and sucked it up. That’s protocol (also known as maturity).
September 7th 2009 @ 7:57pm
Cats said | September 7th 2009 @ 7:57pm | Report comment
Yeah sure – I am sure Australia will just “take it on the chin” when next they legitimately loose and then blame the refe as they have been doing over their last 6 losses!!
September 8th 2009 @ 8:09am
fox said | September 8th 2009 @ 8:09am | Report comment
It’s all relative cats. We certainly won;t be going to the Principal’s office. Unlike other nations, we actually have a sense of our own mortality and wuold prefer to salvage at least a little pride, not go running to mumsy.
September 7th 2009 @ 6:16am
AussieWallaby said | September 7th 2009 @ 6:16am | Report comment
Let the Springboks do us a favour and hammer the Kiwis this weekend. It would be quite ironic if we end up winning in Wellington to secure second place =)
September 7th 2009 @ 8:01pm
Cats said | September 7th 2009 @ 8:01pm | Report comment
You go – second place is better than third….. only because australia dont earn the right to have the first spot!