First things first: the 2009 Springboks have one of the great packs in rugby history. The pressure they brought on the Wallabies in the rucks, mauls, tackled ball situations and the lineouts in the first 60 minutes of the Test at Newlands, Cape Town, forced a committed and gutsy side to make errors of judgment and skill that gave easy penalty goals to the home side.
Aside from giving away a hatful of easy penalty goals, the Wallabies played for 9 minutes late in the first half and at the beginning of the second half with only 13 men.
First George Smith was yellow-carded for silly stupidity. Then Richard Brown was sent to the sin bin for a messy mistake where his timing after making the tackle was just off.
Later on in the half, Matt Giteau was sin-binned. Then at the end of the Test, Smith was sent off the field again.
The point here is that when the Wallabies had only 13 players on the field, the Springboks could not score a try. They were, in fact, out-scored two tries to one.
One of the reasons for this try-famine (for a side with numbers on the field, field position and great possessions from the lineouts and the rucks and mauls) is that the Springboks high-ball and chase game is designed to force penalties rather than tries. Another reason, according to the Springboks coach Peter de Villiers, was that the Wallabies kept on killing the ball whenever the Springboks got a roll on.
There is an element of truth in this. Especially in the first half, the Wallabies gave away penalties rather than concede tries.
In fact, right at the end of the Test, too, Smith illegally knocked the ball from the hands of Pierre Spies while the Springboks were mounting a last attack near the tryline.
The Wallabies gave away 13 penalties and many of them were given away to stop the Springboks when they were on the rampage.
But the fact is that the Springboks backs are nowhere near the quality of the forwards. When they are forced to put together a fluent attack, they just can’t do so. A couple of phases in the backs in about all they can mount before the inevitable kick is put up into the air.
There was an interesting moment about an hour into the Test when Smith (rightly) contested a decision by the referee Alain Rolland. The acting Wallaby captain (Stirling Mortlock was off the field with an injured knee) pointed out to the referee that the Springboks had sealed off a ruck forcing the Wallabies to come in from the side to get to the ball.
‘I didn’t see the Springboks player but I did see the Wallaby player,’ Rolland said.
Alas, this sort of mistake was repeated by Rolland all match. When a Springbok illegally charged a Wallaby penalty kick, Rolland allowed the infraction by saying that play wasn’t effected.
The Springboks conned some penalties from scrums, even when they were shoved off the ball.
The Wallabies were pulled up for forward passes that weren’t, for incorrect feeds to the scrums despite the Springboks doing the same, for hands on in the rucks when the Springboks were sealing off rucks and mauls with impunity.
The complaint that the Springboks don’t play much or any rugby (a point I’ve made myself) needs to be put into context too.
For the first half, at least, before they ran out of gas after three consecutive hard Tests, the Springboks played a shrewd game of counter-attacks from the Wallaby kicks.
The big runners made in-roads through the Wallaby defence and then a couple of the backs tried to flash through the gaps created, before penalties were conceded to them.
After the first three Tri-Nations Tests in South Africa, it needs to be stated that the Springboks were too good for the All Blacks and for the Wallabies. The intriguing question is whether this dominance can be carried through to the Tests in Australia and New Zealand.
Last season the Springboks defeated the All Blacks at Carisbrook for the first time since 1921. They lost the other Tests in New Zealand and Australia. My guess is that the Springboks would be happy to win one of the three Tests this season out of South Africa.
If they do this, or go better and win two Tests, their status as one of the greatest of all Springboks sides will be confirmed.
So far in the 2009 Tri-Nations the home side has won all four matches.
You’d think that if this pattern is to be broken, the Springboks are the side to do this.
But will it be a case, as so often in the past, that the Springboks are too good in South Africa and not good enough out of Africa?
Ray
Guest
Now what makes you think that I am Akrikaans or even South African? Thanks for the pointers Mike, I'll leave the language of love up to you then? =)
Mike
Guest
Ray, Maybe Afrikaans is your first language, in which case i will excuse you, but its spelled "bleat", not "bleet"!
Ray
Guest
Bleet bleet bleet Mitch O. Sore loser, bet if your team was winning that way you wouldn't complain. Get over yourself and lose with humility.
Rusty
Roar Guru
Its a strange thing the dissapearing 4 and I agree with you on the the modern coaching/game being the culprit. Players are being told they need to be versatile to improve their prospects and as such we are seeing less specialists and more utility players. They maybe fantastic overall athletes but I dont believe they are as effective in certain key aspects..well at least not against a specialist e.g. Matfield. I suspect when all the specialists have been coached out the game we wont notice the difference!. This isnt just restricted to lock, after all if you look at the Wallaby backline it seems to be made of players who havent really settled into a single position. I also wonder if this is a bit of fallout from the ELVs? The heavier locks/players would have struggled more than the leaner players and as such perhaps fallen out of focus?
