Springboks inflict Wallabies' worst Test loss ever

hi guys, I posted my ignorance of who referee was when commenting on Spiro's article elsewhere and said I was not prepared to write off Waugh just yet. Could he make it as a hooker? Now that Kaplan is to be the referee for the Brisbane Test, I will predict an OZ loss by at least 10 points. Perhaps it is divine providence that I will not be in Brisbane for this game [having passed my tickets to my son after my travel agent stuffed up my requested travel arrangements to Britain and back bysept 13]. I doubt I could have stood the tension of having to sit through the game without giving him a gobful. However, if Barnes and Vickerman are fit and are in the run on side I'll make sure I find a bar somewhere in England to watch it and hope for a miracle. Further to my wife's statement about J'burg elevation - I forgot she smoked then.

The referee was Bryce Lawrence not Walsh. And I have the pleasure of announcing that the ref for Brisbane will be one Mr. Jonathan Kaplan.

Hi Bob Mc - I lived in Jo'burg for 3 months in 1971 and never noticed it. We used to play soccer on Sundays in Zoo Lake Park for about 3-4 hours and can't remember suffering too much. Mind you I was pretty fit in those days. I believe, having climbed a bit, and read about oxygen issues at height that it affects some more than others. If we get Kaplan in Brisbane we are shot ducks. He always seems to manage to kill us off either by penalties or slowing our momentum down. I am sure others here have stats to prove me wrong but it always seems that way to me. Mark Lawrence or Craig Joubert would suit me.

Glenn Condell - You are right Deans needed to give them time to prove there worth and a few have already crossed themselves out. The great pity is Waugh, a player I admire for his sheer guts and work rate but unfortunately he doesnt have the natural skill required to support a first rate Wallaby team for the next world cup. He will be a great S14 player and captain and a back up to Smith (which is what I have always suspected). Sharpe has already marked his book 'Declines to Play' and so he should be shunted off into the world of; if all else is injured we still have him. I might consider playing Shehan as a specialist half back against the Boks. He seems very calm against them and he is naturally very agresive appeared to stand out when he came on. The interesting thing is who is going to come into the mix. Pocock is a no brainer for next season and maybe even the end of season tour, same with Rathbone as a backup/replacement for Stirling if he pulls the pin at the end of the season. The rest who knows. We need a replacement for Vickerman urgently and McMeniman and Mumm aint it. They are both back rowers particularly McMeniman who should slot into Elsoms spot. The bottom line is that nobody can complain that they havent been given a chance and now with the end of season tour coming the real changes will start.

Am touring in Scotland and was astounded by the magnitude of the defeat Was not expecting another Wallaby win but thought we may have held Sth Afr to a loss of 10-15 points. I'm aware that Vickerman and Barnes were injured and both are critical to the backbone of our defense. Another problem was the Referee Walsh. When I heard he was to officiate I decided not to try and find a bar in Glasgow to watch the game, as we always react negatively to his whistle. Sth Afr whistle-blower Kaplan has a similar effect on all OZ teams so am hoping he doesn't have control of the deciding Brisbane Test. If he does it’s like giving the AB's a 10 point start. Both seem to get into our head, even though logic suggests it should be otherwise. My wife lived in Jo’berg for 6 weeks early 1969 and said she was gasping for breath constantly while there. Her comment? Tests should not be played at such altitude as it has to be bad for one’s health. Could be so, but it won’t happen. We have to learn to adjust to such conditions. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but could Deans have used this dead rubber to blood new players and see how they reacted under sustained pressure? Without testing them, one never knows how one would perform in the furnace. Best to throw them in and observe how they perform. Furthermore it was an opportunity to rest a key player like George Smith and give valuable game time to the bench who has had little game time since the international season commenced. Will be critical in Brisbane. After watching the highlights I'm convinced we have to think faster on our feet. I continue to be astounded by our players turning their backs on the opposition when the whistle blows. With such quick restarts under the ELVS we have to have our brains engaged 100% of the time. Brains & brawn are required at this level to complement talent. All is not yet lost for the decider in Brisbane even though logic would suggest otherwise.

