France’s Maxime Mermoz, left, is tackled by Wynand Olivier, center, and Heinrich Brussow of South Africa during their international rugby union match in Toulouse, southwestern France, Friday, Nov. 13, 2009. (AP Photo/Christophe Ena)
Rugby writers often joke about which French side will turn up for a given Test match. The World Champion Springboks, coming off a fabulous year in which they defeated the British and Irish Lions and won the Tri-Nations tournament, were guillotined 20 – 13 at Toulouse by a real French side.
The score line does not do justice to the domination France exerted on the Springboks for all the match and especially in the second half, except for a 20 minute period leading up to half-time.
France lost 14 points with a number of missed kicks at goal. None was easier, or seemingly more crucial at the time, than when Morgan Parra, a young half back, missed a penalty right in front with only minutes left to play. France were leading by 17 – 13, and the penalty would have taken the game entirely away from the Springboks.
From the opening kick-off France showed its intentions by engaging the Springboks forward in a heated exchange with barging bodies bouncing off each other like dodgems. From then on, aside from the occasional set piece, the French pack was too strong for the Springboks in the lineouts, at the rucks and mauls (except for some sensational snatches by Heinrich Brussow) and, particularly, in the scrums. John Smit’s position as a prop must come under serious consideration.
Towards the end of the Test with only 1 point being the difference, France won three consecutive penalties from scrums. The points taking France out to its final 7-point margin were from penalties forced when the dominant home pack simply monstered the South African pack.
France were very good, too, under the high ball, both from Springboks kicks and from their own. In a sense, the Springboks were Bokked by their opponents.
The Test was played at Toulouse, a great rugby city. The captain of France was Thierry Dusautoir, the fiery and dynamic loose forward who made 26 tackles against the All Blacks at Cardiff in France’s memorable victory in the 2009 Rugby World Cup quarter-final. Dusautoir was simply magnificent again, tackling, scrapping for the ball, chesting his props after a dominant scrum and playing with the controlled fury that the great loose forwards use to dominate their opponents.
The crowd sang, cheered, the bands blasted out, the Springboks were booed for late tackles and the home side was cheered for everything, including some spectacular dives to force a penalty. All this was in the great tradition of the crowd being ‘the 16th player.’
The referee was Wayne Barnes, who officiated at the Cardiff boilover. A couple of years on, Barnes has matured into a better referee than he was in 2007 when he was overbearing and inclined to make mistakes. He was not conned by the French diving. He did, however, sort out a lot of the Springboks attempt to play the ball in the rucks when they were on the ground.
I noticed, too, that he often talked to the French in French calling out ‘attention!’ when a player might have been offside and ‘laissez!’ to players with their hands on the ball when they should be releasing after the tackle. France responded to this by generally not indulging themselves by giving away stupid penalties.
The Springboks were caught short by this spirited play of France, by their refusal to be intimidated by the high balls and their refusal to make the same sort of stupid mistakes perpetrated by the All Blacks and the Wallabies. The greasy field, too, led to many handling mistakes by usually faultless players like Bryan Habana.
Not even the genius of Fourie du Preez, again the supreme halfback, could save the Springboks. At the end of the Test, du Preez made a break-outfrom inside his 22. He snaked past a number of defenders, put in a deft chip kick which he re-gathered and with Springboks lining up to continue the threatening attack, lost the slippery ball just as he was going to make his pass.
With not much coming from the high ball tactics, and with their set pieces being monstered, the Springboks tried to make attacks with their backs. But they missed the abrasive, direct running (and the interceptions) of Jean de Villiers. The Springbok backs were mediocre in attack. In fact, the rolling maul was the team’s most penetrative ploy.
When I mentioned earlier in the year that the Springboks were a one-trick-pony team, with the high ball used extensively to force mistakes and penalties, I was lambasted by readers in South Africa. The strength of this game is obvious from the great success, make that the historic success, the Springboks have enjoyed this season. But it is essentially a negative game plan. If the opposition does not make mistakes under pressure, then the Springboks struggle to get points.
In the second half, the Springboks played into a strong wind. They did not put any points on the board. However, with the score France 14 – South Africa 13, the Springboks forced a penalty which in ordinary circumstances Morne Steyn, who had not missed a shot up till then, would have kicked easily. He missed. And with the miss you could sense that South Africa were going to lose.