Knives Out
Guest
Rusty, 1. I know and I thought that at the time, but in an ideal world... I think it's interesting that you noted the lack of a Botha-esque player coming through the ranks in SA. I think we are seeing the same issue in most countries. England has literally nobody beyond Simon Shaw, and we saw how useless England was during the Autumn tests when Johnson ignored Shaw. Conversely, we saw how much Shaw added to the English 6N campaign, and likewise the Lions. France also has trouble with this role with neither Nallet or Chabal being a traditional 4. O'Connell started out as a 4 with O'Kelly the 5 jumper, but he has drifted into the no man's land of 4.5. He certainly isn't a jumper in the mould of Matfield, nor is he an enforcer. SA is probably the only country with the traditional 4 & 5 lock pairing (perhaps NZ too: Thorn and Ross). I blame modern coaching for this, where every player has to be able to do a bit of everything hence we now have O'Connell, O'Callaghan, A.W. Jones, Borthwick, Ian Evans, Nallet, Pape, Horwill, Sharpe, Williams etc . I think it's a serious (and interesting) issue because the more 4 locks around the simpler the ruck contest should be. Just look at NZ, Henry had to call up Bryn Evans. It's a mad situation. 4. I had completely forgotten about Olivier. I did some research the other week (which was instigated by a SA rugby pal) and I found out that Olivier and Fourie have actually played together a reasonable amount of times for the Boks, so all things considered there shouldn't be too much of a transitional problem. Is Barritt not already capped at England 'A'/Saxon level? If he isn't then form permitting I can see him being involved with the test 22 over the next 12 months.
Rusty
Roar Guru
Damn this limit to replies KO 1. Me too but I think PdV being new to his position with the hoopla about why he was picked would have wanted to get winning first and thinking about the future later. The alternative would be to lose and have no coaching future! I agree on the need to incrementaly rotate players to blood them, creat competition and ultimately work out sucession. There are definitely positions that need attention. LH is one, the Beast is incredibly mobile and an able scrummager but is really only 3 years in the position. Get Heinke in there to destroy them early and then swing the Beast on. Saying that Heinke has been injured for so long its hard to know if he will be as effective. TH, again Smit is able but not exceptional and needs better cover than du Plessis who I see as another journeyman. There are a few TH props around but they need to prove themselves more at Super14 level. Brok harris is one of them and Pat Cilliers is another. For hooker I like Strauss but to me Liebenberg is the form rake of the CC this year. It might be because the oft maligned WP pack is doing a number on their opposition but their tight 5 is looking very good. Hard on the loosies in our country though - there is a conveyor belt of quality players for all positions which is tough on guys like Botes, Daniels, Alberts, Vermuelen, Potgieter, Grobbelaar, Kankowski and Deysel. At least the mould has been broken with Heinrich so players like Botes might get a look in. Despite the disiveness he creates - Bakkies is our best player on the pitch. Not in a flashy sort of way but through the powerful grafting in the tight phases. I have genuine concerns that we dont seem to have a player in his mould or effectiveness coming through. Rossouw fills the gap in a pinch but is only a year younger than Botha. Same can be said of Muller. The jury is still out on Sykes but he is neither in Victor or Bakkies's mould - more middle ground. I would like to see more of Adriaan Fondse as the sucessor, it helps that his Stormers partner is Bekker and I hope the next Super season is his breakout. Agree on all the other players 4. totally agree. I see Olivier in this role for now. Then stock to be taken after next years Super 14's performances. It wouldnt surprise me if Morgan Newman crops up again but hopefully not as another Earl Rose selection. Left field would for someone in SA rugby to bring back Brad Barritt before he turns out in the whites on England
Derm
Roar Guru
Oh - that's terrible news. 19:38
Ivan
Guest
Ill never forget it... it still angers me :)
Knives Out
Guest
Interesting points as usual, Rusty. 1. As an 'objective' rugby fan I would have liked to have seen more players blooded on the most recent European tour, or at least used more widely. PdV is simply not willing to drop players, or at least it seems. I think an ideal scenario would be to have Mtawarira and van der Merwe rotated, or at least have both selected to get some competition going, likewise Rossouw at 4 and Bekker at 5. (Iinterestingly, for such a rough and tumble rugby nation I haven't seen any good number 4's playing in SA. Are there any? I'm not a fan of Muller or Sykes.) The same applies to the back row where Brussow only gained selection through default, as opposed to having his talent recognised. I'd also love to see Strauss get an opportunity in the hooking jersey, although I recognise that Ralepelle has been selected for specific reasons. Obviously I don't know as much about SA rugby as you but from what I have seen I'd like to see more of van der Merwe, Strauss, Rossouw (at 4 like you say), Botes, Vermaak (injured) and Ludik (injured). 4. I agree, although with JdV and Steyn missing it will be interesting to see who crops up at 12. That's why I think the rotation (at least on a subtle scale at first) mentioned above is key.
