The Boks are favourites to win Tri-Nations 2010

Columnist

By Spiro Zavos, 5 Jul 2010 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert

Tagged:: 2010 tri nations, All Blacks, Eden Park, Rugby Union, Springboks, Tri Nations, wallabies

Related coverage

South Africa's Bakkies Botha, left, Victor Matfield and Bismarck du Plessis celebrate winning the Tri Nations Cup after defeating New Zealand in the Tri Nations International rugby match, Waikato Stadium, Hamilton, New Zealand, Saturday, Sept. 12, 2009. (AP Photo/NZPA, David Rowland)

It’s hard to get around the probability that next Saturday’s Test between the All Blacks and the Springboks at Eden Park will define the outcome of the 2010 Tri Nations.

If the Springboks win, as the bookmakers (who put their money where their mouth is) say, then the likelihood is that they will win back-to-back Tri Nations tournaments in 2009 and 2010.

Last season the Springboks beat the All Blacks in three successive Tests, which set them up for their third Tri Nations title, and their first since 2004.

Chris Laidlaw, a former All Black great and now a writer and broadcaster of distinction about rugby, says of the current Springboks: “They have an almost perfect blend of strength, bulk, pace and guile… The Springboks have adapted to the new rule interpretations surprisingly well and they have no hang-ups about having to entertain the punters as well as win.”

He also argues that the Springboks are ‘better in almost every respect’ from the team that won the 2007 Rugby World Cup. I’d agree with this and his comments about the strength of this present Springboks side. It is one of South Africa’s greatest teams.

A number of the important members of the RWC 2007 side including the captain John Smit, Bakkies Botha, Victor Matfield and Bryan Habana are still playing. Just as importantly, in my opinion, the Springboks have discovered a kicking number 10, Morne Steyn, who can release the backs if needed but who plays the position game the Springboks love to play.

The Springboks always are a much stronger side when they have a good kicking number 10. This style suits their tradition of producing huge, athletic and fast forwards who run brilliantly from broken play.

Steyn also kicks goals from everywhere. In his 15 Tests he has kicked 23 conversions, 37 penalties and 5 dropped goals. Dan Carter in 69 Tests has kicked 181 conversions, 184 penalties, 2 drop goals. Matt Giteau in 81 Tests has 89 conversions, 90 penalties, 4 drop goals.

Steyn came into Test rugby with the ruck interpretations that rewarded the defensive team when it got its hands on the ball. He was able to convert the big penalty rate gained by the tough tackling Springboks into victories for his side. The value of his kicking game is highlighted by the higher number of penalties kicked over conversions (unlike Carter and Giteau), and the significant number of dropped goals he has kicked in his short Test career.

If the All Blacks and the Wallabies can play accurately and positively, and not give up penalties from the high pressure game inflicted on them by the Springboks, they have a chance to defeat the current champions.

The Wallabies did this, in fact, last season at Brisbane when they trounced the Springboks. The Queensland Reds did the same thing, as well, to the Bulls this season. Lang Park is a perfect surface for running rugby and the Wallabies will be playing the Springboks in their first 2010 Tri Nations Test after the Springboks will have had two successive weekends of Tests against the All Blacks.

The Wallabies will never have a better chance of defeating this Springboks side. Moreover, the Springboks have not won against the Wallabies at Brisbane since 1971.

A win at Brisbane, though, will be much easier or even possible if the All Blacks can win at least one of the first two Tests against the Springboks. There is a faint hope for them in the fact that last year they played without Daniel Carter, and the side itself seems to be stronger than last year’s team.

The new interpretations also favour the high-octane game the All Blacks are trying to develop. The question for them is whether they pay this game and not make mistakes at the break-down or with intercept passes that allowed the Springboks to dominate them last year.

The All Blacks have some history on their side. The last time they lost at Eden Park was in 1994. They have won 20 Tests there in a row making the ground something of a fortress for New Zealand rugby.

If any team can overwhelm that fortress it is the current Springboks. This is one of the great Springboks sides which has achieved that enviable habit, the habit of winning.

There is another intriguing aspect to all of this, and this is how the 2010 Tri Nations results will play out for next year’s World Cup tournament.

In the 1998 Tri Nations, the year before the World Cup in England won by the Wallabies, Australia finished 2, South Africa 1, New Zealand 3.

In 2002, the year before the World Cup in Australia won by England with Australia in the final, New Zealand finished 1, Australia 2, South Africa 3.

