The 28-19 victory to the Springboks over the All Blacks at Blomfontein, a historically large victory in this series of Tests going back to 1921, denied the visitors a bonus point and created the momentum for South African rugby to achieve the Holy Grail trifecta of a Super Rugby title (to the Bulls), a series victory over the British and Irish Lions, and the Tri-Nations trophy.
The Wallabies in 2001 and the All Blacks in 2005 achieved this Holy Grail trifecta. The Springboks are on track to do the same thing.
The key is winning their three home Tests, denying, if possible, the Wallabies and the All Blacks any bonus points in South Africa, and winning an away Test or getting bonus points in them.
So, going into the Durban Test on Saturday, it’s a case of one down, two to go.
The Springboks have confirmed their status right now as the best rugby team in the world. The confidence they will take from out-playing the All Blacks for most of this Test should allow them to play more expansively to exploit their very dangerous wingers, neither of whom received more than one pass in the Test that I saw.
Curiously for such a one-sided Test, there was a distinct possibility with 10 minutes to go that the Springboks would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Rian Pienaar missed three easy penalties early on, two of them hitting the posts. And instead of being 17 – 3 in the lead just after half-time, the Springboks could have been 26 – 3 and counting.
Having clawed their way back into the game, the All Blacks then lost whatever composure and nous they had shown in the previous 20 minutes when Jason Eaton dropped a pass from Piri Weepu, after the halfback had stood over the rucked ball so long the Springboks had plenty of time to number up and then charge the hapless second-rower.
Weepu, who played very well again, aside from this and the next play, then foolishly tried to keep the ball in play after Pierre Spieshad toed through the dropped ball. The better play was to take the lost of ground and possession and start again. A few seconds later Jacque Fourie was grounding the ball in the corner for a clinching try.
Instead of being 4 points down and still in the Test, the All Blacks were 9 down, out of the Test with only minutes to play, with the bonus point squandered.
This brain explosion by Weepu merely mirrored a host of other stupidities perpetrated by the All Blacks throughout the Test.
Has there ever been a dumber play, for instance, than Neemia Tialata’s attempted quick drop out right near the sideline? That stupidity resulted in a successful penalty for the Springboks.
Then there was Brendon Leonard, totally off his game, feeding the ball incorrectly in two successive scrums. Just dumb play, although to be fair the referee Alain Rolland allowed far worse feeds from Fourie du Preez which were so far under the number 8’s feet a rugby league halfback would have been proud of the biased line of the feed.
And then there was the mad All Blacks tactic of kicking bombs from inside their own 22. In a number of instances, there were no chaser. On one occasion Conrad Smith (arguably the best player on the field) was penalised unfairly for being just on-side.
The upshot, anyway, of these tactics was that the Springboks were able to run the ball back at the All Blacks from deep inside New Zealand territory.
And time after time, the All Blacks conceded penalties from the pressure involved with having to defend the charging attacks. Playing at altitude on the veld the best tactic to get out of your own territory is Bob Dwyer’s immortal instruction: ‘Kick it to the sh*t house.’
This brings us to why the Springboks are number one right now and why they won the 2007 Rugby World Cup. Two words provide the answer: Victor Matfield.
The Springboks through Matfield’s mastery of lineout-jumping and applying the right tactics on the opposition throw force sides to give up the safety of the touch line when things go awry. They know that the Springboks will win their own lineout through Matfield and then do a rolling maul that is hard to stop, in the manner of England’s World Cup-winning side in 2003.
In my view, not using the 22 as a safe kicking zone to touch is a mistake. Instead of conceding the lineouts to the Springboks, as the All Blacks did with one exception (Jason Eaton’s steal late in the Test), the All Blacks should have devised tactics to neutralise Matfield.
They, the All Blacks and Wallaby coaching staff, should ask themselves this question: ‘What would Victor Matfield do in organising a lineout if he were competing against himself?’
The first thing, I reckon, is that he’d double-team himself. This would force throws to Bakkies Botha and Juan Smith. Smith is terrific at the back of the lineout, but he is at the back and there is a bigger margin of error in this throw than the throw to Matfield. The longer throw, too, would show the referee and the assistant referee that the throw to Matfield is invariably down his line, not down the centre of the lineout.
Bakkies Botha is such a big man he is vulnerable at number 2 to someone with a bit of a leap. For the All Blacks, for instance, I’d put Jerome Kaino against him. The Wallabies have James Horwill, a strong and quick leaper.
And then I’d do something on my own throw that I haven’t seen since the All Blacks tried to nullify the great jumping of John Eales. Coach Laurie Mains, a shrewd thinker, used to use his two linout jumpers, Robin Brooke and Ian Jones together. The theory here was that Eales could not mark both jumpers. This tactic often resulted in the All Blacks actually winning the lineouts against Eales and the other Wallaby jumpers.
In other words, if a side concedes the lineouts to the Springboks, it virtually concedes them the game. So hopefully the All Blacks at Durban and the Wallabies at Cape Town will actually challenge the Springboks at their strongest point. If the challenge succeeds, the Springboks then become vulnerable.