Michael
Guest
Spiro - you as a well renowned rugby writer, I find it absolutely astounding that you never watched the game, yet make comments as if you did. First of all Giteau was sinbinned first, then Brown a couple of minutes later (13 men) and finally George Smith at the end of the game ? You have said and I quote "First George Smith was yellow-carded for silly stupidity. Then Richard Brown was sent to the sin bin for a messy mistake where his timing after making the tackle was just off. Later on in the half, Matt Giteau was sin-binned. Then at the end of the Test, Smith was sent off the field again" And judging by all the comments re South Africa's boring style and Australia's supposed running style, your memories are short - do you remember the 50 points we put over you less than a year ago.. was that all kicking ?. We play what we see in front of us and trust me, we have plenty more in the tank, and am sure you will witness some great running rugby (and winnning) before the season is out by us.
Hazeydaves
Guest
Spiro, if you are going to make comment on the game (and get paid for it) maybe you should watch the game. Git's was the first player sin-binned for a clumsy challenge on the Safa halfback when a high ball was put up. This was followed by Richard Brown making a stupid decision to pick the ball up from the wrong side of the ruck ("I was the tackling player sir", it was just a shame a ruck had formed. Goerge Smith was not given a red card at the end of the game but rather a yellow. These were pretty major developments in the game, what the hell were you watching Spiro?
Rusty
Roar Guru
1. I wouldnt say they are the next best things and perhaps lean more to the solid rather than spectacular side of the ledger. Although for my money Danie Rossouw has always been underrated - unfortunately coaches consistently play him at 7 and 6 rather than 8 or his best position which is lock. I would also like to see more of Olivier, Kankowski and Bekker. The latter needs to be brought on at 5 not 4. In broad terms I think there is talent there but its still pretty rough. Players to my mind for the future: Jean Deysel, Duane Vermuelen, Dewald Potgeiter, Kockott, Tiger Bax, Burton Francis, Joe Pieterson, Adriaan Fondse, Liebenberg, Ludick to name a few. Players injured or on the come back trail I would also like to see in the mix, Tonderai Chavangha, Heinke v Merwe and Nick Koster 3. Dick Muir - its Sharks pragmatic percentage based backline play sharpened through the boot of du Preez. 4. Fair point. So what you are saying is that because in general because there are less experienced players within this Bok team it has less players who can improve the team as a whole? Bit of a double edged sword isnt it as thats kind of what you want but there is a risk that the current stalwarts might not be in form come 2011 and then what have we got? In some ways I am glad there a players doing the OS sabbatical thing because it will force the coaches & selectors hands a bit in covering those positions before the RWC 5. You are right. A 'W' is great to have but to end debate you need to put down a marker every time you play and that marker needs to say "we are the best, you arent even close and you know it"
Knives Out
Guest
4. OK, I don't think the majority of the SA squad will improve simply because it is not being asked of them. That's my position. Let's digress.. I don't think any improvement from the younger or older players will be significant unless SA can develop an alternate way to play. For example, Martin Johnson was a far better ball carrier in his 30s than in his mid-20s because England utilised him as a carrier. Will Botha make the same improvement? I doubt it. And no, I am not saying the style of play is so crap. I have never criticised the way that SA has won their past three games. All I have said is that the backs have looked inept. There is a stark difference. Why would you contrast Smith with so many different players? If you try it with position then a different argument emerges. Smith's opposition in the English back row would be Croft, Haskell and Robshaw, for example. His opposition in the Irish back row would be Ferris, for example. Look at the English back division: Care, Flood, Banahan, Monye, Tait and Armitage. The Irish back division: Fitzgerald, Bowe and Kearney. The Welsh back division: Roberts, Halfpenny, Phillips, Byrne. The French back division: Parra, Trinh-Duc, Bastareud, Medard. Then consider how many caps these players have in contrast to the SA back division. There is no parallel in terms of experience. No side in test rugby can match SA rugby for experience.