In 2006, the year before the World Cup in France won by the Springboks, New Zealand finished 1, Australia 2, South Africa 3.

Is there a pattern here? And does that pattern indicate that if a team wants to win the World Cup it should not win the Tri Nations the year before?

Personally, I believe that this sample is far too small for a rule to be made from all of this. We need about five or six more World Cup tournaments before we can start establishing patterns about when teams should peak.

What we do know is the 2011 RWC will be held in New Zealand.

This means that someone has to defeat the All Blacks for that side not to win the tournament. We also know that it is tough to defeat the All Blacks in New Zealand. The Wallabies and the Springboks will need to get all the practice at achieving this they can in the next two Tri Nations tournaments.

Which brings us back to Eden Park next Saturday night and its must-win aspect for the All Blacks and the Springboks.

Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

The Crowd Says (120) | Page 1 of Comments

Lee said | July 5th 2010 @ 7:01am | Report comment

I think this week will tell us everything really…if the Boks can pick up one win on tour and a couple of bonus points, that will make it very tough for the ABs/Wallabies to win over in SA. However, it is a big “if” with both the ABs and Wallabies playing pretty well at the moment too.

Also it seems that the Boks believe that they can/must win both games against the ABs to help them psychologically for the WC next year as part of their group games are in Wellington, and the play-offs in Auckland.

I am really looking forward to being in the stands at Eden Park on Saturday.

Go Boks.

Reply
Mr Saunders said | July 5th 2010 @ 7:04am | Report comment

I agree with Mr Laidlaw: there is something about this current Springbok side that elevates it above the 2007 WC winning side and the 3N winning side of last season. Of course, a big loss in New Zealand will undermine such a suggestion, but I just have this gut feeling that the Springboks have something about them. Realistically it is hard to judge the 3N teams (at least NZ and SA, anyhow) on the basis of their performances in the pre-3N tests, but I just have this feeling in my stomach…

Having read Sean Fitzpatrick’s analysis I also agree with his assertion that Aplon and De Jongh add an extra dimension to the SA brand. Their quick feet bring a threat that the bulkier, but very classy, players like De Villiers and Fourie simply don’t possess. Louw also brings an extra energy, perhaps something that will galvanize the older heads. One other significant point is the scrummage: SA were heavily penalised in this area last season. With Smit at hooker and Botha at 3 (potentially) that may well be a big weakness remedied.

It goes without saying that NZ will be better than they were last season. Their tactics in SA last season may or may not have been a poor choice for the occasion, but we’ll never know as they were executed so poorly. The current side seems far better equipped to counter-attack more accurately and not be pressured into unecessary mistakes – especially in the absence of Du Preez’s kicking game. I like the idea of Vito playing off the bench – Read, whilst steady and typically physical in a NZ manner, is somewhat pedestrian, and with Kaino’s tendency to drift in an out of games it may be a clever call from Henry to have such an impact player to ignite the back row.

Wayne Smith made the cliched coment about the 3N being won up front, but that rugby cliche is often true. The NZ tight five looks steelier with the return of Donnelly, and I do like the look of Owen Franks. He is occasionally too excitable, but is aggressive, and sometimes that can turn games. NZ have the obvious benefit of only playing one game in SA, but they do have the problem of a lengthy break toward the end of the tournament, and SA play Australia twice at altitude. Personally, I have put some spare change I had in my online bookmaker’s account onto NZ for the simple reason that I feel they are better equipped to garner try bonus points. If their backline clicks then they could rack up some big scores – as could SA, I just happen to be siding with home advantage early on.

NZ and SA, therefore, have added to their squads with in-form players who look ready to play Test rugby: Whitelock, Vito, Dagg, Louw, Potgieter, Du Jongh et al, and the teams appear to have hit the ground running in terms of the new law interpretations – which should make good viewing for the rugby fan, however the 3N might be slightly undermined by Australia. History informs us that it would be churlish to write off an Australian side, but as I get the gut impression that SA and NZ are progressing, I also get the gut feeling that Australia is lurching toward disaster. It always seems one step forward, two or three back. The last excellent Australian performance was against Wales last year, and even that was preceeded by some uninspiring guff. It will take a lot to gain parity up front, and for the Australian backs to challenge the SA and NZ defensive systems. If Australia struggled to do that with a full team, how will they perform with a weakened team? The mind boggles… Can’t wait for the Test next weekend.

Reply
soapit said | July 5th 2010 @ 9:12am | Report comment

this to me sums up why the 3n doesnt capture the imagination. first game can essentially decide who wins the comp and the so many games afterwards which will have no bearing on anything except who finishes last.

argentina will help at least as there’s a bit of a way between finishing second and 4th and therefore a point to playing on.

