By Spiro Zavos
November 15th 2009 @ 1:40am
Related coverage
The real France guillotines the Springboks
France's Maxime Mermoz, left, is tackled by Wynand Olivier, center, and Heinrich Brussow of South Africa during their international rugby union match in Toulouse, southwestern France, Friday, Nov. 13, 2009. (AP Photo/Christophe Ena)
Rugby writers often joke about which French side will turn up for a given Test match. The World Champion Springboks, coming off a fabulous year in which they defeated the British and Irish Lions and won the Tri-Nations tournament, were guillotined 20 – 13 at Toulouse by a real French side.
The score line does not do justice to the domination France exerted on the Springboks for all the match and especially in the second half, except for a 20 minute period leading up to half-time.
France lost 14 points with a number of missed kicks at goal. None was easier, or seemingly more crucial at the time, than when Morgan Parra, a young half back, missed a penalty right in front with only minutes left to play. France were leading by 17 – 13, and the penalty would have taken the game entirely away from the Springboks.
From the opening kick-off France showed its intentions by engaging the Springboks forward in a heated exchange with barging bodies bouncing off each other like dodgems. From then on, aside from the occasional set piece, the French pack was too strong for the Springboks in the lineouts, at the rucks and mauls (except for some sensational snatches by Heinrich Brussow) and, particularly, in the scrums. John Smit’s position as a prop must come under serious consideration.
Towards the end of the Test with only 1 point being the difference, France won three consecutive penalties from scrums. The points taking France out to its final 7-point margin were from penalties forced when the dominant home pack simply monstered the South African pack.
France were very good, too, under the high ball, both from Springboks kicks and from their own. In a sense, the Springboks were Bokked by their opponents.
The Test was played at Toulouse, a great rugby city. The captain of France was Thierry Dusautoir, the fiery and dynamic loose forward who made 26 tackles against the All Blacks at Cardiff in France’s memorable victory in the 2009 Rugby World Cup quarter-final. Dusautoir was simply magnificent again, tackling, scrapping for the ball, chesting his props after a dominant scrum and playing with the controlled fury that the great loose forwards use to dominate their opponents.
The crowd sang, cheered, the bands blasted out, the Springboks were booed for late tackles and the home side was cheered for everything, including some spectacular dives to force a penalty. All this was in the great tradition of the crowd being ‘the 16th player.’
The referee was Wayne Barnes, who officiated at the Cardiff boilover. A couple of years on, Barnes has matured into a better referee than he was in 2007 when he was overbearing and inclined to make mistakes. He was not conned by the French diving. He did, however, sort out a lot of the Springboks attempt to play the ball in the rucks when they were on the ground.
I noticed, too, that he often talked to the French in French calling out ‘attention!’ when a player might have been offside and ‘laissez!’ to players with their hands on the ball when they should be releasing after the tackle. France responded to this by generally not indulging themselves by giving away stupid penalties.
The Springboks were caught short by this spirited play of France, by their refusal to be intimidated by the high balls and their refusal to make the same sort of stupid mistakes perpetrated by the All Blacks and the Wallabies. The greasy field, too, led to many handling mistakes by usually faultless players like Bryan Habana.
Not even the genius of Fourie du Preez, again the supreme halfback, could save the Springboks. At the end of the Test, du Preez made a break-outfrom inside his 22. He snaked past a number of defenders, put in a deft chip kick which he re-gathered and with Springboks lining up to continue the threatening attack, lost the slippery ball just as he was going to make his pass.
With not much coming from the high ball tactics, and with their set pieces being monstered, the Springboks tried to make attacks with their backs. But they missed the abrasive, direct running (and the interceptions) of Jean de Villiers. The Springbok backs were mediocre in attack. In fact, the rolling maul was the team’s most penetrative ploy.
When I mentioned earlier in the year that the Springboks were a one-trick-pony team, with the high ball used extensively to force mistakes and penalties, I was lambasted by readers in South Africa. The strength of this game is obvious from the great success, make that the historic success, the Springboks have enjoyed this season. But it is essentially a negative game plan. If the opposition does not make mistakes under pressure, then the Springboks struggle to get points.
In the second half, the Springboks played into a strong wind. They did not put any points on the board. However, with the score France 14 – South Africa 13, the Springboks forced a penalty which in ordinary circumstances Morne Steyn, who had not missed a shot up till then, would have kicked easily. He missed. And with the miss you could sense that South Africa were going to lose.
Up to this Test, France had played won 4 Tests and lost four Tests. Two of the losses were against New Zealand in New Zealand (after winning the first Test) and to Australia, in Australia. The only two matches played at home up to the Toulouse Test against the Springboks were won by France.
France at home is more likely to be the real France, than France playing away from home. The Springboks have now lost their first match in the Northern Hemisphere since England beat them 23 -21 three years ago. France remain unbeaten by the Springboks at home since 1997.
This is clearly not the end of the Springboks as a great side. But it is a warning shot that greatness has to earned every Test. France has shown how to defeat the Springboks and other sides will try to follow the game plan.
That’s the bad news for the Springboks. The good news is that there are few teams in the world, if any, who can play with the same esprit (a French word after all) of a French side that is encouraged by fanatical supporters who know and love their team when it comes to play real rugby.
‘Allez les Bleus!’
