In what was one of the better displays from the World Champions, Peter De Villiers’ men put the squeeze on the All Blacks early, before withstanding the New Zealanders’ now trademark second half blitzkrieg.
The South Africans not only avenged their 0-19 defeat in Newlands last year, but fired an immense broadside at their Tri Nations opponents showing they have the arsenal to take their third title since the competition began in 1996.
De Villiers has made plenty of noise about transforming the Springboks into an expansive running side, but quite simply, why would he want to?
These Springboks are not flashy. In fact when comparing what the All Blacks, Wallabies or the British and Irish Lions before them could produce in regard to tactical diversity, the World Champions would probably pale in comparison.
After all, even De Villiers himself would happily admit that he is not yet the coaching genius of a Graham Henry, Robbie Deans or Ian McGeechan.
Then again, the eccentric former scrumhalf for Boland and Griquas probably wouldn’t.
But as it was shown magnificently in Bloemfontein, all the tricks or fancy plays in the world count for little if you put your opposition under pressure physically.
In the Lions series, man for man the tourists in the backline looked more skillful and more creative than the Springboks, but the South Africans laid a platform of ferocious intimidation in the first 20 minutes of the first test that, for all intents and purposes, won them the series.
Importantly, the Springboks are building ironclad facets of play.
To be a truly great team, to go alongside a truism that you must contain three to four world class players, you also need to have certain facets of your play that can be counted on to dominate an opponent.
South Africa has long had one, with a lineout unequalled anywhere on the planet. This first phase of possession is all but guaranteed for the Springboks.
With an average of 20-25 line outs per match, it is an abundant platform to base your playing strategies from.
This is, of course, a bit easier when your opponents are unwilling to dispute this area of the game.
Now, however, it seems that South Africa has responded quickly and efficiently to the changing laws and rules of the sport.
The rolling maul has become an “allowable” weapon again, and the Springboks utilised this to devastating effect against the All Blacks.
When considering that this Panzer army often forms at the lineout, then the Springboks have two warheads of such apparent power that both New Zealand and Australia look vulnerable.
Especially when – with the greatest respect to the other Tri Nations teams – it doesn’t appear apparent that either the All Blacks or Wallabies have such indomitable facets to their play.
There was also the slightest of evolutions from the home team, moving to a different hybrid of defence by using an upper body collision technique that caused the All Blacks numerous issues at the tackle area.
The South Africans had planned ahead. It is no secret that the All Blacks are ball players, enjoying the natural freedom of looking for an offload, and the Springboks were ready for it.
Could these be indicators, despite popular opinion, that the World Champions are actually being well coached?
This of course, remains to be seen.
Sport is a fickle beast, and rugby is no different. But 24 hours from the match, local fans are proclaiming their team, now the IRB’s number one ranked side to go alongside their World Cup, are the unchallengeable best in the business.
On this display, to not add a Tri Nations trophy to this collection would be an unforgivable failure.
This was a cold, methodical and well disciplined beast. It seems that the furore of both Bakkies Botha and Schalk Burger’s ban may have struck a resonant tune for the South Africans.
While they were their typically uncompromising selves, there was little off the ball play and a remarkable sense of control.
So much in fact, that it was the All Blacks that earned the fury of the referee’s whistle.
As this now intriguing Tri Nations continues, there are only two simple questions to be answered.
Will the Springboks keep to their basic patterns, or will they try and open up their play. If they stick to what they are doing, one feels that this 2009 title is theirs for the taking. But as their opponents showed last night, it can be too easy to get “a little cute” and over force your hand if put under pressure.
Heinrich Brussow deserved man of the match.
The most pure open side that South Africa has produced in some time now appears to be essential to the team.
Will he give way to a returning Burger later in the tournament?
For, as a pack with a scavenger (something not fielded by the Springboks in many years), this South African eight looks to be the best forward unit in world rugby.
They have passed the first hurdle but not the first test. In the Tri Nations, that is winning away from home.