Reply
- ohtani's jacket said | July 5th 2010 @ 9:26am | Report comment
  
  The Tri-Nations won’t be decided after one match. That’s just a lazy cliche.
  
  Reply
TembaVJ said | July 5th 2010 @ 9:33am | Report comment

OK What did you do with the real Spiro?

No matches involving these 3 countries are ever certain and that’s what makes it the toughest comp in the world Soap.

If South Africa win 2 on the road they will do what Saffas often do and its go into their shells and loose a couple at home. This 3N will be decides by bonus points and PD’s.

Reply
True Tah said | July 5th 2010 @ 9:41am | Report comment

I was under the impression that Fourie du Preez is out for the Boks – if this is the case then I would rate NZ as the team to win the Tri Nations.

For some reason the Boks struggle to beat the Wallabies in Australia, but the All Blacks do not have this holding them back. I would expect the All Blacks to win at least one of their two tests in Australia.

Spiro, you didnt mention that the Springboks have moved their home game against the All Blacks to Soccer City from Ellis Park…this is a huge move and it would be the first time the Springboks have played in Soweto.

Reply
- Lee said | July 5th 2010 @ 9:50am | Report comment
  
  That didn’t negatively effect the Bulls in the Super 14 though….
  
  FDPs absence will have a much bigger effect but Steyn can run a game now, so maybe less of an effect than if Pienaar was at fly half.
  
  Reply
  - EP - Rugbywits said | July 5th 2010 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
    
    There is also the fact that Soccer City holds about 90thousand people (about 50% more than Ellis Park).
    The national vibe around Soccer City after the World Cup will be massive too.
    I think moving the game there will make it an incredible atmosphere charged with patriotism and about 30k more people! Good move to me!
    
    Reply
- Mr Saunders said | July 5th 2010 @ 9:51am | Report comment
  
  Du Preez is out, but Januarie won the MotM against Wales recently and scored that rather cheeky try when SA broke their NZ hoodoo two seasons ago. I know that a lot of SA fans are on a bit of a downer about Januarie but he’s never undermined the efforts of the team with a lack of technical ability like Burgess has Australia. The other absence which Spiro ignores) is Frans Steyn. Clearly he is not a full back, but he is a prodigious kicker, and thus his absence means that the SA kicking triumvirate of Du Preez, Morne Steyn and Frans Steyn is already two down. This will affect SA in broken play but also if SA get a really long shot at goal which Frans Steyn might have fancied.
  
  Reply
  - van der Merwe said | July 5th 2010 @ 11:00am | Report comment
    
    I believe there is some lingering tension between coach de Villiers and Steyn. Given that the sub-mediocre Kirchner is eagerly awaiting to stamp himself over the opposition with his blinding speed and Jantjes-like safety under the high ball, as far as SA’s TN chances go, it’s unfortunate that both parties couldn’t come to an agreement.
    
    Reply
    - katzilla said | July 5th 2010 @ 5:00pm | Report comment
      
      Where is jantjes?
      
      Reply
      - Luddy said | July 5th 2010 @ 7:08pm | Report comment
        
        Been injured with broken leg for over a year now, just returning to the currie cup now
        
        Reply
        
        katzilla said | July 5th 2010 @ 7:30pm | Report comment
        
        Thanks.
        I knew he broke his leg last year but didnt realise he was just coming back now.
        With the access to medical help that sports stars get these days you almost expect them to be up and playing top flight rugby within a month or 2.
        Anyways Imo he’s the best Fullback in SA
- Sylvester said | July 5th 2010 @ 8:47pm | Report comment
  
  The losses of du Preez, Frans Steyn, Juan Smith and Brussow are four good reasons why their favouritism for this year’s title is diminshed, albeit just slightly.
  Add to that Carter and McCaw both being fit and up to speed – game on…
  
  Reply
  - Mr Saunders said | July 5th 2010 @ 10:43pm | Report comment
    
    Good player Juan Smith, and a good lineout option. His loss means that SA are basically down to Matfield, and Spies and Botha occasionally at the back and front. With Smit’s absence in 2008 the SA lineout went haywire, so fingers crossed for SA fans that the big man in the middle doesn’t get injured.
    
    Reply
- johno said | July 8th 2010 @ 9:25am | Report comment
  
  Travel factor.
  