Super 14 Tipping now live on The Roar. Join now.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(68)
Knives Out said | November 15th 2009 @ 2:24am | Report comment
It is curious how John Smit gets such a shellacking off the media when in fact Mtawarira is the worse prop of the two. I have never seen a prop dominated so many times by so many differend players. The ‘Beast’ gimmick is wearing alarmingly thin. The same applies to the woeful Van der Linde.
pothale said | November 15th 2009 @ 3:23am | Report comment
It’s no surprise that CJ is thinking about heading home from Leinster next May. The most laughable comment was his ‘I don’t owe Leinster anything’ quote during the week. For a guy who has given so little and been paid so regularly by club, I find it ridiculous. I don’t know why Leinster have indulged him so much.
Knives Out said | November 15th 2009 @ 3:58am | Report comment
The look on his big, fat potato head when he was getting manhandled by Marconnet was priceless. He is one of the worst repeat offenders on the world stage. I have no idea what Cheika was thinking offering that oaf a retirement package.
Mr cheese said | November 15th 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
As I’ve said before, I don’t watch RU regularly but I was watching highlights recently of the QF between NZ and France in Cardiff in 2007.
Sylvain Marconnet was in the stands, cheering as JB Ellisalde booted the ball into row Z to bring a French victory.
Anyway, I understand that Marconnet was in the stands because he’d injured himself on a ski slope somewhere. How short-sighted does a Rugby player have to be to go ski-ing ??????
Bradley Wiggins has just scquired a Mod scooter. Surely this is potentially the same mistake.
Knives, Dear boy: do you follow the cycling ?!??!?!?!?!?!
Matt0931 said | November 15th 2009 @ 4:14am | Report comment
The ‘beast’ is about to be sent home. He’s just been found out that he’s not eligible to play for the springboks.
He is from Zim and doesn’t have SA citizenship.
Mr cheese said | November 15th 2009 @ 4:41am | Report comment
Knives, dear boy
Explain two things to me:
1) How does “The Beast” manage to play for South Africa when he isn’t South African ? I know that we have Trott and Pietersen in the cricket team, so I don’t claim to be pure or anything. It just seems peculiar.
2) What is going on in the front row of the scrum ? I don’t understand this at all. Before the Lions 1st test, the “experts” said that SA would get battered in the front row because of the Lions’ expertise in that area. Instead, “The Beast” apparently gave the Lions a good kicking.
This is all very confusing. For an occasional egg-chasing observer like me, it’s all pretty difficult to follow.
Knives Out said | November 15th 2009 @ 5:33am | Report comment
2. SA had the power over the Lions in the 1st test due to the composition of the Lions pack and Mtawaraira popped Vickery. However, he did so illegally. As soon as Adam Jones came on Mtawarira was exposed as he had been prior to the Lions tour, and as he still is currently.To be fair to Mtawarira Van der Linde and Steenkamp are only marginally better. Mtawarira has an excuse as he used to be a flanker.
Nelson said | November 15th 2009 @ 5:52am | Report comment
i would say (off the top of my head and without any stats to back it up) that of the “big 5″ rugby countries south africa has offended the least when it comes to poaching players from other countries. i can only think of a handful of players who were essentialy white south african (usually afrikaans) ex pats living in other parts of africa, and now the beast.
I think SARU was pretty pleased to have a black african in the starting xv on merit but now the ( predominantly black) government dont want him picked for the boks as he is not a citizen. it will be interesting to see what happens. just goes to show you how uniquely complex things politically are there.
MM said | November 15th 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment
Beast not being illegible now all of a sudden after playing across the globe including the world cup, this was merely politicians fiddling in matters they know nothing of.
It was a pathetic attempt which has been rectified – virtually hours after the statement was made for info purposes.
SARU will always be pleased to have another colour but Beast earned his place – nobody is at their best all the time. Similarly, the selection was entirely politically based. There is the aspect of exposing underlings which causes the loss of structure and various other criteria. It’s got to be done anyway. According to the media perused as well as knowing what is relevant to the Boks – an obvious and blatant factor – they’ve proved themselves undeniably taking the silver and gold-ware home to their country. They do not hold much regard for these annual events at the end of every year because they’ve proven themselves. It doesn’t mean they’ll maintain their status – what it does mean is they’re accustomed to an entirely different set of rules up north – that’s an old story. I’d also not waste my time on a few double standards to be honest.
Spiro’s article verifies this without him realising in the opinion of many this time, it seems he has done so very well..
Great on the All Black’s and Australian victories – brilliant.
Nelson – I’ve replied more broadly than your specific statements due to varying other remarks.
Parisien said | November 15th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
1) Apparently he was thought to have satisfied the three year residency rule
Mr cheese said | November 15th 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
The three years residency rule is a bit of a joke anyway but failure to satisfy it is silly.
Pietersen and Trott should not play for us at cricket.
“The Beast” has a good nickname. Perhaps they were too busy admiring the nickname to check the paperwork.
Joe4Canberra said | November 17th 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
How does the Beast manage to play for South Africa when he’s not South African? There are several distinct issues here which we need to be careful not to confuse: (1) the IRB rules about player eligibility, (2) the South African Rugby Union’s own selection policies, (3) South African law.
1. IRB ELIGIBILITY RULES
Under the IRB regulations there are four ways you can qualify to play for a national team and importantly “citizenship” is NOT one of them. As far as the IRB rules are concerned you don’t have be a South African “citizen” to play rugby for South Africa or an Australian “citizen” to play for Australia etc. “Citizenship” is a legal construct peculiar to each country and is not relevant for the IRB’s rules. In fact it presents a particular problem in relation to the Home Nations as there is no such thing in law as “English”, “Scottish or “Welsh” citizenship (there is a single “British” citizenship which covers the people of these countries) and members of the Ireland national team come from two sovereign states with their own distinct citizenship rules (the Republic of Ireland and the UK in the case of those players who come from Northern Ireland)!