Up to this Test, France had played won 4 Tests and lost four Tests. Two of the losses were against New Zealand in New Zealand (after winning the first Test) and to Australia, in Australia. The only two matches played at home up to the Toulouse Test against the Springboks were won by France.
France at home is more likely to be the real France, than France playing away from home. The Springboks have now lost their first match in the Northern Hemisphere since England beat them 23 -21 three years ago. France remain unbeaten by the Springboks at home since 1997.
This is clearly not the end of the Springboks as a great side. But it is a warning shot that greatness has to earned every Test. France has shown how to defeat the Springboks and other sides will try to follow the game plan.
That’s the bad news for the Springboks. The good news is that there are few teams in the world, if any, who can play with the same esprit (a French word after all) of a French side that is encouraged by fanatical supporters who know and love their team when it comes to play real rugby.
‘Allez les Bleus!’
tongstar
Guest
go France. i love when the boks are out bokked.. they are just a bunch of numbskulls who have such a poor attitude to fair and decent behaviour on the field.
Joh4Canberra
Guest
As a professional singer I can tell you that was one strange performance of the South African national anthem. I can identify a number of things going on and it is overly simplistic to state that he was singing "off key" as most have stated. In the first part (Nkosi sikelel' iAfrika in Xhosa, Zulu and Sesotho) he wasn't singing the melody but he wasn't exactly "off key" either. What I think he was doing was actually singing a harmony line instead of the melody. Listening with my trained musician's ears that whole first section fits together harmonically. It's the kind of thing I might do when drunk to impress a crowd of people singing happy birthday. When added to a group of people singing the melody a harmony line sounds OK. But sung on its own, without the context of the melody, the harmony line sounds utterly "wrong" as it bears no resemblance to the tune people know. If you're engaged as a solo singer you HAVE to sing the melody. It's as straightforward as that. He should not be ad libbing a harmony line when he has been employed to sing the melody. He was a silly man for doing that and deserves all the criticism he gets. A second problem occurred after it went into "Uit die blou van onse hemel" (Afrikaans). The key the band/orchestra played in was not at all suited to his vocal range and you can hear this in the Afrikaans section as he basically starts off singing it an octave higher than you would expect given whathas just come before. This guy basically has a tenor voice and the band was playing the piece in a key suitable for a bass or baritone so that the low notes of "Uit die blou van onse hemel" were too low for our singer's range. But then when he's singing the octave up the high notes become too high and he strains to get some of them, and others he just can't get at ll and then it sounds like he's singing out of tune and by the time of the final section in English he has lost it and is singing something that resembles neither the melody nor a harmony line that fits with the melody in the key it was being played. The first problem I have identified was entirely of his own making. He simply shouldn't have done that and instead should have sung the melody. The second problem was possibly of his own making, possibly also of the band's making. That's what rehearsals are for. You don't just turn up and sing. Everyone has a finite vocal range and as a singer you know what it is and you make sure that you're not going to have to sing anything outside of your range. Either make sure the band plays the song in a key where you can sing all the notes or don't take on an engagement that will require you to sing outside of your range. Oh, and having said all that I didn't think his voice was much good anyway. Even he'd actually hit all the right notes it wouldn't have sounded that good. But I suppose few would have complained the way they did.