  Most of the SA teams played the Aus part of the tour towards the end of their tour
  
  Reply
Nashi said | July 5th 2010 @ 9:47am | Report comment

If SA start the campaign strongly with 2 wins from their away games, they will probably win the tournament again. If they lose 2 it will be game on. I cannot make a prediction either way but with such strong home ground advantage in Auckland and Brisbane the locals are going to face some big questions if they lose.

Reply
sixo_clock said | July 5th 2010 @ 9:52am | Report comment

The 3N is the premier Rugby comp on the planet. The Rugby itself will be superb and the winner rightfully decided on all those things that the game needs to flourish. We all hope that our team wins but if the game prospers because of the quality on offer then does it really matter?

Not Spiro’s bravest prediction but he is absolutely correct in that the right game plan skilfully executed balancing those strengths our team has against what the opposition brought to the park is the essence of Rugby. Every team has a chance, the ‘Boks are beatable.

Bring it on!

Reply
kingplaymaker said | July 5th 2010 @ 9:54am | Report comment

Both New Zealand and South Africa have new players, however, Ranger, Vito, Dagg, Whitelock and Cruden appear to be a far more remarkable group than the South Africans. It also looks as if they can plug holes in the performance of the team, whereas the new South Africans are just more of the same.

Since the loss of form or retirement of both Jerry Collins and Rodney So’aiolo, the All Black back row has been comparatively weak. Kaino, Read and Thompson have not been convincing as inhabiting the same class. This is where the addition of Vito comes in: he may well be a world class back row forward and is highly physical at that. Should he be able to take his Super form to international level the All Blacks back row will come closer to matching the brute force and speed of the Springbok back tow.

The other problem last year was the second row where the Springboks dominated New Zealand. Sam Whitelock is raw but may have the talent to redress that too.

So with two holes potentially plugged, that leaves the contribution of Ranger, Dagg and Cruden. What they add is depth should there be a loss of form or injury to one of the starters. Last year when Carter was injured, Donald was a weak back-up: Cruden is not. When Rokocoko lost form, there was no player as outstanding as Ranger waiting to take his place.

The new Boks are more of the same in the same positions, and do not constitute an increase in the total quality, although perhaps one of depth.

The Boks backline is weak, hamstrung by the lack of creativity of Morne Steyn, who is nonetheless necessary to their kicking strategy. As said in the article, if the All Blacks run them around, favoured by the new attacking law interpretations, the South african bully boys may run out of steam.

To sum up, the All Blacks have significantly added to their playing roster and Rokocoko appears his old self, so it’s likely they’ll win.

More worryingly their player production line seems back in swing after a lull, so there could be another five new talents on board next year too, in addition to Sonny Bill. The signs are increasingly black for the rest of the world.

Reply
- Mr Saunders said | July 5th 2010 @ 9:59am | Report comment
  
  ‘Since the loss of form or retirement of both Jerry Collins and Rodney So’aiolo, the All Black back row has been comparatively weak. Kaino, Read and Thompson have not been convincing as inhabiting the same class.’
  
  The NZ backrow munched the Australian back row last season. The only real struggle it had was against the SA back row, and Brussow’s ‘superiority’ over McCaw was exagerrated.
  
  ‘The other problem last year was the second row where the Springboks dominated New Zealand. Sam Whitelock is raw but may have the talent to redress that too.’
  
  Second rows don’t dominate other second rows. Head to heads don’t really occur in Test rugby. The NZ second row was fine when Tom Donnelly gained a start. Prior to that Isaac Ross had shown just as much Super form last season as Sam Whitelock has this season.
  
  ‘The new Boks are more of the same in the same positions, and do not constitute an increase in the total quality, although perhaps one of depth.’
  
  Louw and Potgieter are the same as Smith? Du Jongh is the same as De Villiers? Aplon the same as Steyn? They’re all totally different players.
  
  All things considered I don’t think Whitelock and Cruden would be adequate replacements for Carter and Donnelly were they selected this weekend. Neither would Ranger be an ideal swap for Jane. There’s a huge difference between potential and reality.
  
  Reply
- ohtani's jacket said | July 5th 2010 @ 10:12am | Report comment
  
  The All Blacks struggled to get the right backrow combination at the beginning of both the 2008 and 2009 Tri-Nations. They came right in the end but in 2009 it was too late. This is a key area in the Tri-Nations as we saw a huge difference in the Springboks from 2008 to 2009 based on their backrow selections and it’s an aera where the Wallabies consistently struggle.
  