The four ways of qualifying for eligibility for an international team are: (1) the country of your birth, (2) the country of a parent’s birth, (3) the country of a grandparent’s birth, (4) three years’ continuous residency. Under those rules a person can be eligible to play for more than one team (although nowadays once you’ve played for one you can’t then switch).
Now assuming the the Beast has lived in South Africa for three years continuously then as far as the IRB rules are concerned he is eligible to play for South Africa, regardless of whether or not he takes out South African citizenship. A Zimbabwean citizen and passport holder living in South Africa can qualify to play for South Africa under the IRB rules. There is nothing in the IRB rules that says you first have to take out South African citizenship to play for South Africa. If the South Africans are happy to have a Zimbabwean citizen play for their national side that’s a matter for them and is no-one else’s concern provided he qualifies under one of the four IRB rules.
Talk of the Beast’s “ineligibility” on the basis that he is not South African is therefore a little bit misleading. Maybe he is “ineligible” but it would not seem that is ineligible because of the IRB eligibility rules (he has in fact lived for three years in South Africa) but because of South African law (he has been living there illegally without a valid visa; in other words he’s an illegal immigrant). I will leave you with one qualifying remark in that respect. There is an argument that could be made about the proper interpretation of the IRB residency rule. Does it mean three years residency *simpliciter* or does it mean three years’ *legal* residency? Are illegal migrants eligible under the IRB rules? An interesting question to which there is no clear answer. Personally I think that illegal migrants would qualify *under the IRB rules*. Obviously there are going to be other factors which may mean they will be ineligible to play (see the next two sections below).
But the gist of the matter is this: As far as the IRB rules are concerned citizenship is completely irrelevant. Having it doesn’t grant you the right to play for that country and not having it is not a bar to playing for that country. What counts is the place of birth (either yours, a parent’s or a grandparent’s) or three years’ continuous residency.
2. SARU SELECTION POLICIES
Now the South African Union (SARU) obviously cannot select players for national duty who don’t satisfy the IRB eligibility criteria. But there is nothing stopping SARU adopting a more rigorous selection policy so that some people who would be eligible under the IRB rules are nevertheless ineligible under SARU’s own tougher rules. SARU is free to adopt a policy of not selecting foreign born players who don’t also hold South African citizenship (such as the Beast) or who are illegal migrants (as is alleged of the Beast,not having had a valid visa for his stay in South Africa). I have no idea what SARU’s own selection policy is. Ask SARU.
3. SOUTH AFRICAN LAW
It is also possible that South African law has a bearing on this. The allegation is that the Beast is an illegal migrant, being neither a South African citizen nor a foreign citizen with a valid visa to remain in South Africa, It is possible that South African law says that he’s thereby ineligible to play for the South African national side. But it is also possible that it says nothing of the sort. Again I don’t know what exactly it says. Ask a South African lawyer (I’m an Australian lawyer).
van der Merwe said | November 15th 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment
The SA scrum had parity (with one exception) until Tendai was substituted by the mighty gelatinous mass of van der Linde.
Among CJ’s finest qualities is his supposed ability to play on both sides of the scrum. Believe it or not, loose-head is where he is at his strongest… Now, I’m not one of those supporters who wishes failure on anyone, but I really hope this puts things into perspective for those fools who were clambering for this player to replace Smit.
Knives Out said | November 16th 2009 @ 4:18am | Report comment
Nonsense. The SA scrum was pulverised.
NickSA said | November 15th 2009 @ 3:04am | Report comment
I felt south africa missed frans steyn, jean de velliers and spies abit to much!! to be honest it is actually very worrying because it shows a lack of depth. jacobs and kankoski were horrid and kirchner showed just how important frans steyns boot is to the bok game plan. Well done to france they really did deserve to win!!
pothale said | November 15th 2009 @ 3:28am | Report comment
I would have thought the lack of depth was woefully apparent in the third Lions test, Nick. PdV said he was confident that the squad and players were capable of winning, and yet they came up well short.
Botha looked lost last night, and Matfield bewildered by the strength of confrontation from the French – it’s not as if they weren’t warned in advance with the team that was lined up.
I can see, PdV, changing policy on using foreign-based players next year – although he has 6 months to find out what else he has in his playing stocks larder. I’ll be interested to see how the Bulls go next year in the S14 – something tells me they may have burned out somewhat.
NickSA said | November 15th 2009 @ 5:01am | Report comment
Pothale
It was a totally different team in the lions third test, i dont think that was lack of depth but more lack of gelling. These players need more game time because every time a first team player has an issue to play these ‘2nd team’ players are put on and look lost!! kankowski is a very talented player i dont think any 1 can deny that but he had a shocker in france!
Matt0931 said | November 15th 2009 @ 4:25am | Report comment
I think most teams have now worked out how to play the SA style high ball. By the end of the 3N you could see that most players jumped in the air rather than stay on the ground to catch the high ball which scuppered the SA game plan which was to A – jump over the opposition catcher to catch the ball, B – knock it back to a support player, or C – get skittled and claim foul play (A Habana favourite) .
