Despite four straight losses, the Wallabies reckon there is nothing wrong with their game plan. But they may still be tempted to re-write it after the Springboks issued a chilling warning ahead of their Tri-Nations rugby clash at Suncorp Stadium on Saturday night.
While the Wallabies are confident of closing the gap on the world champions following their tight 32-25 loss last weekend in Perth, Springboks coach Peter de Villiers claimed it was “frightening” how good his side could become.
“You never know when you are at the top (of your game),” de Villiers said.
“I know this team can go much, much higher. And I know there is also much more talent in the (South African) rugby cattle.
“Now we’re at the point where we can trust each other, we can work on the little things that can make them so much better.
“It’s frightening to know, (considering) the amount of mistakes (made) on a weekend when you have played so well, the amount of mistakes they made and how good they can be (if) clinical in their execution.
“So yes, we trust each other, we know where we can be and we know where we want to be but we’re not taking anything for granted.”
After surprisingly surviving the axe wielded by Wallabies coach Robbie Deans for this weekend’s game, winger Lachlan Turner did not have to be told that Australia needed to produce against the Boks.
However, Turner said history showed just how quickly a team could turn things around.
Indeed Australia are a prime example of how a team can morph into world beaters.
The Wallabies suffered a record 61-22 loss to the Springboks in Pretoria in 1997, but just two years later they were holding aloft the World Cup trophy.
“I don’t think there is anything wrong with our game plan,” Turner said in Brisbane on Wednesday.
“The fact that we have been close the entire series (shows that).
“We’ve got the game plan to really wrestle games away from the opposition (but) as a unit we’ve got to concentrate for the whole 80 minutes – once we do that we will be hard to stop.
“One game can really change the momentum of a side.
“We are very aware of that. Once we develop that winning momentum we will be pretty hard to beat.”
Turner added: “This is our last Test match in Australia (in the Tri-Nations series) – we really want to finish off on a winning note.”
The wobbly Wallabies received surprise support from Springboks skipper John Smit.
“The Wallabies are copping a rough time in the media – unfairly so I’d say,” he said.
“We’ve all been there.
“I’ve been in a (2006) side that lost five Tests in a row, let alone four (by the Wallabies).
“You guys (in the media) treated us as a laughing stock. A year later we won the World Cup.
“Things can change in a very short period.”
WALLABIES Age
Fullback James O’Connor 19
Winger Lachie Turner 22
Outside centre Adam Ashley-Cooper 25
Inside centre Berrick Barnes 23
Winger Drew Mitchell 25
Five-eighth Matt Giteau 26
Halfback Will Genia 21
No.8 George Smith (captain) 29
Openside flanker David Pocock 21
Blindside flanker Rocky Elsom 26
Lock Mark Chisholm 27
Lock James Horwill 24
Tighthead prop Ben Alexander 24
Hooker Tatafu Polota-Nau 24
Loosehead prop Benn Robinson 25Average age of starting side: 24
Reserves:
Stephen Moore 26
Pek Cowan 23
Dean Mumm 25
Wycliff Palu 27
Luke Burgess 26
Quade Cooper 21
Peter Hynes 27SPRINGBOKS
Fullback Ruan Pienaar 25
Winger Odwa Ndungane 28
Outside centre Jaque Fourie 26
Inside centre Jean de Villiers 28
Winger Bryan Habana 26
Five-eighth Morne Steyn 25
Halfback Fourie du Preez 27
No.8 Pierre Spies 24
Openside flanker Juan Smith 28
Blindside flanker Heinrich Brussow 23
Lock Victor Matfield 32
Lock Bakkies Botha 29
Tighthead prop John Smit (captain) 31
Hooker Bismarck du Plessis 25
Loosehead prop Tendai Mtawarira 24Average age of starting side: 27
Reserves:
Chiliboy Ralepelle 22
Jannie du Plessis 26
Danie Rossouw 31
Schalk Burger 26
Ricky Januarie 27
Adi Jacobs 29
Frans Steyn 22
mattamkII
Guest
Nick, you must have a short memory. About 18 months ago it was widely reported all over the world that the players dont listen to him and they play how they want to.... I think I remember Matfield actually going on record about it at one stage.
QC
Guest
To right Bas, Seems some people generally Bok supporters don't believe our world cup win counts because they weren't involved. South Africa are hot right now thats undisputable, what I am disputing however is that they are not a great team YET!! I know I'd rather have one less WC and be the most dominant nation in world rugby as oppossed to a one trick pony who seem to only come about once every four years with the odd exception like this year thrown in for good measure.
BAS
Guest
Here we go angain the WC issue with the AB's. Everyone everywhere seems to always say that NZ has been favourites for every single WC. When you boil it down it is BS as pointed out. FFS look at current form and TAB already has NZ at favourites, they just seem to get it regardless of form and its just bollocks. People everywhere love the wind up that comes with us only having 1 world cup. Thats only 1 less than the next best. I find it particularly funny that the aussies often claim superiority because of this. This is a team we have beaten over 100 times cf to 40 odd. And ask yourself this - would you prefer to be consistently number 1/2 or win 1 extra WC and be consistent toilet?
Knives Out
Guest
'New Zealand have been the favourites for every single World Cup to date and why is that?' No they haven't.
Knives Out
Guest
Australia were favourites in 1987. I'm not sure about England in 1995 but they had won in SA in 1994, so that may have suggested something big was on the horizon.