  Reply
  - Mr Saunders said | July 5th 2010 @ 10:18am | Report comment
    
    Part of the issue in 2008 was McCaw’s absence at the beginning. SA have basically kept the same back row for a good few seasons now, and the work and size of their tight five at the ruck meant that the law interpretations didn’t affect them as much. Conversely, injuries to the NZ pack compounded issues last season. However, I agree that the permutations that Henry has picked have been muddled but I don’t think NZ lost 3 games to SA last season due to the composition of the back row. Interestingly, Brussow was a revelation last season, but it’s probably fortunate for SA that he’s injured because I don’t think he has the right game for the law interpretations.
    
    Reply
    - ohtani's jacket said | July 5th 2010 @ 10:45am | Report comment
      
      The Springbok backrow selections were all over the place in 2008 as van Niekerk, Watson, Spies and Rossouw were all in the mix.
      
      The All Black backrow didn’t come right until Henry played Thomson/McCaw/Read in Wellington. The lack of a settled blindside flanker has to a concern heading into this Tri-Nations. Kaino can play well at times but he consistently gives away scrum penalties for releasing two early (upwards of two a game at both Test and Super 14 level.) Thomson’s nuisance factor (much like So’oialo’s) is not as valuable under the new interpretations and I guess Kaino is seen as a bigger tackler. Thomson has better ball carrying skills and outplayed Kaino all last year, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see. It’ll be interesting to see whether Thomson goes to the Crusaders next season.
      
      Reply
      - Mr Saunders said | July 5th 2010 @ 8:17pm | Report comment
        
        The SA backrown was pretty much the same during the 2008 3N: Van Niekerk, Smith and Burger, and Smith, Burger, Spies.
        
        I thought in 2009 the back row also had the problem of playing behind a callow tight five.
        
        Reply
  - kingplaymaker said | July 5th 2010 @ 10:29am | Report comment
    
    OJ my main memory of the the last Tri-nations was the Springbok backrow and Bakkies Botha smashing through the All Black and indeed Wallabies pack. I can’t imagine this would have happened so easily had Collins, Hayman and So’aiolo all been there and crucially in-form. To make matters worse, Mccaw had a quiet season. With any luck Vito and Whitelock could begin to redress this balance.
    
    A point worth making is the All Blacks don’t even need to equal the South Africa pack, they just need to gain enough parity so that they’re superior backs can set off their fireworks.
    
    Reply
    - Rabbitz said | July 5th 2010 @ 10:49am | Report comment
      
      KPM,
      
      Your statement “my main memory of the the last Tri-nations was the…” triggered a strange response for me.
      
      I, for the life of me, cannot recall any of the last S14 season. Maybe I am losing it, or it’s just a sign of approaching senility but I fear that the 3N just doesn’t cut it anymore. I don’t know why, too much exposure? Too little excitement? Too repetitive? Too much beer? I can’t say but I am concerned I might not be the only one who is losing passion for the 3N.
      
      Reply
      - ohtani's jacket said | July 5th 2010 @ 11:06am | Report comment
        
        The Tri-Nations has its problems but Eden Park has been sold out for weeks. Most NZ rugby fans will have their eyes glued to the set this Saturday and I imagine South Africans will have more than a passing interest too.
        
        This is one of the few blockbuster Tests that the All Blacks play all season. My question (and it’s an honest one) is how many Wallaby fans will watch?
        
        Reply
        
        Brett McKay said | July 5th 2010 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
        
        this one will, so one at least….
        
        For mine, the backrow and midfield battles alone would be worth the price of admission, and it will be interesting to watch the conflicting flyhalf styles too.
        
        I know we say this every year, but this year’s TNs could be one of the more even in recent years, but that said, the Eden Park game this Sat could also reveal a rather large gulf….
        
        Hombre said | July 5th 2010 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
        
        what even between SA and NZ ? – just can’t see the wallabies getting near either side
        
        Brett McKay said | July 5th 2010 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
        
        Hombre, I think it’s going to come down to away wins, as has been mentioned elsewhere here. If SA can snare a win in NZ and/or Aust, then they really are in the box seat with three home games to finish. But likewise, if they go home with bupkis they’ll be under immense pressure just to stay alive, and the 3rd Bledisloe could be the decider. Until fulltime on Sat in Auckland, I honestly think anyone could win it….
        