The Wallabies started jumping for the high ball in Brisbane and in doing so took the pressure off themselves and turned the pressure back on the springboks. The rest is history.
The French took this way further last night by jumping for the high ball and actually winning it with good hands and then turning it back on the springboks. The score should have been higher for France, as the boks still got away with a few pull downs and hands in rucks but it was still great to see the boks getting pushed around the field by the french forwards.
The boks will need to go back to the drawing board to think up a new game plan as the 3 year old kick and chase has worn thin and any team that can catch will now negate this, as displayed in that ultra boring England/Argie game today. Both teams bombarding each other with high balls that came down with snow on it but not being able to win anything from it. zzzzzzzzzzzz
NickSA said | November 15th 2009 @ 5:03am | Report comment
matt dont underestimate the boks, the french played well but the boks had a shocker aswell!
Matt0931 said | November 15th 2009 @ 6:16am | Report comment
NickSA, I don’t underestimate the boks. As I have said in other posts, the boks are a good solid team who deserve their current place as the top rugby team – they are strong at what they do.
Unfortunately, I’m in agreement with Spiro in that I think the Boks are a one trick pony and unless they change and improve they will be quickly overtaken.
That’s two losses in a row. The first time this has happened this year isn’t it?
NickSA said | November 15th 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
u cant really count the midweek match as a loss for the springboks because lets be honest it wasnt the proper springboks. Sa has lost to the lions, aus and france. My opinion is that there is a big difference in the performance between the starting 15 and the rest of the boks. They have got to get appropriate cover and get them to gel or the team will be in shambles everytime 2 or 3 players get injured. The other problem is with out the proper cover the first 15 play to much rugby and become tired!! I dont believe sa are a 1 trick pony because they showed in perth they could play a dif game plan against top opposition at home for that matter and still be effective
Matt0931 said | November 15th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
I think you’re right NickSA. Have a look at my post below in regards to SA player depth.
The midweek game does count if you ask the Tigers and all the SA supporters who paid good cash to watch that game.
If they had the depth they would have won that match like Aus won their mid week match with a Wallaby B side.
NickSA said | November 15th 2009 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
matt
the leciester and springboks game doesnt count on the world ranking for a reason. players dont get caps for the game and the new caps dont even recieve springboks blazers…
johno said | November 16th 2009 @ 4:13am | Report comment
Matt unfortunately you don’t seem to understand the difficulties involving the SA selection process. When we take an extendid group on tour to “get exposure to the culture” we are actually taking third and fouth stingers for their PROVINCES with, and any other guy of colour that’s made a little bit of an impression somewhere else. We do this in order to placate a guy by the name of Butana Khompela, who is just about the biggest racist in the Southern Hemisphere, unfortunately he’s also the head of parliament’s Sport comittee. If you don’t beleive me, look at last weeks midweek team and this weeks. Go see how many of last weeks team are first choice players for their provinces, or sat on the bench for the test, or have been replaced by personell that have come on board in the last week due to injury to other players in this week’s mid week team. (Oh by the way Aus have a measely 100 players playing professional rugby outside of Aus, we have more than 200 players playing professional rugby outside of SA. That’s more than anybody else except maybe for the combined Pacific Islanders)
This weekend we shipped in a couple of props and a hooker and all of a sudden they are better than any of the one’s alreaddy on tour. Adi Jacobs is also a ‘quota’ player that makes it into the regular squad all the time. Chilliboy Ralapele is not his province’s first choice and now that Gary Botha’s coming back he won’t even be the second choice, but he’ll be on the Springbok’s bench. The Beast is an absolute joke, but aye he’s the right colour so the quota is being filled(but now it turns out he doesn’t have the right passport, so I don’t know what kinda quota he’ll be filling now). And then theire’s our coach! SARU openly admitted he was chosen on more than just ability, because if it was down to ability, Heyneke Meyer would’ve been the coach and then we wouldn’t have lost last year’s 3N either, which might have been a bit much for old Spiro to swallow, and made him gone into early retirement or hiding…what a blessing that woulda been.
So you guys should actually count yourselves lucky, not having to face the full might of the Springboks.
As for the one track pony horse manure you and Spiro is spouting. That pony’s been galloping along merily for the last five years or so at the Bulls. Which brings me to another point. Did you know that the Bulls are the youngest union of the SA franchises if I can put it that way. The really interesting fact though is that the Bulls have won the Currie Cup most, bar one province, which is WP, or the Stormers as you would know them. From 1946 onwards the Bulls have dominated the Currie Cup, winning it 23 times.
And the Bulls play rugby to SA’s strenghts, and in times past, we’re talking before re-admission we beat everybody all of the time except for the AB’s. OK that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but you can go look up the stats and see how dominant we were. Way back then we played the game Bulls style for the most part, which doesn’t mean that we didn’t have good backs, it is just easier to dominate whith a big pack and then feed of mistakes, because you cut down the risk factor significantly. This doesn’t neccisarily mean that you can’t play, it just means that your pack of forwards gives you an advantage that means you don’t have to take any risks and you can, from that platform then dictate proceedings. If you want to know if the Boks can play, well just go watch the second B&I Lions test and then go check out the first test in Aus. You’ll find that if they have to, they’ll play, but if they don’t then they just shut everything down and minimise the risk factor and make you come at them, like in the WC final vs England. But ask the AB’s about World Cup’s, risk and pressure and you’ll understand the logic behind this, and then there’s that little 50% win ratio statistic of WC’s entered by a SA team that also comes to mind.