Joe4Canberra
Guest
How does the Beast manage to play for South Africa when he's not South African? There are several distinct issues here which we need to be careful not to confuse: (1) the IRB rules about player eligibility, (2) the South African Rugby Union's own selection policies, (3) South African law. 1. IRB ELIGIBILITY RULES Under the IRB regulations there are four ways you can qualify to play for a national team and importantly "citizenship" is NOT one of them. As far as the IRB rules are concerned you don't have be a South African "citizen" to play rugby for South Africa or an Australian "citizen" to play for Australia etc. "Citizenship" is a legal construct peculiar to each country and is not relevant for the IRB's rules. In fact it presents a particular problem in relation to the Home Nations as there is no such thing in law as "English", "Scottish or "Welsh" citizenship (there is a single "British" citizenship which covers the people of these countries) and members of the Ireland national team come from two sovereign states with their own distinct citizenship rules (the Republic of Ireland and the UK in the case of those players who come from Northern Ireland)! The four ways of qualifying for eligibility for an international team are: (1) the country of your birth, (2) the country of a parent's birth, (3) the country of a grandparent's birth, (4) three years' continuous residency. Under those rules a person can be eligible to play for more than one team (although nowadays once you've played for one you can't then switch). Now assuming the the Beast has lived in South Africa for three years continuously then as far as the IRB rules are concerned he is eligible to play for South Africa, regardless of whether or not he takes out South African citizenship. A Zimbabwean citizen and passport holder living in South Africa can qualify to play for South Africa under the IRB rules. There is nothing in the IRB rules that says you first have to take out South African citizenship to play for South Africa. If the South Africans are happy to have a Zimbabwean citizen play for their national side that's a matter for them and is no-one else's concern provided he qualifies under one of the four IRB rules. Talk of the Beast's "ineligibility" on the basis that he is not South African is therefore a little bit misleading. Maybe he is "ineligible" but it would not seem that is ineligible because of the IRB eligibility rules (he has in fact lived for three years in South Africa) but because of South African law (he has been living there illegally without a valid visa; in other words he's an illegal immigrant). I will leave you with one qualifying remark in that respect. There is an argument that could be made about the proper interpretation of the IRB residency rule. Does it mean three years residency *simpliciter* or does it mean three years' *legal* residency? Are illegal migrants eligible under the IRB rules? An interesting question to which there is no clear answer. Personally I think that illegal migrants would qualify *under the IRB rules*. Obviously there are going to be other factors which may mean they will be ineligible to play (see the next two sections below). But the gist of the matter is this: As far as the IRB rules are concerned citizenship is completely irrelevant. Having it doesn't grant you the right to play for that country and not having it is not a bar to playing for that country. What counts is the place of birth (either yours, a parent's or a grandparent's) or three years' continuous residency. 2. SARU SELECTION POLICIES Now the South African Union (SARU) obviously cannot select players for national duty who don't satisfy the IRB eligibility criteria. But there is nothing stopping SARU adopting a more rigorous selection policy so that some people who would be eligible under the IRB rules are nevertheless ineligible under SARU's own tougher rules. SARU is free to adopt a policy of not selecting foreign born players who don't also hold South African citizenship (such as the Beast) or who are illegal migrants (as is alleged of the Beast,not having had a valid visa for his stay in South Africa). I have no idea what SARU's own selection policy is. Ask SARU. 3. SOUTH AFRICAN LAW It is also possible that South African law has a bearing on this. The allegation is that the Beast is an illegal migrant, being neither a South African citizen nor a foreign citizen with a valid visa to remain in South Africa, It is possible that South African law says that he's thereby ineligible to play for the South African national side. But it is also possible that it says nothing of the sort. Again I don't know what exactly it says. Ask a South African lawyer (I'm an Australian lawyer).
Sheldon
Roar Rookie
I have no problem with the loss to the French on Saturday, I predicted the loss to Leicester and to France. To expect to win all the time is crazy. What we should have done is sent a younger side and rested some more of the main players. It would have been a great way to give some youngsters a chance to play big tests and gain some precious experience against quality oppostion. It should be treated as a chance to build a squad with greater depth going into the next World Cup. What is a couple of losses after all that has been achieved this year? Unfortunately the winning record today is more important than success in the future. This attitude applies to the all three of the Trinations sides.
Lee
Guest
No doubt - i's the same as saying the French purposely changed their jerseys to a darker blue for the RWC2007 to put the ABs off. JUst an excuse to deflect blame.
Knives Out
Guest
'Piffle. Utter piffle and typical of a graceless set of fans.' I take that back, Dingbat.
Ziggy
Guest
The botched anthem was no excuse. In fact it should have made the team more motivated! The suggestion that French officials somehow contrived for this to happen is just nonsensical. The Boks were soundly thrashed by the better team on the day.