Knives Out
Guest
Oh yeah, it's a holiday in Ireland and Scotland today. Hope you had a good one. Every day in SA is a holiday, incidentally. Right, I'm off to watch a DVD.. http://hmv.com/hmvweb/simpleSearch.do?searchUID=&pGroupID=-1&adultFlag=false&primaryID=-1&simpleSearchString=springobks .. and then read a book before I hit the sack.. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Right-Place-Wrong-Time-Autobiography/dp/1770070974/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249327199&sr=8-1
Derm
Roar Guru
Dear Mr KO - I'm sending you two bills. One for destroying my favourite jumper. The other for a new laptop. Spluttering my very nice beer all over the place was not a planned part of this evening's Bank Holiday activities. Yours sniffily Pothale. PS Baldrick! Love it. Am still chuckling.
Knives Out
Guest
Look Pothale, don't question fact, OK! The Bulls are quite clearly the best rugby team in the entire planet. Fact. They have one of the best scrums in professional rugby, and stars like Gurthro Steenkamp, Chiliby Ralapelle, Wynand Olivier, Jaco Pretorious, Adonis Ndungane and Zane Kirchner. They would utterly destroy any of our NH plodders, just like the Bokke did, and they would probably destroy the Springbok side, one of the all time great sides, btw. Just know your role. Us Europeans are the rugby equivalent of Baldrick: small, slow, stupid and probably quite smelly.
Knives Out
Guest
I see you're doing your utmost to break down traditional stereotypes, Loftus. That's a typically detailed, lucid and profound response, btw. Keep it up. You add so much to 'The Roar'.
Derm
Roar Guru
the Bulls would beat any team on the planet? Incuding the Springboks? Since the same players are on both teams, who are you putting on which team, may I ask?
Loftus
Guest
Wrong again,Knives out,just like many things you write.The Bulls will beat any team on the planet at this moment.One of the reasons is because they have two thirds of the Springbok team in their ranks and the Springbok team is the best in the world now.Just admit it and move on.
Bonza
Guest
Interesting comments all round - For me the satisfaction with the Boks is an endorsement for a kick, chase field position game based on strong forward play. The style of play by the All Blacks is some sort of 15 man version of sevens based on average set piece. The interesting point is that all the people in Australia, particualrly those that castigate the Tahs, normally denigrate the tactics that the Boks are using when used by their own (like the Tahs) and cheer the All Blacks style in principle but are now tagging them as lame and inept in trying to play the way they are - open and whats in front of you. The Wallabies are closer in style to the Boks than the All Blacks so maybe its time for the Aussie supporters to realise and accept what is actually winning games these days For mine the Boks are efficient and effective without being great. They are in fact underutilising their talent in the backs and in reality only scored one try against an average All Blacks by modern standards. The All Blacks will get better as they always do but I doubt the Springboks can or will
Knives Out
Guest
1. Jenkins, Jones, Roberts and O'Driscoll were injured. McGeechan publicly stated that changes were necessary because a lot of the Lions were mentally & physically exhausted. 2. The Bulls would not give the Boks a run for their money, or the Lions or any other test team. Their scrum is too far too weak and they don't have enough strike power in the backs. 3. I'll look at it later.
van der Merwe
Guest
1. Sarcasm is a very weak cover for ignorance. Remember that. First teamers: Mtawarira, Smit, Matfield, Smith, Brussow and du Preez with Olivier and Fourie at 12 and 13 and with du Plessis, Spies, Pienaar and F. Steyn on the bench.Why the 10 changes? For exactly the same reason that McGeechan made 9 changes or were you not aware of that fact?! Laughable. 2. Laughable for various reasons. 3. Laughable for various reasons. --- 1. Virtually half of the Euros were injured, so no, reasons were different. 2. Not really, that Bulls side would have given the Boks a run for their money. 3. Benjamin, if you weren't so pigheaded, you'd see I linked to the great Fourie try, proving that Williams was not one of the three tacklers.