Chris
Guest
We've had this exact same argument a couple of months back on another message board (Hib?). 2- Let's agree to disagree about the 2nd lions test 4- Your changing your argument. You were focussing on the players, saying that the members of the team are aging and hence won't improve before the world cup. I answered by pointing out that there are plenty of younger players in the side that are still in the process of developiing their game. What you are saying now is that the style of play is so crap that the players won't make a difference. In your previous post, you described the English, New Zealand, Australian and Irish sides are as young. I presume you mean young when compared to the Springbok side. Interestingly the facts don't back up that claim. You seem to suggest that a player like Juan Smith is so old (he is 28 by the way) that he won't develop before the next world cup. I have a little time so lets see how many of the young english side are in fact older than him. From the English elite squad- Steve Borthwick, George Chuter, Louis Deacon, Nick Easter, Ben Kay, Lee Mears,Tim Payne, Simon Shaw, Andrew Sheridan, Phil Vickery, Joe Worsley,Julian White, Mark Cueto, Riki Flutey, Mike Tindall, Jonny Wilkinson Ireland D'Arcy, Flannery, Hayes, Horan, Horgan, O'Callaghan, O'Connell, O'Driscoll, O'Gara,David Wallace New Zealand Muliaina, So'oialo, McCaw,Thorn, Hore, Mealamu Austrlia Baxter, Sharpe, Smith, Mortlock, Waugh, Cross
Knives Out
Guest
Chris, 2. What do you mean there was no need to adapt their style of play? That is not the point. Saying that the SA backs look pedestrian is not a criticism of an effective kicking game. The point is that when presented with opportunities the back line has looked totally shorn of confidence or invention. What does the 2nd Lions test prove and how did SA change their tactics? They didn't as I recall, the Lions actually changed theirs and tried to outfight SA. SA pulled the match back due to injuries rather than an amazing change of tactical direction. 4. What does it matter that these guys can improve when they are stuck within such a rigid gameplan? Is their kicking game plan so strong that nobody can match it? I'm sure Pietersen can improve as a player, but what does it matter if he isn't utilised? I'm pretty sure that the SA forward game will be stopped this 3N and then what? NZ and Australia have different ideas on how to play the game but will no doubt be working on meeting the SA forwards which means they are improving in two fronts. Do you think SA is doing the same in practice? Let's think of it this way: after the 2004 3N people presumed that the big SA green machine was unstoppable, and then SA travelled to Europa and got beaten and beaten up by Andy Robinson's England (and that is not a great statistic). Jake White said that he was shocked that his pack was so badly beaten. He did not develop the team's style after that and there was a fallow period of 2 years. That was no great England team, but it provided a routine with what to beat SA. Where was plan B? Eddie Jones eventually came in and helped the backs and SA looked a far better unit. Personally, I can see the same thing happening here. SA are winning at home with a basic style and people are presuming that winning is enough. It is in the short-term, but eventually the wheels will come off and I think SA will be exactly where they were in 05 and 06. 5. I should have specified: the most experienced SA team. Btw, the Ireland team that you refer to has changed considerably with Stringer, Shane Horgan, Simon Easterby and Geordan Murphy being replaced by Tomas O'Leary, Luke Fitzgerald, Stephen Ferris and Rob Kearney. The SA side has basically remained constant bar the retirements of du Randt and Montgomery. Experience isn't that hard to quantify. SA has experience throughout the entire team: the 2nd row, the back row (including Burger), the centre partnership and the back three. No other test side can match that even distribution of caps. You forget that the SA side was missing Pienaar and Burger, that is 80 caps automatically and you also forget that the NZ side had more than half of it's starting caps distributed with 5 players: Woodcock, McCaw, So'oialo, Rokocko and Muliania. Key decision makers are still very inexperienced in the NZ camp: Franks, Ross, Cowan and Donald.