What but skill is it then to win your set peices, win the collisions and win the kicking game. Now I know it’s flash to run around like a bunch of headless chickens to entertain the crowd, but that you can do at Super 14 level. Tests are holy ground for those who truly understand the game and winning, especially against NZ is everything, well for us at least. But if you ask most Rugby players from Europe and Aus, they’ll all say that winning against the AB’s or SA is someting very special, and for the most part someting that they enjoy more than any other win. And you could also see how much it meant to the French.
Test Rugby is hard, is supposed to be hard, and is filled with pressure, because as I think Chris Koch or it could have been Jan Ellis put it in one of his team talks, rugby is war and the honour of the country is at stake
Steve said | November 15th 2009 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
one trick pony???? and what happened in perth when we absolutely ran the wallabies off the park. Here is the problem whilst the aussie and nz teams were winning nothing this year the springboks and essentially the core of the team which is made up of bulls won the super 14, lions test series, mandela cup, freedom cup, trinations and a currie cup. The players are beat, they lacked motivation and the french were ready and eager for the boks……The fact is we should have never toured, it was a bridge to far…
French played well, they got in our faces and rattled us. I want to see them try and play the same game next year when they tour us, might be a diffrent story.
johno said | November 15th 2009 @ 6:10am | Report comment
Ja Matt, what’s the bet Aus only wins one game AGAIN in the 3N next year, if they’re lucky and rither Sa has an off day or NZ plays the wrong style.
Matt0931 said | November 15th 2009 @ 6:20am | Report comment
Ja, perhaps Johno. But statistics say that won’t happen.
After all, in the history of the 3N, the Boks have come last in the 3N more than Aus and NZ. Aus have come 2nd more and ….well you can work out the rest.
So we’ll see.
Rusty said | November 16th 2009 @ 7:23am | Report comment
In all fairness – I dont think the Boks actually played the high ball strategy that much and if they did it wasnt to the pinpoint accuracy we saw during the tri-nations. Perhaps the heady breeze had more to do with it than the admittedly rampant french
Nelson said | November 15th 2009 @ 5:15am | Report comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxAc6O_WBFE
i wonder if they actually auditioned this guy. it raises the question, why do they bother with live singers for anthems at test matched? its very passe and i much preferred when it was just a band playing accompanied by the crowd (for the home team) and respectful silence for the visitors.
by the way i dont think this was even intended and certainly dont think it had any impact on the game. france were absolutely deserved winners. but it is interesting that it go no mention from spiro though after some of his other pieces complaining about home ground interference – not miking up the haka and so forth.
Ian said | November 15th 2009 @ 7:01am | Report comment
With due respect to that fact that beating the ABs three times is a fantastic effort, I too have been calling the boks a 1 trick side – kicking (well two tricks, intimidate the other side but as we saw, when that doesn’t work they look rudderless). Worse still is their ludicrous coach. I think Spiro missed the fact that when PDV subbed CJ Van Der Linde he put him to the wrong side of the scrum, leaving Wian Du Preez on the bench when he would have been on the correct side. It was then that boks scrum really went to hell and PDV has keep quiet about that, instead going on about the anthem – which admittedly was a joke. PDV is being carried by his side and they seem to have a very effective plan A, and no plan B, amateur substitutions and comical press conferences.
Spiro Zavos said | November 15th 2009 @ 7:40am | Report comment
Nelson, the South African anthem singer sounded as if he’d been picked up in a bar somewhere. It was truly dreadful. But whether it was deliberately dreadful is an interesting question. The singer was given some people on drums in colourful costumes which suggests that there was some preparation. But the band behind them seemed to be playing in a different key, which suggests a lack of preparation.
The Springboks were clearly bemused by it all. They did not seem annoyed. Slight hints of smiles wondering what the singing was all about betrayed the true feelings of the players. But they were clearly not able to psyche themselves up as they usual do with the anthem, even though Bismarck du Plessis tried his best.
There is a case, in my opinion, for believing that this dreadful rendition of one of the great anthems was a deliberate ploy to unsettle the Springboks. If this true, then shame on the French officials. And unfortunately the cynical ploy seemed to work. The Springboks were curiously disengaged throughout the Test, allowing the French to dominate them physically.
As has been pointed out on this thread by one of the Roarers, this makes two successive Test losses for the Springboks, plus a loss in a mid-week game. A brilliant season seems to be ending with a whimper.
Perhaps the Springboks should prepare their arm bands next time in France and use them as gags on any singer who does a Mrs Mills to their anthem.
MM said | November 15th 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
That’s hitting the nail on the head Spiro – good one
Parisien said | November 15th 2009 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Good article Spiro. Picamoles deserves a big mention alongside Dusautoir, and so does Barcella the prop. I bet many teams would like to outmuscle the Springboks in the same way. The French were ready for the fight as their faces showed leaving the tunnel. Its been a while since I’ve seen so many dazed bleeding Springboks seeking medical attention. The French rush defence worked well too. The Blues had a good simple game plan and applied it most effectively.
About the anthem, it seemed the singer was attempting to sing a third above the melody in the first part of the SA double anthem, and it might have worked if someone else on mike had actually been singing the melody at pitch, but then he even threw in a Bob Marley quote to my incredulity. In the second half of the anthem things got worse as the key chosen was way too high for him, and he should have compensated by singing an octave lower.