Nick
Guest
mattamkll How do u know that? Dont make statement u cant be sure of and take the mans credit away.
mattamkII
Guest
would PDV just shut the fark up? has anyone reminded him of late that the whole world knows he's doesn't actually 'coach' the team. He's just a token.....
QC
Guest
Now that is the best load of tripe I have seen to date on ya fox. We expect them to be the best Fox doesn't everyone expect their team to be the best? Seriously I have a sore stomach from laughing so much at how silly your post is. The thing is Fox it is people like you, who know how good we really are thats why you take so much pleasure in New Zealands loses. When New Zealand loses its a big deal in world rugby apart from SA no other nation comes close to creating the same buzz as the All Blacks.
Viscount Crouchback
Guest
This is quite right. New Zealand is, ceteris paribus, the top dog. It's that simple.
fox
Guest
BS. NZ citizens, players and officials expect to be the best in the world every second of everyday into eternity and will not be satisfied with anything less. That's the reality. I've been in New Zealand and read the newspapars often enough to know that much. ABs staff and players are simply too clever to claim favouritism ahead of matches and tournaments. Nobody wants to be favourites, everybody wants the underdog title. That's the modern sporting mentality. no use getting the opposition fired up ahead of the game! This doesn't mean they, or anyone else, don't expect to be the best all the time. It's an obsession. I think I read the NZ rugby psyche pretty well. That's why kiwis are so easy to wind up after losses!
Willem
Guest
You wont see it in my comments because you have to read in context of the fact that it was in relation to comments made above although i did not address the response to anyone. and if you read you will see once sam took me up on my first statement on th eAll blacks i only argued those i could remember. I only argued 95 onwards. Maybe i should not of made such a broad statement in my first comment but it is not relevant because wether you are right or i am it is proving what i treid to say. And i did not make three points i made two, i stand by my comment about 99 wont keep arguing about 95 cause i am not sure. But like i said it is not the point i was trying to get accros.
Jerry G
Guest
Heh - Willem, could you explain to me WHERE you were trying to prove that point? You jump in with "NZ are always favourites, they just choke" and Sam shows that NZ weren't always favourites. Your response that "Well, that just proves I'm right" is completely illogical cause you hadn't been arguing that point at all. And given the first 3 points you made in the paragraph you quoted were also completely incorrect, it's hardly surprising people jump in and correct you again.
Sam Taulelei
Guest
Fair enough Willem, it's probably more accurate to say that for the 1999 tournament there were no clearcut favourites. If SA had a great 1998 season and a poor Tri Nations the following year then NZ can't have been rated any better than SA as we had a terrible 1998 season and only marginally better Tri Nations in 1999 even though we won it on bonus points. Your point about 2003 is irrelevant as favouritism with bookies will always fluctuate throughout the tournament based upon performances but before the first match kicked off between Australia and Argentina, England were the firm favourites for the cup. NZ were rated their strongest challenger after the 50 point thrashings of SA and Australia but England stlll dusted us on our home turf that year.
Willem
Guest
no you are infact incorrect that was my line in my first reply to Sam. Thankyou. I qoute "SA were not anywhere near favourates in 1999 we were in pretty bad form that year, and you want to tell me that the 95 NZ team with lomu and few werent the favourates. Personally cant remember 87 i was only a 1 year old at the time. And besides if what you are saying is correct (which i doubt), then it proves the point i am trying to prove and that is that favourates do win world cups." Does this look familiar.
Sam Taulelei
Guest
Oops I was too slow off the mark Jerry.
Sam Taulelei
Guest
Ok Willem I finally understand the point you are trying to make that on the basis of England's win in 2003 a pre world cup tournament favourite can actually win the world cup. However you've gotten myself, Jerry and Shahshan confused when your original comment was "all the other WC years only one team was the favourate going into the worldcup and that was NZ." Our responses to your original comment was to disagree and explain why.
Jerry G
Guest
Don't be disingenuous Willem - you only reverted to that line after people called you on your many incorrect statements. And seeing as you're arguing that favourites can win without actually knowing who the favourites are, why the hell should anyone regard your arguments as anything other than ill informed?
Willem
Guest
Exactly they CAN. if you read what is written by me i am trying to prove they CAN, not will or probably but CAN.So take some of your own advice step back and get some perspective on what i am saying and trying to say rather then just jump on your keyboard and rant of a bunch of facts but not realising what you are actually trying to argue.
Jerry G
Guest
Er, no - if you actually read what's written we're not. We're showing that the pre-tournament favourite tends not to win the WC. Of course they CAN, as England (and arguably Aus) has in the past, but most of the time they don't. I'll spell it out for you simply. Aus were favourites in 87. Did not win NZ were favourites in 91. Did not win. Aus and England were favourites in 95. Did not win. There was no runaway favourite in 99, though Aus were considered co-favourites by some. They did win, but obviously SA, the other co-favourite did not. NZ were favourites in 07. Did not win. England in 03 were the only runaway favourite to have won a WC. What does this mean for SA? Possibly nothing. It shows it's hard for a team to maintain a peak for 2-3 seasons and it shows that no matter how good a team's pre-tournament form, they may not win the World Cup. And given (as I said earlier) SA hasn't managed to string two good seasons together as frontrunners in world rugby, I reckon those Bok fans proclaiming their godlike status and impending domination of rugby for the next 5 years should really take a step back and get a bit of perspective.
Willem
Guest
Like i said before i did not want be pulled into a debate about who was favourates "cause i am going of memorie only". I am just trying to make the point hat favourates can go all the way and you guys are proving that for me.