        Sylvester said | July 5th 2010 @ 8:56pm | Report comment
        
        I tried to get tix for the Wallabies test in Christchurch, expecting to take my pick given the recent apathy from my fellow Cantabrians – even to test matches. However, I was pleasantly surprised to see the game was almost a sellout and I had to settle for the cheap seats. This is even with the mighty Deans stand now up and running.
        
        ohtani's jacket said | July 5th 2010 @ 9:17pm | Report comment
        
        That’s good to hear, Sylvester.
        
        katzilla said | July 5th 2010 @ 9:19pm | Report comment
        
        Sylvester,
        Wait until a fervent crowd carries that stand to glorious triumphs then sell it to the silly ozzies.
        
        ohtani's jacket said | July 5th 2010 @ 9:45pm | Report comment
        
        Ha, if it fails in Australia will they blame the cattle?
        
        wannabprop said | July 5th 2010 @ 10:44pm | Report comment
        
        Any true rugby fan (as opposed to continually falling band waggoners) will be salivating at the prospect of this test. I for one (Wallaby supporter) can’t wait!
      - kingplaymaker said | July 5th 2010 @ 11:27am | Report comment
        
        Rabbitz the fault of the Tri-nations has always been that there are only three teams. As they are the best three teams in the world that brings with it grandeur, but the lack of size of the competition, i.e. only three teams, reduces the grandeur. So oddly it can feel lesser in scale than the six nations despite having far better teams.
        
        The addition of Argentina should go some way to rectifying this as it will add a whole new continent and dimension of size.
        
        Another team would really make it seem like a global-scale tournament, but there’s no candidate (A long-term prediction is the Japanese have so much national pride and determination to be competitive at the world cup that they’ll make every citizen play rugby until a good team emerges)
        
        Reply
    - ohtani's jacket said | July 5th 2010 @ 10:53am | Report comment
      
      It was the defensive qualities of the South African pack that were outstanding. The Boks were schiesshaus on attack last season which their fans kept claiming was because the opposition were giving away so many penalties but was in fact because they were schiesshaus.
      
      It will be interesting to see whether the All Blacks counter attack with any real conviction against the Boks’ defence or if they play a kicking/territory game and hope to convert territory and posession into points in a more conservative manner.
      
      Reply
      - kingplaymaker said | July 5th 2010 @ 11:39am | Report comment
        
        OJ I think the Boks pack were very good in attack, albeit by attack I mean simply ramming their way through the opposition pack like so many rhinocerouses in heat, while the backs were appalling in attack. The Steyn/De Villiers/Fourie midfield is an embarrassement and it’s that if anything that will ruin their Tri-nations and world cup campaigns.
        
        As for the ABs counter-attacking well, the laws favour them taking the risk unlike last year, and if Rokocoko or Ranger can fire they could do pretty well.
        
        Reply
        
        TembaVJ said | July 5th 2010 @ 11:53am | Report comment
        
        KPM rhino’s on heat hey, just ramming through… what year are you talking about, Spies has been side stepping and out running your fine backs for the last two years.
        
        Is this not the way of any forward pack in any case, just that they do it better then others.
        
        And your comment on Fourie and De Villiers makes me laugh, do you know how many people consider them the best centres in the world? Fourie was in sublime form in the S14 this year. The saffa backline is outstanding and only a fool would say otherwise.
        
        You mention the inconsistent Ranger in the same breath as Fourie…
        
        We just have to wait 5 more days to see how limp the saffa backline really is.
        
        van der Merwe said | July 5th 2010 @ 11:57am | Report comment
        
        Huh? You seemed to be in awe of de Villiers/Fourie’s size in the Mortlock thread.
        
        Brett McKay said | July 5th 2010 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
        
        I’d love to have that sort of embarrasment wearing Gold, especially de Villiers and Fourie……
        
        Rusty said | July 5th 2010 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
        
        The same JdV and Fourie that holds the most caps as a Bok centre combination. The pair that also jointly holds most tries by a Bok centre (24) of which 8 are against NZ. Given that 3 of those 8 were scored in 2009 I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
        
        katzilla said | July 5th 2010 @ 5:44pm | Report comment
        
        Lol Fouries biggest fan is definately himself but that’s still a good midfield. Judging by the ball movement of the south Africans in the super 14 I’d say they’ll ship It with a bit more success when the opportunity calls for it. Morne doesn’t need to be creative he just needs to pick the right time to give it.
- Lee said | July 5th 2010 @ 11:14am | Report comment
  
  Very hard to draw the conclusion that the new SA players are just more of the same…Didn’t realise that Aplon was the same as either Petierson, F Steyn or Kirchner…or that Louw was the same as Juan Smith or Brussouw…or that De Jongh was anything like Fourie or De Villiers. As far as I am concerned these players have almost opposite strengths and weaknesses.
  