I hope the whole thing wasn’t deliberately done so poorly, and I pity those musicians if they ever run into some Springbok supporters at their next concert!
Knives Out said | November 15th 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
‘There is a case, in my opinion, for believing that this dreadful rendition of one of the great anthems was a deliberate ploy to unsettle the Springboks. If this true, then shame on the French officials. And unfortunately the cynical ploy seemed to work. The Springboks were curiously disengaged throughout the Test, allowing the French to dominate them physically.’
Phenomenal. Absolutely tabloid-listic. Jack D Ripper lives on.
‘As has been pointed out on this thread by one of the Roarers, this makes two successive Test losses for the Springboks’
No it doesn’t.
Ian said | November 15th 2009 @ 6:55pm | Report comment
I think the whole anthem thing was made into a big deal by PDV for the same reason the “justice” thing was. That was smoke and mirrors to take the writer’s attention away from the fact that he had damn near lost the 1st Lions test with stupid substitutions and had ‘fingers’ Burger to defend in the second and he knew full well if justice had been served then, the lions would have won against 14. It took everyone’s attention from those issues, just as this ranting about the anthem is most likely an attempt to hide the fact that under him the boks have a simple game plan, bully and get Bakkies to put in cheap shots and once the other side is intimidated, kick accurately. Should either fail, they have no plan B and should both fail, they get well beaten, like in Brisbane. His substitutions in Tolouse were ludicrous and no one is seriously asking about them. It ought not take a genius to know you need a plan B and the Boks have not shown much evidence of or capacity for one nor should it take a genius to know you replace a tight head with a tight head, especially if you’ve gone to the trouble of putting a spare on the bench.
MM said | November 15th 2009 @ 11:29pm | Report comment
Ian
DIV and all South Africans had a right to be offended – but as Spiro said, there was amusement from the Bok Team which is rather typical considering they’ve had far bigger issues to face before. That it may have affected their performance is merely speculative. So other countries would have lovingly embraced a failure of their own anthem? That’s the implication – especially when many can’t even get history to where it belongs…
1.”Damned near lost the Lions Test…”. Actual result?
2.”He knew full well if justices had been served…the Lions would have won against 14″. Actual Result?
Without making mention of opposition blunders – but what you further state – your comments represent those of a missing gem of knowledge that should be heading the IRB rather than procrastinating in history.
DIV stated clearly – there has not been transparency regarding penalties etc.
Frankly – not taking away anything from the French – these tours hold little interest other than to give space for an abundance of chirping. If there’s going to be criticism, during a test where there was absolute reason to defeat the French – the All Blacks go and lose it…. It happened, they got over it and continued without the ifs and buts.
johno said | November 16th 2009 @ 4:19am | Report comment
Ahh but the plot thickens, the Rasta man was picked by the SA Embassy, now imagine having to live in a country where they have such lack of respect for just about the only thing we’ve got left to be proud of…
Rusty said | November 16th 2009 @ 7:28am | Report comment
umm – what 2 successive Test losses? Test match before this was against the ABs which the Boks won. The thought of emergency gagging armbands brought a chuckle though
Joh4Canberra said | November 17th 2009 @ 11:06am | Report comment
As a professional singer I can tell you that was one strange performance of the South African national anthem. I can identify a number of things going on and it is overly simplistic to state that he was singing “off key” as most have stated.
In the first part (Nkosi sikelel’ iAfrika in Xhosa, Zulu and Sesotho) he wasn’t singing the melody but he wasn’t exactly “off key” either. What I think he was doing was actually singing a harmony line instead of the melody. Listening with my trained musician’s ears that whole first section fits together harmonically. It’s the kind of thing I might do when drunk to impress a crowd of people singing happy birthday. When added to a group of people singing the melody a harmony line sounds OK. But sung on its own, without the context of the melody, the harmony line sounds utterly “wrong” as it bears no resemblance to the tune people know. If you’re engaged as a solo singer you HAVE to sing the melody. It’s as straightforward as that. He should not be ad libbing a harmony line when he has been employed to sing the melody. He was a silly man for doing that and deserves all the criticism he gets.
A second problem occurred after it went into “Uit die blou van onse hemel” (Afrikaans). The key the band/orchestra played in was not at all suited to his vocal range and you can hear this in the Afrikaans section as he basically starts off singing it an octave higher than you would expect given whathas just come before. This guy basically has a tenor voice and the band was playing the piece in a key suitable for a bass or baritone so that the low notes of “Uit die blou van onse hemel” were too low for our singer’s range. But then when he’s singing the octave up the high notes become too high and he strains to get some of them, and others he just can’t get at ll and then it sounds like he’s singing out of tune and by the time of the final section in English he has lost it and is singing something that resembles neither the melody nor a harmony line that fits with the melody in the key it was being played.
The first problem I have identified was entirely of his own making. He simply shouldn’t have done that and instead should have sung the melody. The second problem was possibly of his own making, possibly also of the band’s making. That’s what rehearsals are for. You don’t just turn up and sing. Everyone has a finite vocal range and as a singer you know what it is and you make sure that you’re not going to have to sing anything outside of your range. Either make sure the band plays the song in a key where you can sing all the notes or don’t take on an engagement that will require you to sing outside of your range.
Oh, and having said all that I didn’t think his voice was much good anyway. Even he’d actually hit all the right notes it wouldn’t have sounded that good. But I suppose few would have complained the way they did.
Dingbat said | November 15th 2009 @ 8:20am | Report comment
The Boks got this tour all wrong from the start. The writing was on the wall.