It was like watching a pretty poor game of Aussie Rules half the time. If the ball spends as much time in the air in future I'll go back and watch league. That and the dearth of rolling mauls has changed the game, and not for the better. Sure it's faster, but it's a mess. And it seems score blow-outs are more likely too. This was a classic case of one team wanting it more. I hope we want it more in a fortnight or it will be ugly. The strength and athleticism of the African Boks is now allied to great skills. Look out world. Tahu had a shocker, but recall in 03 how the Blacks put 50 on us at home with a raw Lote being all at sea v Rokocoko; but later we did them at the Cup, with Lote having tightened up a lot. Waugh, Dunning etc - on the way out, but Deans knew he had to give them a real shot at a spot. They failed, so the decks can now be cleared for new blood later this year.

Chas, there are plenty of black and coloured South Africans who follow and play rugby, in case you didn't notice Jongi Nkokwe scored a double hat-trick of tries, and there have been heaps of coloured blokes to have worn the myrtle green.

His subs were an extension of the gameplan, which was a curious way of placing his eggs in the one basket. Even more curious when the Crusaders often had various bench options.

I don't agree that the Boks played with structure. They simply cut down the handling errors and turnovers and played at pace. Their forwards were pretty loose, but they got on the front foot before the ball shifted wide. They did kick more from their 22, but they didn't look for touch unless they were behind the line. The Boks were fast. If you do the basics at pace, you'll wipe off the Aussies off the pitch. Here's hoping the All Blacks got the message. As for Deans, he's still finding his feet at the Test match level. Selecting & coaching a Test side is a hell of a lot trickier than building a club side, but I thought his selections and game plan were poor. His subs were also poor.

If the Boks did play a more conventional style as under White, then that mean the ELVS have been beaten twice by a more conventional style, first by NZ and now by SA Structure won't necessarily beat expansionism, the opposite is often true, but the expansive game must be based on good forward play. Forwards must win possession regardless of style

We need Burgess back, cordingly and sheehan played classic halfback games, passed and passed and passed. We miised the injection of attack and enthusiasm. Unfortunately we took on Du Prie at his close to best and the inly ay to counter that is with another attacking half. Yet always diificult to beat a springbok with its back to the wall. Just lacked a real leader though, Mortlock has nothing as captain, G.Smith or P.Waugh for my vote, need rugby smarts and to lead from the front. Smith tried when he got on. Mortlocks a goose.

Just to throw my say into the hat, I didn't get to watch the game live as I was away camping this weekend, but having now seen the replay, it might seem that Pieter de Villiers has redeemed himself. However, what I would like to point out, and which fortunately many journalists have already done, is that the game was played far more to the former style and structure that Jake White put in place. As many knowledgable coaches, the 'expansive' style that PdV always talks of does not exist, because defenses are too good these days. Like John Plumtree, of the Durban Sharks said, you have to earn the right to go wide. You can't just toss the ball around like a rabid dog and expect to breech modern defenses. The Boks ensured structure and dominance up front first, and the rest followed, which if you read any of my posts in the last few weeks, is what I've been saying like a stuck record, including that the Boks biggest issue was their breakdown. By some miracle we got it right this weekend. PdV however has refused to admit that structure wins over expansiveness, so hopefully he'll come to his senses sooner rather than later, because if he just sticks to what the Boks know best, we stand a much better chance of future victories. If we abandon this style yet again for the all elusive mythical nonsense expansive style, we'll face further embarassment and humiliation. I guess we'll see soon enough on the end of year tour, since we'll be playing a rejuvenated (under Martin Johnson) English team, among others, who will fancy themselves at the beginning of their season.