Chris
Guest
2- Have a look at the second half of the second Lions test, the boks adapted their game-plan and they pulled back a 12 point margin. In the last three TN games there simply was no need to adapt their style of play. As an aside, I don't think their style is very effective at the moment. They are kicking some very good ball away and letting some good opportunities die by slowing their game down too much. The best style of rugby I have seen the springboks play this season was in the first test against the All Balcks. Yes they were still relying heavily on their kicking game, but they managed to move the defence around before kicking it. I would like to see springbok style become more sophisticated in the way they manipulate the defence. 3- Unfortunately I saw the Boks play in 2006, that was a truly dreadful backline. 4- It is true that a fair portion of the side has reached a plateau and are unlikely to improve in future, but there are also guys like B Du Plessis (25), Mtawarira (24), Brussouw (23), Spies (24), Steyn (25) and Pietersen (23) who have established themselves in the side at a young age and who are still on the right side of their career tragetories. Fourie Du Preez and Jaque Fourie are still only 27 and 26 respectively. I had a look at the stats from the Durban test against the ABs- the average age of the team is at a pretty healthy 26.2. 5- Slight correction, the Irish WC 2007 is the most experienced international side, ito total caps, ever. Experience is pretty hard to quantify, but the normal methos of doing it is to add up the total number of caps in the starting XV. On that count, SA hardly wipes the floor with the All Black side they played a couple of weeks back. The Springbok starting XV had a total of 605 caps and the All Blacks 544. I would also add that watching that game I never felt that the All Blacks would win. The scoreboard never lies, but I always felt comfortable that SA would win.
Knives Out
Guest
David, 'Jees, Knives Out, you really get yourself into knots trying to find reasons to put down the Springboks. Intercept points are points and if any of the other teams could score them, you can bet they would try. Rush defence is an effective defence and a skill that every backline should have.' I would like you to find a piece of evidence from my writing that confirms the above statement and my cynical assessment of the rush defence and South Africa's historic penchant for scoring intercept tries. Please enlighten me. 'I don’t know. JdV and Habana used to score a lot of tries through intercepts which came about from the rush defence. Now SA don’t use that method exclusively and the intercepts have dried up. ' It seems to me that this is merely an observation with no underlying dismissive tone. It seems that you are tying yourself in knots trying to suggest that I am anti-SA. Your other two paragraphs are silly, I'm afraid. I can only presume that you haven't actually watched any of the 3N games thus far because the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The SA backline has looked clueless. When presented with the ball in broken play the passing has been passive and obvious. This is not a lone observation. I am not in the minority. That the above mentioned players have scored tries in the Super tournament is completely irrelevant and I very much doubt that if SA were able to score tries at will that they would ignore the chance of a bonus point win. Btw, I can only presume that you missed the Super tournament as well as the most recent 3N games because the Sharks backs were truly hopeless. Again, we come back to the Australia game. So what? That is one game in two seasons of boring, preventive play. One game in 20 is an aberration. You conveniently forget the fact that the scoring bonanza was against a severely weakened Australian team at home in SA following two home drubbings. What about all the other games in that 3N? What about the test against Italy? What about the tests against Wales and Scotland? What about the tests against the Lions? You honestly think that one game in SA against a 2nd team indicates that SA can mix and match with the best of them? That is risable logic. Get a new hobby, David. Rugby isn't for you.
David
Guest
Jees, Knives Out, you really get yourself into knots trying to find reasons to put down the Springboks. Intercept points are points and if any of the other teams could score them, you can bet they would try. Rush defence is an effective defence and a skill that every backline should have. The mistake I think many of you are making is the following: the fact that the Springboks have not needed to score tries to win games does not mean that their backline is incapable of scoring tries. As you note, du Preez, de Villier, Steyn, Habana, Pietersen have all scored loads of tries in recent times both for the 'boks and for their S14 teams. They are clearly capable of scoring tries. However, the Springboks have chosen, over the last two games to play a different style of rugby. In Durban, I believe the weather had a large role to play in the strategy. I also think SA has adapted their game to the new laws. Australia gifted so many penalties to SA that they didn't need to do more than apply pressure. Besides, the mistakes Australia were forced to make often resulted from pressure by the Springbok backs. The try, for example, resulted directly from pressure from Habana. This is part of what makes Habana an exciting player and part of the reason why the Springbok backs are good. They are not just sitting in midfield waiting for the forwards to win penalties. They are part of the pressure machine. In the last two 3N's , the Springboks have shown that they are capable of playing two very different types of rugby. The kind of rugby they played against Australia last year when they drummed them 53-8 and the kind they played against Australia this year. They obviously know when to play which game and they have players that can adapt to both kinds of game. You may prefer to watch the Aussie or NZ backs get hammered while they play what you think is a superior back line game, but in rugby, it's about points on the board.
Derm
Roar Guru
That one still hurts by O'Gara - doesn't it? Tee hee. When you're a minnow country, you have to be creative against the big guns and catch them napping. :)
Knives Out
Guest
Australia reacted extremely well to the rolling maul, Ivan, as did the Lions when Simon Shaw was playing. I would wait until the European tour before making such bold claims.