1) every international team faces a crowded international season + domestic season;
2) of all the fixtures in 2009, the year-end tour is the least relevant for the Boks – we won against the Lions; we won the 3N – what is there to prove?
3) they should have listened to the sports scientists and left the usual run-on 15 at home, and chosen the best from the S14/currie cup in order to broaden the squad
4) outside of the core 15/22 SA rugby is not in good knick – make no mistake, we have awesome talent, but we also face the political challenge which will always be a massive disadvantage – we are forced to pick players on criteria other than merit alone
Congrats to the French – thoroughly deserved victory. Wanted it way more than the Boks.
Matt0931 said | November 15th 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment
Dingbat, you raise some interesting comments.
I have read and seen the same stories running through the SA media of late but in each of these stories none have pointed out that Aus and NZ have played the same amount (Aus may have played 2 more games??) of rugby as SA and these teams are ok. Of course the Lions are much harder than the French and Italians but I think there is more to this than just a busy schedule.
I think your point 4 is probably the most important there. SA do not have the depth which is why against the Lions and 3N they had to keep playing their top players and couldn’t spread the weight.
I wonder how many different players featured over the past 12 months for each of the 3N teams?
Also, after the NH kept sending weak squads to the SH, Sanzar made the NH to agree to always send their strongest squad for the Spring tours. I think this agreement probably swings both ways so the SH have to also send their best teams.
Dingbat said | November 15th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
I think the depth of SA rugby is untested, and probably stronger than you suggest. On merit selection alone we have a very, very good top 30. I can name 10 players who should not be on the yr-end tour. This puts added pressure on our stars to play week in and week out because even they do not have faith in the next man in line. I dream of the day the Boks can rid themselves of the political noose. I can only wonder how much better they could be if the only political obstacle they faced was a bit of pure rugby infighting that is common in Aus/NZ/Eng/Fr etc…I continue to be amazed how well they do, despite all of these obstacles. Quite remarkable. That’s one reason why I doubt a foreign coach could ever coach the Boks – he would not pander to the affirmative action agenda.
Knives Out said | November 15th 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Politics again. This always rears its head when SA are turned over. Neither Mallett, Straeuli or White pandered to an affirmative action agenda and that is abdundantly clear when one examines the last three SA WC squads.
Dingbat said | November 15th 2009 @ 10:58am | Report comment
Hang on KO, the Boks were beaten handsomely by the French. No excuses. Not that I personally care much about these year-end tours. My comment relates to a generic problem facing SA rugby. Most teams do well because of the environment; the structures etc… The Boks do well despite these.
Dan said | November 15th 2009 @ 8:53pm | Report comment
Unlike England who do badly despite having the largest player pool in the world… Though I suppose their “club politics” makes things difficult for them (or so they always seem to say).
Knives Out said | November 16th 2009 @ 4:28am | Report comment
Piffle. Utter piffle and typical of a graceless set of fans.
Good stuff, Dan. Clever, funny and profound. Praise be Australian schools.
Ziggy said | November 15th 2009 @ 10:52am | Report comment
‘One trick Pony’ comment aside – plus the fact that they sorely missed Spies, Steyn and De Villiers – there is no doubt that France could(and should) have won by more. Boks were very flat and always on the back foot. Front row was well below 1st class standard. I don’t think they will win another game on this tour. As long as they refuse to pick the top 30 players they will always struggle with these erratic performance swings. What they have achieved is quite remarkable given the paramaters they are forced to endure.
bennalong said | November 15th 2009 @ 11:43am | Report comment
This was a true test match battle in every sense of the word.
There were bodies everywhere!
I therefore feel a bit churlish to push my barrow after the efforts put in by both sides, but the breakdown went un-policed and clearing-out was used as a way of demolishing opposing players. Bodies everywhere
This is a bastardised form of Rugby and it definitely isn’t the game I played. And it’s appalling to look at ! It’s impossible to referee according to the rules and it closes the gap between the two oposing backlines.
Rather than trialling new laws for a season and a half so you can say you trialled them, let’s go back to “the game they play in heaven”. NO-ONE ON THE GROUND EXCEPT THE TACKLED OR TACKLER IF WINDED OR WOUNDED………………………………………….BRING BACK RUCKING!
Gary said | November 15th 2009 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
“The Springboks were caught short by this spirited play of France, by their refusal to be intimidated by the high balls and their refusal to make the same sort of stupid mistakes perpetrated by the All Blacks and the Wallabies. ”
Hopefully the Blacks and Wallabies have taken it in.
stuff happens said | November 15th 2009 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
I thought France were superb and the ‘Boks were shocked by the ferocity of the French forwards.Terrific test match. Oh the delight on the French faces when their scrum demolished the ‘Boks.
However,the ‘Boks will still be awful hard to beat for most teams.
The French proved yet again that on their day they can beat anyone.
True Tah said | November 15th 2009 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
The Boks looked tired, particularly Beast, du Plessis. If Brussow hadnt been playing, the French would have dominated rucks and mauls even more.
On the other hand, it was great to see the French starting to rediscover their flair, I was worried that they might have lost it after Laporte did his best.
Springboks have traditionally had issues with playing the French. I thought it was a pretty good test match overall.
Stash said | November 15th 2009 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
The Boks high ball has been well placed and weighted, their kick and chase have been superb all year, but everyone knows they are going to play this tactic and prepare accordingly. We can thank the Boks for everyone improving their aerial catching skills from the high ball.