  Reply
  - kingplaymaker said | July 5th 2010 @ 11:22am | Report comment
    
    Lee what I mean is they are of similiar or potentially similar quality and in the same positions. As a result they don’t really improve the starting team. Louw may be great, but is probably no better than Brussouw on form for example. If they had found a superstar centre who made Jacques Fourie look like a tugboat then it would make a positive difference to the starting team. My point is that having a new player who is equally good in a position adds to depth but not the starting strength of a team, whereas adding a player in a position where the current occupant is weak improves the starting team, and that’s what I think New Zealand are doing with someone like Whitelock.
    
    Reply
    - van der Merwe said | July 5th 2010 @ 11:54am | Report comment
      
      Ranger is better than Smith? Vito better than Kaino/Thomson? Dagg than Muliaina/Jane? Whitelock over Donnelly? Cruden > Carter?!
      
      Reply
      - kingplaymaker said | July 5th 2010 @ 11:59am | Report comment
        
        Ranger better than Rokocoko on last year’s form, Vito looks more talented than Kaino/Thomson while Whitelock looks more talented than Donnelly. Dagg and Cruden are more of the same (more or less), so add to depth rather than the quality of the starting line-up.
        
        Reply
    - Lee said | July 5th 2010 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
      
      OK fair call KPM…I tend to agreee but whether or not that is negative is debateable.
      
      For example, say Louw is as good as Brussouw(I presonally think he may work out to be better), then when Brussouw is fit, we have 2 brilliant flanks so whoever is on the bench can pick up right where the other left off.
      
      Whereas, in the case of Donnely and Whitelock, Whitelock may turn out to be a great lock, whereas Donnely(to me) is a bit of a journeyman. So Whitelock starts, gets subbed and you bring on Donnely who isn’t as great…
      
      I think I would rather be in a position where you might have 2 good players in a squad, than 1 great and 1 OK.
      
      PS also think the jury is out on both new sets of players, the next two weeks will show a few things e.g. is Aplon big enough to make an impact in possibly the toughest physical rugby match going, is Cruden composed enough? etc
      
      Reply
      - kingplaymaker said | July 5th 2010 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
        
        Lee it’s true many of these players have a leap to make.
        
        South Africa tend to dominate through their back row and second row who are collectively a massive, fast gang of thugs, while kicking the ball whenever it strays elsewhere. This means it doesn’t matter too much what the rest of the team except the fly-half does. In this sense, it’s perhaps critical for their game-plan to have equally good back-up in those areas, and so having a player like Louw to keep the pack dominant may be much more important than new players elsewhere.
        
        With New Zealand the opposite is the case. They tend to use all the players on the pitch, and so for their game-plan to work all the players on the pitch need to be as good as possible. So these new players plug the gaps where there are weaknesses.
        
        So in those two senses, it’s possible the new players help both sides equally in achieving their different playing aims.
        
        Reply
      - van der Merwe said | July 5th 2010 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
        
        Given his height advantage means that he is actually able to compete in line-outs, Louw could potentially be a better all round player than Brussow.
        
        Reply
        
        kingplaymaker said | July 5th 2010 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
        
        VDW is certainly true that Brussouw’s method of pillaging the ball was beginning to be found out by the end of the Tri-nations.
        
        Lee said | July 5th 2010 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
        
        Brussouws method would almost certainly make him get blown off the field now, as he never releases the tackled player.
        
        To me Louw could be better(wait until we see him play the ABs though), one of the commentators in the SA-Italy game was saying that most S14 teams this year made 2-3 turnovers a game, but that Louw was make 2-3 a game by himself. I can’t find these stats to back that up, but he has been doing quite well in that aspect but from the blindside of teh scrum…i.e. being the second/third guy to the ball.
        
        van der Merwe said | July 5th 2010 @ 7:49pm | Report comment
        
        It’s certainly true that a large part of Brussow’s brilliance lies in his tackle, roll n’ rip trick, Lee, but there is no concrete evidence to say that Brussow wouldn’t have adapted to these new interpretations. Also, it’s worth considering that his video analysis supposedly mirrors that of Matfield.
    - Ben J said | July 5th 2010 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
      
      How do one gauge ” potentially similar ” ? Louw is a 114kg backrower that plays to the ball on the ground, is a lineout option (which Brussouw is not) and is a great tackler as well. de Jongh weighs as much as a mouse, has a great step and both de Villiers and Fourie is 100kg tacklebusters. Fourie is a great tryscorer, probably the best the Boks have at the moment. I think the new faces in the Bok team are not in any way same old as KPM might suggest.
      
