Pocock’s demolition of ‘Boks shouldn’t be overlooked
Roar Pro By El Gamba, 13 Oct 2011 El Gamba is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- David Pocock, Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup, Springboks, wallabies
176 Have your say
3,880 readsRelated coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- Rugby World Cup 2011 news
- South Africa Springboks news
- Rugby 2011 news
- 2013 Wallabies squad news
A lot has been written and commented upon regarding the refereeing by Bryce Lawrence of the Australia/South Africa quarter-final. Not enough has been said about David Pocock’s game.
He was outstanding. A 23 year old that pretty much single-handedly won the Wallabies the (statists-wise), impossible game to win game.
Having read a little bit about this outstanding number 7, whilst other players are satisfying their love of flying light aircraft he has been working tirelessly on a personal passion – eightytwentyvision.org – and (only perhaps) less altruistically cementing himself as the best number 7 in the game played in heaven.
His game on Sunday was immense.
Perhaps the most annoying thing about the criticism of the referee and comments generally about the game that the Wallabies should not have won is that, within this game, the greatest display of skill, strength and intellect by a single rugby player in a game of rugby has been over-shadowed.
Surely if the referee was not to blame (and I personally don’t believe he was) then there must have been a reason for the Wallaby triumph.
26 tackles whilst being involved with nine turn-overs (and any true believer of rugby who watched the game will have noticed the others which he had rights to or should have got) is a pretty good start.
The only other area that the wallabies won apart from the scoreboard was in the breakdown contest.
Never before in a game of rugby has one player dominated one area of the game to the extent that it negated the fact that statistically the other team dominated possession, territory and the set-piece.
Well done David Pocock, that was the greatest game ever played by an individual in a World Cup final – possibly in any game of rugby.
You may well be the difference come Sunday.
Have you seen the new Wallabies jersey? Want one of your own? We're giving away a brand new 2013 Wallabies jersey to one lucky Roarer, click here to go in the running to win.
- Explore:
- David Pocock, Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup, Springboks, wallabies
October 13th 2011 @ 9:20am
Fairview said | October 13th 2011 @ 9:20am | Report comment
You guys are great – always provide a good read.
It’s a subjective issue as per SARU, IRB etc.
It’s great to give your man credit – there’s been a good deal of postmortems on good Aussie rugby players and that doesn’t do a great nation’s image much good.
That I don’t agree with you is merely another matter – Pocock needs to meet solidly with Schalk Burger under more consistent laws and he needs to learn that bending the law isn’t going to win him credibility in the future – by that I mean both Pocock and his team were given just a great an injustice as the opposition. Think about it…..
October 13th 2011 @ 9:53am
El Gamba said | October 13th 2011 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Agree or not because of the refereeing, however this was less the point of the article than the contribution of one player to a team’s victory.
I would actually love to hear other people’s opinions on similar instances – Jannie De Beers 5 drop goals? Campese in certain games? Lomu? etc.
October 13th 2011 @ 10:04am
formeropenside said | October 13th 2011 @ 10:04am | Report comment
He did meet solidly with Schalk Burger, who repeatedly tried to eye gouge him and from an offside position tried to pull Pocock out of a ruck.
Should have been an immediate Red Card for Burger.
October 13th 2011 @ 12:20pm
FredFunk said | October 13th 2011 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
I am so sick of people rubbishing David Pocock (granted I have had a pop or 2 at Captain McCaw…). We need to promote referees who can control the game and enforce the correct interpretation of the laws at the right time and not simply “let it flow” for the benefit of the spectator. That’s called professional wrestling.
http://images4.hiboox.com/images/4111/diapoe8f8259bd3e71b0961f8be9d89034ade.gif
Not sure how many other times this happened and while certainly not taking my lead from the fox sports commentary team, there was a lot of SAFFA offside on Sunday which went unpunished.