But right now, without this sort of challenge, the Springboks are number one, with a bullet to go on to win the Tri-Nations unless the Matfield factor is nullified.
Nick
Guest
oh another way to beat the boks is be superior at the ruck yet i dont see that happening with bismark, brussow and bakkies...
Nick
Guest
Hi Spiro Everything you have said in this article is 100% but i do think you are missing one key point. The Springbok kicking game is phonomenal!! I have read many articles by people trying to blame the loss of the first and second test to the Springboks on the all blacks trying to run the ball from to deep and making basic errors! What people do not understand is that if the all blacks kick the ball and it does not go out, it will land in the hands of either du preez, morne or francoius steyn who then kick it up into a better position!! if the ball does not go out and instead to an all black player, the player then has the choice to A: Kick it out which bassicaly means that the springboks will win the line out and have a platform to attack B: Kick it down field but not out which will land in either 9,10 or 15 hand who because of their superior kicking skills will kick it into better position or will kick it out which means the all blacks have to then face the springbok line out which applies to much pressure and often lands up stealing the ball or C: try run the ball and hope to catch the springboks off gaurd but also has the risk of high pressure situations if the boks tackle well and lands up in handling errors!. I dont think this all black team is bad at all, i just believe that this springbok team is really good. Not just one of the best springbok teams but one of the best rugby has produced!! The only way to beat them is A: negate their line out ie matfield B: destroy their scrums or C: have a better kicking game! I truly believe that the aussies have a better chance than the all blacks do against the boks because of a more stable line out and because of matt gitue! mark my words the all blacks are going to lose at home this year to the boks!
Knives Out
Guest
Transition is the movement from one period to another. In this case, the loss of a large amount of experienced, core players: Oliver, Hayman, Somerville, Jack, Collins, Holah, Kelleher, Carter, Evans, A. Mauger, MacAlister and Howlet, and also extended squad players: Dermody, Johnstone, Rawlinson, Flavell, Masoe, Tuitopou et al. Of those players Hayman, Jack and MacAlister - all hugely significant - were always going to return, thus NZ had to deal with the permanent loss of certain players, and the temporary loss of others. That is transition. Had all of the aforementioned players been available then I think it is a fair suggestion that certain All Blacks would not have been capped since the 07 WC and it is abundantly clear how this has affected the style of play - specifically with Nonu's lack of kicking game. There is also a recent short-term issue: the loss of Williams and Carter to injury. Therefore, the All Black side has not only been shorn of some world class players, it has also been shorn of key decision makers in key positions which means that the traditional spine of the team includes Hore, Ross, So'oialo, Cowan, Donald Nonu and Muliaina. Now, contrast that with this theoretical group, Hore, Williams, So'oialo, Cowan, Carter, McAlister and Muliaina. In direct contrast to the NZ loss of players SA has only had to deal with the retirements of du Randt and Montgomery (who was available all last season, as was Willemse). Butch James, van der Linde and the rest of the European players have always been available, it was PdV's choice to ignore them because none of them was an essential asset, a regular or a world class player. Further, Mtawarira and Jantjes replaced the du Randt and Montgomery straight away. New Zealand have experimented with Owen and Ben Franks, Tialata and Afoa at 3 and Ellis, Leonard, Cowan and Weepu at 9, for example. That is transition. NZ has capped 24 new players since the WC. That is transition. This sums your argument up for me: Of the 22s this weekend: Pietersen, Fourie, Steyn, Habana, du Preez, Smit, Botha, Matfield, Smith, Rossouw, Bismarck and Jannie du Plessis and Olivier all played in the 07 WC final. (13) Rokocoko, Muliaina, MacAlister, Sivivatu, Woodcock, McCaw, So'oialo and Hore played in the 07 WC quarter final. (8) That isn't transition?
Knives Out
Guest
It is true that the match that occurred prior to the Lions test only occurred due to match practice issues.