Many of us have commented that the Bok running attack has been sorely lacking this year (and perhaps camouflaged by good lineouts and kicking). And it was shown here again. This is the area that needs to be addressed. The Bok managed to roll over the ABs this year, but it was noticeable that when they tried to apply a running game, they often ended up going backwards and losing territory before resorting to kicking and it happened here again.
To suggest that the Boks drop games because they have no tangible value (or have low bragging value) is ridiculous and utter rubbish and supporters do their team an injustice to suggest otherwise.
The Boks need a Plan B if they want to maintain their IRB ranking
Stevedarke said | November 15th 2009 @ 9:16pm | Report comment
We all know that one their day the French can beat any team in the world. Sadly for the French that day only comes around every two years or so. I would hardly start predicting the demise of the boks on the fact that that were well beaten by a fired up French side at full flight.
Much like the games leading into the tri-nations, these autumn internationals have less meaning than a nun in a gay bar.
NickSA said | November 16th 2009 @ 12:11am | Report comment
Stevedarke
That is the difference between the great all black teams and the great boks teams consistency… Every single test match is important and if u want to achieve true greatness u ahve to sweep all before u! We should have been fired up for france, we have not won there since 1997!
Rin said | November 15th 2009 @ 9:52pm | Report comment
the Boks looked tired and uninterested, the beast was elsewhere probably worrying about his impending residency issues, morne steyn played his worst game in the green jumper, they missed spies in the contact plus kankowski had a terrible game.
All this talk about all of a sudden teams have figured out the boks game plan is rubbish, the Wallabies, AB’s and Lions had three games each to figure it out and didnt. The wind was terrible and worked against their type of play, overall the french deserved to win they played a great game.
P.s. please do not refer to that mid week game as a ‘test’ that was at best an emerging bok team.
ohtani's jacket said | November 15th 2009 @ 11:14pm | Report comment
If Mtawarira is ineligible, shouldn’t South Africa have their trophies stripped from them? I think I just gave Spiro a column idea.
Jerry said | November 16th 2009 @ 4:23am | Report comment
He’s not ineligible by IRB standards, it’s the SA govt/SARU that’s kicking up a fuss. The IRB doesn’t require citizenship.
Nelson said | November 15th 2009 @ 11:19pm | Report comment
ha, i think he’s eligible as far as the irb is concerned. just not according to sa poiticians who try to make things difficult for sa rugby as much as possible.
ohtani's jacket said | November 15th 2009 @ 11:31pm | Report comment
Okay then, but I like this news that the South African embassy chose the singer. Considering South Africa screwed up the order of the anthems at home this year, it’s all very amusing.
MM said | November 16th 2009 @ 12:35am | Report comment
OJ – Okay – looks like there’s a week to find someone who can sing the National Anthem properly – the Boks & Co should maybe then be happy with the National Anthem then and bugger the score….
The Vid is a hilarious one though looking at the facial expressions….
Nelson said | November 15th 2009 @ 11:59pm | Report comment
yeah i saw that and was about to reply to spiro. you couldnt make this stuff up! should have known it was unlike the french to commit such a faux pas.
Lee said | November 16th 2009 @ 5:46am | Report comment
I heard that the SA embassy sent the FRU a list of SA singers in France, and that they didn’t actually pick that guy – I can’t find a link to back that up though so will keep looking and post if I do.
MM said | November 16th 2009 @ 6:24am | Report comment
Lee – I think you are right – every source I’ve traced reveals that the S.A. Embassy in France gave the directive – however it is hear-say in my opinion to state it was that particular guy. He originates from Natal in S.A. – however there are varied comments that he’s not always resident there and does in fact spend time doing his music in France – again that is based on certain media content.
What is disturbingly absent is that albeit the embassy was mandated to select, who was in control over the preparation and validation of the performance. Obviously there is great doubt that it was South Africa for they simply take rugby too seriously to allow for the vocal mess.
Spiro does mention the possibility of a deliberate upstage as well as many other factors regarding preparation.
Ziggy said | November 16th 2009 @ 7:45am | Report comment
The botched anthem was no excuse. In fact it should have made the team more motivated! The suggestion that French officials somehow contrived for this to happen is just nonsensical. The Boks were soundly thrashed by the better team on the day.
Lee said | November 16th 2009 @ 9:42am | Report comment
No doubt – i’s the same as saying the French purposely changed their jerseys to a darker blue for the RWC2007 to put the ABs off. JUst an excuse to deflect blame.
Knives Out said | November 16th 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
‘Piffle. Utter piffle and typical of a graceless set of fans.’
I take that back, Dingbat.
Sheldon said | November 16th 2009 @ 5:12pm | Report comment
I have no problem with the loss to the French on Saturday, I predicted the loss to Leicester and to France. To expect to win all the time is crazy. What we should have done is sent a younger side and rested some more of the main players. It would have been a great way to give some youngsters a chance to play big tests and gain some precious experience against quality oppostion.
It should be treated as a chance to build a squad with greater depth going into the next World Cup. What is a couple of losses after all that has been achieved this year?
Unfortunately the winning record today is more important than success in the future. This attitude applies to the all three of the Trinations sides.
tongstar said | November 23rd 2009 @ 10:11pm | Report comment
go France. i love when the boks are out bokked.. they are just a bunch of numbskulls who have such a poor attitude to fair and decent behaviour on the field.