Apologies for the long post but I must admit that after all the chestbeating from Australia after the win at Durban and the backlash SA were copping from their press and public I was confident that SA would bounce back and win but certainly not by that margin. I felt similar to Spiro watching the first test at Durban, after the first five minutes and the first penalty the Wallabies were looking good (if THAT pass from Giteau had found its intended target of Ashley-Cooper resulting in the opening try, what would that have done for their confidence and SA’s). The Boks hadn’t yet settled into the game and had already lost their first lineout, Boks supporters would have been feeling nervous. Then in the next seven minutes the pattern of the game emerged and the result was in essence decided. From the scrum - for a Tahu knock on - the Boks cleverly manipulated the Wallaby defence. Butch James cut back on a flat angle to the scrum drawing the attention of Palu and Waugh, opening up the gap for Spies taking the pass at speed. It was a simple old-fashioned scissors move but the flatness of their attack enabled them to cross the advantage line and create momentum. They recycled the ball quickly and stretched the Wallabies wide before James kicked behind the Wallaby defence turning them round. Mortlock failed to take the clearance pass (Giteau was strangely in the midfield) and Hynes set off on a crazy, dangerous run in front of his posts and then threw a loose pass that was cleaned up by Polota-Nau and kicked downfield but not into touch. Jantjes followed up his own kick putting pressure on Ashley-Cooper and SA claimed the ball. They attacked towards the right and Adam Ashley Cooper got caught in the ruck (no last line of defence), SA won another quick ruck and spread the ball very wide from the contact area but Australia had the numbers in defence to prevent a try. Jantjes wrongfooted Palu and Tahu didn’t trust his teammate to make the tackle and moved in off his line, opening up the hole for Bekker to score the first try. From the restart play ended in Australia’s in goal and they tried to take advantage of some lax concentration from SA with a quick dropout but a forward pass from Giteau (his support players were all ahead of him so it was always going to be forward) conceded a scrum to SA on their 22. Spies was able to make easy metres forward as SA wheeled the scrum to the right and Burger attracted the attention of Waugh, another great scrum by SA. SA won the ruck quickly and attacked to the left where they had already achieved an overlap, Australia conceded the free kick but didn’t adjust their defence towards the left touchline and du Preez spotted the chance. A great long ball to de Villiers took out Mortlock and Tahu leaving Hynes on his own against two men and Nokwe scored without a hand laid upon him. The game had been playing for only 15 minutes but the signs were already there that SA were not going to revert to type and play conservatively. Some points I observed so far – Australia were again poor in chasing their kicks downfield, Australia were guilty of taking unnecessary risks and they looked rattled, SA were winning much cleaner and quicker ball from the breakdown, they were finally getting their loose forwards running on to the ball and they were going to play the game at high speed. Tactically the Boks didn’t play too differently from Durban but their attitude and execution of the basics was much better. It was unexpected to instead see the Wallabies develop a case of the yips, no better illustrated than when Waugh won a turnover on their 22 and they launched a counterattack that should have resulted in a try to Tuqiri but the final pass went to ground. That was two clearcut tryscoring opportunities that Australia should have scored and you could sense the confidence growing in the Africans that today was going to be their day. Even at 12-3 down Australia weren’t out of the game by any stretch and they contributed to an entertaining and open game with some outstanding ball control and running and they threatened to break open the Boks defence with their counterattacks. After one long sequence of play that stretched from one side of the field to the other, a dropped pass by Mortlock resulted in a turnover and James cleared the ball to just inside the Australian 22. That was the moment when I knew that SA were going to win this match, the Wallaby forwards were blowing hard and were very slow in running to the lineout, and then Polota-Nau threw the ball in before his teammates had realised what had happened. A dumbfounded James Horwill, looked in exasperation at his hooker, the signs were not good for Australia. Anyway an inaccurate throw by Polota-Nau almost resulted in another try to SA and from the resulting scrum, the Wallabies were rudely pushed off the ball and following a concerted attack the ball was freed to an unmarked Nokwe for their third try. SA weren’t doing anything special or spectacular other than adhering to the basics and executing them well and there was nothing the Wallabies could do about it to stop them other than try and illegally slow their ball down. The opening 20 minutes really set the tone for the rest of the match. SA took advantage of the conditions to kick long into the Australian half and toward the corners to turn the Wallaby forwards around, the Wallabies were happier to try and run the ball back or kick to the midfield. Net result was that SA played the conditions smarter and let the ball do the work for them to gain field position whereas the Wallabies had to work a lot harder with their approach and it told on them physically. Mortlock needed to marshall his troops and tell them to slow the game down. Australia was unable to build any pressure as their lineout was inconsistent and SA were winning the majority of the scrum feeds. Net result was that SA dictated the pace of the game and imposed their pattern on the Wallabies. Would a different selection make any difference? It wouldn’t have altered the result as the entire team was outplayed. Why the rollercoaster performances from the Wallabies, mentally they weren’t at 100%, for reasons known only to themselves and Deans will know now who will continue to be a part of his plans and who won’t. Should they have played different tactics – well you need the ball to be able to impose your tactics on a game and you need to execute them accurately so it’s hard to know what they could have done differently during the game. Under the ELV’s the focus has been, incorrectly in my opinion, on the increased time the ball is in play and the advantages it provides teams in possession. I believe the ELV’s actually place a stronger emphasis on winning the structured part of the game i.e lineouts and scrums, particularly scrums. While there are many more rucks and opportunities to keep the ball moving from free kicks, slow or static ball from multiple rucks doesn’t enable you to manipulate or break through a defensive line easily so you’re forced to kick more to get over the advantage line. It’s difficult to play on the front foot if you're playing behind the advantage line and if you’re not gaining parity or advantage in the setpieces you can really get punished. The Boks were more direct and dynamic in their running (they were too lateral at Durban) and their offloads really hurt Australia. It was the most impressive display from any team in this Tri-Nations and really demonstrated what a team can achieve in playing positively under the ELV’s, as so many of the games have been more conservative. Well played SA and thank you. So for all you naysayers, can Australia bounce back from this? Of course they can.