      Reply
  - kingplaymaker said | July 5th 2010 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
    
    Van der Merwe size yes, quality no. Mortlock or Nonu=size+quality. Perhaps if at junior level SA didn’t put all their talent in the back row they would have some decent centres.
    
    Reply
    - van der Merwe said | July 5th 2010 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
      
      Then why the concern?
      
      By the way, the only time that I can recall Nonu ever making a significant impact playing against de Villiers was when the latter was tasked with baby siting the diminutive Adrian Jacobs. For such a quality player, Nonu looked like a one dimensional bosh-merchant against SA’s embarrassingly bad centre pairing last year. I should also add that Jaque Fourie was easily one of the best, if not the best, centres in the Super 14 this year, actually receiving lavish praise from numerous Australian news outlets. But once again, this begs the question of how much non-Australasian S14 you watch.
      
      Reply
      - kingplaymaker said | July 5th 2010 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
        
        VDM the Super 14 is not international level. Fourie was dire all last year in the Tri-nations.
        
        Nonu was off-form early on but improved later in the Tri-nations. He likes to bash a lot, nothing wrong with that, but on a good day he does it well.
        
        Reply
        
        van der Merwe said | July 5th 2010 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
        
        I’m aware of that. Remember, I’m not the one going on about Cruden et al.
  - kingplaymaker said | July 5th 2010 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
    
    Temba I never said the SA back row weren’t very good, just that they like to hammer their way forward and very effectively they do it too.
    
    De Villiers and Fourie are an absolute laughing-stock however: how on earth did they get the reputations they possess? So far this year and all of last year they were pathetic in attack, feeble.
    
    Reply
- van der Merwe said | July 5th 2010 @ 11:24am | Report comment
  
  For preciousness’ sake, it would be interesting to know exactly how much non-Australasian Super 14 rugby you actually watched this year. Hougaard, Aplon, De Jong, Louw and Potgieter were all impressive and received a considerable amount of praise.
  
  It would also be interesting (amusing?) to know how the Bulls (whose backline on paper consists of journeymen and greenhorns) regularly racked up such high point tallies with an uncreative fly half.
  
  Reply
  - kingplaymaker said | July 5th 2010 @ 11:40am | Report comment
    
    Van der Merwe I refer you to the answer I gave to Lee above.
    
    Reply
Stash said | July 5th 2010 @ 11:06am | Report comment

I’m amazed that the Boks form is directly contributed to how they fare against the All Blacks as opposed to their entire campaign.

The Boks played very well against NZ in 2009 – but surely any rugby supporter knows that NZ were out of sorts for the Tri Nations campaign – with key injuries and abysmal high ball efforts. Which was rectified by the time their end of the year tour came along and highlighted by the superb last international effort against France.

But the 2009 Springboks sputtered to a 67% winning ratio for the year…57% if we include the embarrassing mid week efforts. 2009 was the fourth worst touring performance of a Springbok team in their entire history!!

Former Springbok communications manager Mark Keohane said this about the Bok 2009 campaign, “the best team in the world does not get smashed in Brisbane, Leicester, Wembley, Toulouse, Dublin, Johannesburg and sneak two three-point wins in Pretoria and Hamilton”

….Thanks Mark for keeping it real…

Reply
- ohtani's jacket said | July 5th 2010 @ 11:18am | Report comment
  
  That’s all well and good but the onus is on the All Blacks to beat the Boks this weekend then turn around and do it again the following week. The Boks are in the driver’s seat regardless of what happened on the end of year tour. The All Blacks are on a nine game winning streak but how many people realise that? Perception is everything.
  
  Reply
  - kingplaymaker said | July 5th 2010 @ 11:42am | Report comment
    
    OJ remember how close the first match was last year? The ABs tried to run it from everywhere and in the rain. If they do the same this year with the new law interpretations on their side, and Rokocoko theoretically back in form, things look good.
    
    Reply
Cliff (Bishkek) said | July 5th 2010 @ 12:23pm | Report comment

And with all the discussion this morning on the Boks and ABs I would say in racing parlance that the Wallabies will watch and bide their tiem and come up on the inside and do a blisrtering sprint for the finish line taking out the Melbourne Cup -oooops the TN – Apologies – I just woek up from a magnificent dream

Reply