Rusty
Guest
oops - slight break in the logic on the keepers for the next world cup. Realised the team numbers didnt add up. Passenger numbers to the next RWC as follows NZ 10 295 29 RSA 12 405 33 Numbers are still fairly in line
Rusty
Guest
This reply limit is annoying Firstly, this NZ team will not be the 2011 team. This SA team will most likely be the 2011 team. That is transition On what basis wont they? Age? Form? Return of better players? Of those, the first might lend wait to your argument and unless you are Thorn often go hand in hand with the second. So looking at the first one using last weeks team lists as a barometer. Overall starting 15s age and averages with caps: (the NZ caps on the allblacks site seem to have only just been updated to include the Bloem and Auckland tests so vary from my initial post) Years Avg PP Caps Avg NZ 417 27 564 37 RSA 394 26 633 42 So by this we see on the Boks are on average 1 year younger with 5 extra caps. If we include the subs they are almost even Years Avg PP Caps Avg NZ 598 27 723 32 RSA 575 26 756 34 Forward and Backs split (starting 15 only) Forwards: NZ 230 28 310 38 RSA 217 27 353 44 Backs: NZ 187 26 254 36 RSA 177 25 280 40 So NZ are older and marginally less experienced across the park. The key therefore must be in the composition of the experience in key individuals and their age. Assuming we are merely referring to the team in place at next the world cup 2011 and we used the age of 30 as the sell by date Players in the next world cup (barring injury and games from this point) # Caps Avg NZ 8 214 26 RSA 10 298 29 So realistically the Boks could have more starters at the next RWC who will be marginally more experienced Retirees # Caps Avg NZ 5 269 53 RSA 3 228 76 From this it would seem that although the ABs will lose more players, on average they will lose less experience per player. For ref the players being put out to hypothetical pasture are as follows: (by age) Country Player Caps Age NZ Brad Thorn 29 36 NZ Andrew Hore 39 33 NZ Rodney Sooialo 56 32 RSA Bakkies Botha 58 32 NZ Richie McCaw 72 31 NZ Malili Muliaina 73 31 RSA Victor Matfield 84 34 RSA John Smit 86 33 Conceivably as a forward you could play further in this example 31. So I wont be going into the whole breakdown but basically it will be SA that loses more caps etc # Caps Avg NZ 3 124 41 RSA 3 228 76 So where is this transition? If its just form and the replacements are poor thats hardly transition. Establishing new combinations because of injury (Williams) or because the current ones havent worked and the coach has chopped and changed them. Thats not transition thats an ebb in the playing talent and stocks. I just dont buy the transition thing as being singular to the ABs, the Wallabies have probably had more change across the parks and combinations than Boks or ABs, nevermind coaches.
Rusty
Guest
Not true - there have been quite a few games setup between Namibia and national teams from SA albeit not often the full test side they will be either SA A, SA Amateurs, Students or younger age groups. Unfortunately, more often than not they will be flogged which is probably these fixtures are getting further and further apart.
Knives Out
Roar Guru
Yeah, you're right, Colin. I caught it by sheer accident, as I did the Scotland A V France A match. Tincu was his usual boisterous self, and the game was well attended. I bet you that the players had a great time too, which is part of the professional struggle. It's such a shame that so few of the minor games are televised.
Colin N
Guest
Nelson, I don't think I've ever seen Russia in the fifteen man game, until this tournament. I was impressed with their scrum-half, who produced good ball for his stand-off and had a very good pass on him.
Colin N
Guest
KO, I did watch it. It was just before Setanta went off air I believe. Indeed both France A - Romania and Italy A - Romania also, were great games. Italy's number 8 looked like a good player and Marius Tincu was simply outstanding and the Romanian fly-half was quite good. There was a decent crowd as well, which was good to see.
Nelson
Guest
i stand corrected. the emerging boks won the 2007 and 2008 IRB nations cup. interesting to hear russia have improved.
Knives Out
Roar Guru
Did you watch the tournament, Colin? There was a cracker between France A and Romania.
Grandpabhaile
Guest
Hee, hee! I love the fact that people keep mistaking you for Irish, KO. Though I can't see how they arrive at this from your contributions. Must have been that pic you had attached to your name for a while.
Colin N
Guest
"i think south africa played in that IRB nations cup as well." No I don't believe they did. The competitors were Romania, Italy A, Scotland A, France A, Uruguay and Russia. There was a great game between Uruguay and Russia - Russia played some excellent stuff.
Knives Out
Roar Guru
The Namibian game only occurred due to the fact the Lions were in town, it was hardly a gesture of good will. And as Colin points out with his reference to the Old Trafford test, that was a gesture of good will. English rugby has had a far more extensive relationship with Argentina than SA has during the professional era, and even on a base level Argentine players are being developed in the Guiness Premiership, Nelson.
Knives Out
Roar Guru
I thought he stunk the place out at Eden. Funny that. I shall be watching him and 'Big Pierre' pretty closely this week.
Nelson
Guest
i think south africa played in that IRB nations cup as well. anyway my point is that there are reasonable grounds to criticize SA rugby (and many posts on this forum dedicated to that) but lack of support for rugby minnows aint one of them.
Colin N
Guest
"or a 6N country played in eastern europe but pls correct me if i havent been keeping up." Well, the A sides of Scotland and France played in the IRB nations cup held in Romania. Russia and Georgia are the only competitive Eastern Europe teams, and I use that term loosely. England have done plenty for lesser countries and KO has cited a couple of examples. Recently, one of the Argentina-England games was held in England, where all of the gate receits went to the Argentinan governeing body. Wales and Ireland also played the USA and Canada in June.
Nelson
Guest
South Africa played a game in windhoek this year, albeit against a nambian xv. i cant remember the last time an aus or nz team played in the pacific, or a 6N country played in eastern europe but pls correct me if i havent been keeping up. south africa also doesn't restrict foreigners from playing for its provinces which indirectly benefits namibian rugby south africa has also historically contributed to the development of argentine rugby. its pretty obvious SARU got rolled in the recent SANZAR negotiations but for what its worth it is on record SA rugby supporting argentina's inclusion into the tri nations.
ohtani's jacket,
Guest
Pshaw. So'oialo was much better at Eden Park than he was in Bloemfontein. He only carried the ball twice in Bloemfontein. He had five carries at Eden Park and was one of the only players going forward in the first half.