Agreed.

Kennetth, While I did criticise Robbie Deans in my post, I'm not suggesting he's an overrated coach or should be dropped. I think he perhaps tinkered with the side too much with the likes of Polota-Nau and Tahu etc. But that said his credentials speak for themselves. Plus Australia holds the Mandela plate and is still in contention for the Tri Nations and Bledisloe Cup. Lets not lose sight of that. Yes the Wallabies have been pasted twice, but both performances from New Zealand and South Africa were arguably (and this is a big thing to say) their best performances this decade. The Wallabies are still accountable for some terrible rugby, but you have to give props to their their opposition. Deans hasn't lost two on the trot like New Zealand or three on the trot like South Africa and the Aussies are still unbeaten at hime this year, unlike South Africa and New Zealand. It's way too soon to start writing him off and saying things should be done differently. That's why I hope the Aussies haven't lost some perspective - they can still win the Tri Nations and they have beaten New Zealand at home before this year.

one good result against NZ and cky wins against Ireland and a 2nd rate France and a good win against SA

I respect Frank O'Keeffe and others who criticise Robbie Deans but differ I from their conclusions. The Wallabies have had a succesion of poor coaches that have delivered a succesion of poor results.. Not only has Robbie Deans and the Wallabies delivered superior results in his short tenure but it is very clear that he enjoys the complete support of his squad and the ARU management fo the results he has delivered so far.

The match was a dead rubber - we had already won our precious SA away game, and the Mandela plate. I am not justifying their pathetic game, it frustrated the hell out of me! But I wasn't too surprised either, that they did not 'turn up' mentally for the game, let the Boks in and then got smashed! It is a flaw of the Wallabies for many years that they do not bring their tenacious attitide to the unimportant or supposedly easy games. That is a major factor in why Wallabies (and ABs uncharacteristically) got knocked out of the World Cup so early! Good news is they do 'turn up' for the important games, and that will be vs ABs in Brisbane!!

I haven't my point that's quite clear. If you can find a front row with the required "mongrel" good, then we've removed three chaps from the dole. The point is we do not look at the vast majority of talent out there. I certainly do not question the guts of the public (private ) schoolboy. So many of the officer class in WW1 died unecessarily, as very brave lads, however, it is obviously to any independent observer, the lack or inspecting all available talent is part of our rugby problem

Gavin...seriously mate....you've made your point....private school boys aren't tough enough for you, we should go to Centrelink to find a frontrow. Personally, I can't think of anything more irrlevant to a person's level of 'mongrel' than what school they went to. If anyone in this blog seems to be prejudiced about the private school/'broader areas of society' divide....them it seems to be you.