Colin N
Guest
Like I said with Kankowski before, he performed better than Spies had done in the previous games, sp you didn't lose anything there. But I could equally point to the changes that the Lions had to make. Why then did the Lions outplay South Africa so convincingly? Do the Lions have more strength in depth then, or were there other reasons. The South Africans not taking seriously is a rubbish excuse. Surely Olivier and Kichener would have wanted to put in good performances to improve their chances of playing in the Tri-nations, no? "Midweekers were all understrength. A full strength Sharks would have beaten them comfortably. If they played the white hot Bulls side that won the S14, they would have been thrashed." Complete and utter rubbish, the arrogance is unbelievable. Some pointers: 1. How do you know that would be the case? 2. The Lions ran the Springboks close in the other two test matches and for periods, some extended, outplayed South Africa.
Derm
Roar Guru
Photon - "all I know is the Boks have beaten the All Blacks and Lions and next up is a Waallby side that hasn’t won the Tri Nations since 2001." What about if the Boks lose? Australia grin and Boks please themselves?
Knives Out
Guest
I think I've only just stopped laughing a day after reading this. The Boks are a great side because they eke out 4/5 home wins by playing the same one-dimensional, inflexbile style. Yeah, that sounds like a real great team to me! Fantastic.
Knives Out
Guest
1. Sarcasm is a very weak cover for ignorance. Remember that. First teamers: Mtawarira, Smit, Matfield, Smith, Brussow and du Preez with Olivier and Fourie at 12 and 13 and with du Plessis, Spies, Pienaar and F. Steyn on the bench.Why the 10 changes? For exactly the same reason that McGeechan made 9 changes or were you not aware of that fact?! Laughable. 2. Laughable for various reasons. 3. Laughable for various reasons.
van der Merwe
Guest
1. Chilliboy first choice? Kankowski? That back three? Muller?(!) Like I said, de Villiers used this game to experiment with his fringe players, probably trusting that merely playing at Ellis Park would see his team home. Why the 10 changes if winning the dead rubber was of such utmost importance? 2. Midweekers were all understrength. A full strength Sharks would have beaten them comfortably. If they played the white hot Bulls side that won the S14, they would have been thrashed. 3. Profound is that you failed to actually click the link I provided.
van der Merwe
Guest
The legendary Pete Snor out coaching Graham Henry. Hilarious.
Photon
Guest
Mitch O In grown up world winners are gtinners and losers please themselves. Spectacle smectacle, all I know is the Boks have beaten the All Blacks and Lions and next up is a Waallby side that hasn't won the Tri Nations since 2001.
Mitch O
Guest
Greg, the ab's also have the greatest away record of any side in the game. Amusing to note that after both of these bok's wins almost every scribe has focussed on the ab's mistakes as allowing the bok's victory. Given a rigged draw and the 3rd game in a row for the ab's the boks still only manage one very dubious try!
Knives Out
Guest
No. No they are not a great side. Great sides have the ability to mix and match game plans and win away from home, not eke out wins at home with a very limited game plan. This SA side has proved absolutely none of the above and which is why only SA fans would refer to their side as great. The mind boggles, it really does.
Greg Smith
Guest
@Photon - nice analogy python/cobra - especially because I like chess and I can relate to being two steps ahead. How rubbish did New Zealand look ? Would this AB side beat the British Lions ? I think Home Nations sides will be able to get some revenge this year ! However rubbish New Zealand are ... of coarse they'll win at home... they always do ! Big surprise !
Mitch O
Guest
The referee was the winner on the day. The lone bok's try a direct result of the referee. Hey in fact ALL of the bok's points were courtesy of the referee. Which is somewhat ironic given the bok's spend so much time offside it's downright confusing which team it is they're playing for. No doubt that AB v Wallabies is a massively better spectacle than anyone v the boks. Very much look forward to seeing how they go on the road...