Pocock is incredibly strong and technically brilliant. The only possible criticism he can wear is that on the odd occasion he does not support his own body weight upon initial entry to the breakdown. that said – it’s completely unrealistic to expect players to do so when running at full pace. Just watch how many people attack him when he’s set and get nowhere.
He’s awesome.
October 13th 2011 @ 1:13pm
mattamkII said | October 13th 2011 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
fred, what a great clip. And clearly shows you could call 3 to 7 penalties from saffers in that one ruck. (depending how many time you count foul play by berger).
October 13th 2011 @ 2:05pm
Willio said | October 13th 2011 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
Great example FredFunk, I agree he is awesome.
The only question from that ruck is why do Kepu and Alexander stand there and watch Pocock’s head being ripped off. Vickerman must have been off at that stage or he would have fixed him up like he did Brussouw!!
October 13th 2011 @ 4:34pm
Strayan said | October 13th 2011 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
Vickerman didn’t fix up Brussow, though some would like it to have been that way. Vickerman cleaned the Bok 8 out of the ruck and as he did so he accidentally got Brussow a little knock to the head. The Foxtel commentators were wrong about this being the injury. Brussow went off because he injured his ribs again when his own players fell on him in that ruck. Look at the Ch9 video as players stand around waiting for the scrum. Brussow lies down and clutches his ribs, it wasn’t his head. The Bok players weren’t even surprised, they knew he was strapped up because of rib injury in the previous game. If Vickerman had done it, Brussow would have let him know what he thought of it and Burger and co would have gone for him at the end of that ruck.
October 13th 2011 @ 5:18pm
Willio said | October 13th 2011 @ 5:18pm | Report comment
What burger would have scratched his eyes out like he did to pocock??
You could get a job as south african coach with analysis like that… But yeah you are right i mistakenly thought it was brusouws ribs he hit on the clean out but it was spies’ while brus was on the ground, still vickerman had a good game and did plenty of those types of clean outs.
October 13th 2011 @ 5:03pm
Arky said | October 13th 2011 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
That clip is everything Burger stands for….
October 13th 2011 @ 1:26pm
Strayan said | October 13th 2011 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
Burger played Pococks’ head yes, but the claws weren’t out and nothing went in the eyes. The Ch9 pictures showed no damage to Pocock’s face. Maybe a penalty was due for him playing the head, but a red card wasn’t warranted, not even a yellow. Pulling someone out of a ruck is a pretty mild offence too.
October 13th 2011 @ 1:42pm
RedsNut said | October 13th 2011 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
“Burger played Pococks’ head yes, but the claws weren’t out and nothing went in the eyes.”
You can’t see that on the clip
“The Ch9 pictures showed no damage to Pocock’s face.”
That would only show if there were scratches. Gouging doesn’t leave marks
“Maybe a penalty was due for him playing the head,”
Maybe nothing, it was due. It’s not much different from a head high tackle, plus the refs are supposed to jump on the head twisting action
“but a red card wasn’t warranted, not even a yellow. Pulling someone out of a ruck is a pretty mild offence too”
A yellow definitely was warranted as pulling someone out of a ruck by the head is dangerous to the neck.
October 13th 2011 @ 1:56pm
vaguely said | October 13th 2011 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
I believe the South Africans got a penalty not long after this…
October 13th 2011 @ 4:50pm
Strayan said | October 13th 2011 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
You are right in what you say, I just don’t want to whinge like some saffies are doing. I didn’;t think it was effective enough to warrant red. I mean it didn’t kill Pocock, and it definitely made him stronger! Burger on the other hand finished the match crushed, you can be sure of that.
October 13th 2011 @ 4:57pm
El Gamba said | October 13th 2011 @ 4:57pm | Report comment
“I mean it didn’t kill Pocock, and it definitely made him stronger!”
Pure gold Strayan and dead right!
October 13th 2011 @ 5:06pm
Arky said | October 13th 2011 @ 5:06pm | Report comment
Not to mention it being from an offside position….
October 13th 2011 @ 2:07pm
Creek said | October 13th 2011 @ 2:07pm | Report comment
If Burgar had of played the head once, a penalty should have been awarded. 3-4 times in the one ruck, blatantly trying for nothing but the head? Red card, any day of the week. Thank you.
October 13th 2011 @ 1:53pm
vaguely said | October 13th 2011 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
Surely said tounge-in-cheek?
October 13th 2011 @ 1:55pm
mattamkII said | October 13th 2011 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
Penalty only. Heat of the moment stuff.
October 13th 2011 @ 9:30am
Scot Free said | October 13th 2011 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Good article, EG. Arise Lord Pocock!
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
October 13th 2011 @ 9:40am
Jerry said | October 13th 2011 @ 9:40am | Report comment
Not enough has been said about it? God, it’s been discussed ad nauseum, what are you expecting?
October 13th 2011 @ 4:57pm
Sage said | October 13th 2011 @ 4:57pm | Report comment
I think it’s more talking about how good he was legally. Most references have been he was good but only because he got away with murder
October 13th 2011 @ 9:45am
Hoy said | October 13th 2011 @ 9:45am | Report comment
I have said it before: South Africa wouldn’t be complaining about the breakdown interpretations if they had Brusouw on the field longer. They missed out on the benefits of the breakdown interpretations by not having a true fetcher on the field.
October 13th 2011 @ 10:06am
Adams said | October 13th 2011 @ 10:06am | Report comment
They benifited by not having Schalk Burger set off for repeatedly trying to rip Pococks head off from the side of a maul.
That he failed to even budge him just gives more kudos to Davids’ mindset and effort that night.
October 13th 2011 @ 10:07am
Jerry said | October 13th 2011 @ 10:07am | Report comment
That he failed to budge also kind of suggests Pocock may not have been supporting his own weight….
October 13th 2011 @ 10:27am
Adams said | October 13th 2011 @ 10:27am | Report comment
The boy is a tripod. he always has good position and in that instance he appeared to be.
October 13th 2011 @ 11:29am
Jerry said | October 13th 2011 @ 11:29am | Report comment
A tripod requires 3 points of contact to stay upright – a rugby player on their feet is only permitted to have two…
October 13th 2011 @ 11:41am
Ralph said | October 13th 2011 @ 11:41am | Report comment
Touche!
October 13th 2011 @ 11:46am
PeterK said | October 13th 2011 @ 11:46am | Report comment
he has a giant 3rd leg between the other 2
October 13th 2011 @ 1:16pm
mattamkII said | October 13th 2011 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
Bit Rich from a Kiwi..joke
October 13th 2011 @ 1:25pm
Nat said | October 13th 2011 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
PeterK, I think your “man love” has just crossed the line.
October 13th 2011 @ 2:03pm
Jerry said | October 13th 2011 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
Funny you should say that Matta, I’ve been finding the Pocock love a tad ironic given the level of criticism Sir Richard McAWE has attracted over the years….
October 13th 2011 @ 10:29am
me too said | October 13th 2011 @ 10:29am | Report comment
If lawrence hadn’t officiated, perhaps the boks may have won.
If pocock hadn’t played, the boks would have won.
one of the alltime great individual performances at any world cup.
October 13th 2011 @ 11:06am
Rob9 said | October 13th 2011 @ 11:06am | Report comment
If we win the World Cup, David should be able to keep Bill in his pool room!
October 13th 2011 @ 11:09am
Pierce said | October 13th 2011 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Pocock was/is awesome. Just stop complaining when others play like he did. And don’t come on here explaining how it’s ‘different’. Been watching all those old games on Fox. Jeez George Smith was a magnificent cheat, Oz would have done well to hang on to him somehow just for RWC 2011.
October 13th 2011 @ 1:03pm
Oakie said | October 13th 2011 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
Now that would of been a master stroke.
October 13th 2011 @ 11:18am
Warren said | October 13th 2011 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Whilst I don’t disagree with the fact that Pocock had a masterful game, the obvious retort is that if Lawrence had blown the breakdown properly, then Pocock would not have been allowed to have the influence he did over the game. Of course, that does nothing to diminish the tackles he made and the general robustness of his play.
When McCaw does the same on Sunday and gets away with it, I expect to see no whinges from Aussies!
October 13th 2011 @ 1:19pm
mattamkII said | October 13th 2011 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
warren, while I have only done a little bit of looking. I cant see one turnover where any of the saffers had done enough to claim ownership of the breakdown over Pocock. Most of the time they had gone in, made contact and then gone off their feet.
Bryce is a poor ref, no question. But bock fans have picked up on the one place of the game they were taken to pieces and are blaming it on him. Truth is, Bryce was poor in other ways.
October 13th 2011 @ 7:56pm
Mike said | October 13th 2011 @ 7:56pm | Report comment
Warren,
This is not necessarily contrary to your post, but just saying that on Sunday McCaw will adjust his play to the ref’s interpretation. All the No 7′s do it.
If Joubert is ready to penalise the way Pocock played last Sunday then McCaw will work that out, and he won’t play that way. Same goes for Pocock.
No problem with Richie’s brain. I do wonder though if his body will be as willing as his mind.
October 13th 2011 @ 11:18am
Mike said | October 13th 2011 @ 11:18am | Report comment
As we speak the Saffers are constructing a Facebook page called “David PoCheat should never be allowed to play another test match again” – It has got 60,000 likes all from SA ISPs
October 13th 2011 @ 11:28am
2many1ndians said | October 13th 2011 @ 11:28am | Report comment
Not taking it too well are they?
This is just the start of a long illustrious career as a cheat. He plays to the whistle and is branded a cheat. He is a pleasant person and plays clean, very little off the ball niggle and has genuine good onfiled manners, very humble when on the end of a win and a good sport on the recieving end of a loss and yet is the worlds biggest cheat.
What goes around comes around I guess.
October 13th 2011 @ 11:55am
the other Steve - and AB fan said | October 13th 2011 @ 11:55am | Report comment
sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Hope some Wallabie supporters stop having a go at McCaw now
October 13th 2011 @ 1:21pm
mattamkII said | October 13th 2011 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
From an Aussie – thats almost the best reply this month.
October 13th 2011 @ 3:06pm
Mike said | October 13th 2011 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
Touche – from the other Mike
October 13th 2011 @ 6:33pm
Sandy said | October 13th 2011 @ 6:33pm | Report comment
Not taking it well?
Geez, that is an understatement, it’s positively ugly.
October 14th 2011 @ 12:32am
2many1ndians said | October 14th 2011 @ 12:32am | Report comment
Yeah it’s not really fair. If anything this sought of thing will only spur him on to play even better. Not ideal for AB or SA supporters I would of thought.
October 13th 2011 @ 2:01pm
vaguely said | October 13th 2011 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
From my memory of the match, most of what Pocock did was completely legal.
October 13th 2011 @ 11:32am
PeterK said | October 13th 2011 @ 11:32am | Report comment
Pococks effort is even greater when you study the turnovers and realise the majority were legal.
Either no ruck had formed so no offsides etc, or a ruck formed over him. Bok players leaving their feet sealing off the ball does not form a ruck (needs a player each side over the ball).
If he has hands on the ball and a ruck forms over him he can keep playing at it.
Exceptional timing and play from Pocock.
He was so magnificent because not only it won the game but most of it was legal.
Additionally he should of been awarded at least 2 more turnovers as penalties since they were clearly holding on, so the non policing goes both ways.
October 13th 2011 @ 1:22pm
mattamkII said | October 13th 2011 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
EEEEEEXXXXXACTLY
October 13th 2011 @ 2:03pm
vaguely said | October 13th 2011 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
That’s what I keep repeating to my Saffa mate. I think he knows it, too, because he stays pretty quiet.