Rusty
Guest
umm - what 2 successive Test losses? Test match before this was against the ABs which the Boks won. The thought of emergency gagging armbands brought a chuckle though :)
Rusty
Guest
In all fairness - I dont think the Boks actually played the high ball strategy that much and if they did it wasnt to the pinpoint accuracy we saw during the tri-nations. Perhaps the heady breeze had more to do with it than the admittedly rampant french
MM
Guest
Lee - I think you are right - every source I've traced reveals that the S.A. Embassy in France gave the directive - however it is hear-say in my opinion to state it was that particular guy. He originates from Natal in S.A. - however there are varied comments that he's not always resident there and does in fact spend time doing his music in France - again that is based on certain media content. What is disturbingly absent is that albeit the embassy was mandated to select, who was in control over the preparation and validation of the performance. Obviously there is great doubt that it was South Africa for they simply take rugby too seriously to allow for the vocal mess. Spiro does mention the possibility of a deliberate upstage as well as many other factors regarding preparation.
Lee
Guest
I heard that the SA embassy sent the FRU a list of SA singers in France, and that they didn't actually pick that guy - I can't find a link to back that up though so will keep looking and post if I do.
Knives Out
Guest
Piffle. Utter piffle and typical of a graceless set of fans. Good stuff, Dan. Clever, funny and profound. Praise be Australian schools.
Jerry
Guest
He's not ineligible by IRB standards, it's the SA govt/SARU that's kicking up a fuss. The IRB doesn't require citizenship.
johno
Guest
Ahh but the plot thickens, the Rasta man was picked by the SA Embassy, now imagine having to live in a country where they have such lack of respect for just about the only thing we've got left to be proud of...
Knives Out
Guest
Nonsense. The SA scrum was pulverised.
johno
Guest
Matt unfortunately you don't seem to understand the difficulties involving the SA selection process. When we take an extendid group on tour to "get exposure to the culture" we are actually taking third and fouth stingers for their PROVINCES with, and any other guy of colour that's made a little bit of an impression somewhere else. We do this in order to placate a guy by the name of Butana Khompela, who is just about the biggest racist in the Southern Hemisphere, unfortunately he's also the head of parliament's Sport comittee. If you don't beleive me, look at last weeks midweek team and this weeks. Go see how many of last weeks team are first choice players for their provinces, or sat on the bench for the test, or have been replaced by personell that have come on board in the last week due to injury to other players in this week's mid week team. (Oh by the way Aus have a measely 100 players playing professional rugby outside of Aus, we have more than 200 players playing professional rugby outside of SA. That's more than anybody else except maybe for the combined Pacific Islanders) This weekend we shipped in a couple of props and a hooker and all of a sudden they are better than any of the one's alreaddy on tour. Adi Jacobs is also a 'quota' player that makes it into the regular squad all the time. Chilliboy Ralapele is not his province's first choice and now that Gary Botha's coming back he won't even be the second choice, but he'll be on the Springbok's bench. The Beast is an absolute joke, but aye he's the right colour so the quota is being filled(but now it turns out he doesn't have the right passport, so I don't know what kinda quota he'll be filling now). And then theire's our coach! SARU openly admitted he was chosen on more than just ability, because if it was down to ability, Heyneke Meyer would've been the coach and then we wouldn't have lost last year's 3N either, which might have been a bit much for old Spiro to swallow, and made him gone into early retirement or hiding...what a blessing that woulda been. So you guys should actually count yourselves lucky, not having to face the full might of the Springboks. As for the one track pony horse manure you and Spiro is spouting. That pony's been galloping along merily for the last five years or so at the Bulls. Which brings me to another point. Did you know that the Bulls are the youngest union of the SA franchises if I can put it that way. The really interesting fact though is that the Bulls have won the Currie Cup most, bar one province, which is WP, or the Stormers as you would know them. From 1946 onwards the Bulls have dominated the Currie Cup, winning it 23 times. And the Bulls play rugby to SA's strenghts, and in times past, we're talking before re-admission we beat everybody all of the time except for the AB's. OK that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but you can go look up the stats and see how dominant we were. Way back then we played the game Bulls style for the most part, which doesn't mean that we didn't have good backs, it is just easier to dominate whith a big pack and then feed of mistakes, because you cut down the risk factor significantly. This doesn't neccisarily mean that you can't play, it just means that your pack of forwards gives you an advantage that means you don't have to take any risks and you can, from that platform then dictate proceedings. If you want to know if the Boks can play, well just go watch the second B&I Lions test and then go check out the first test in Aus. You'll find that if they have to, they'll play, but if they don't then they just shut everything down and minimise the risk factor and make you come at them, like in the WC final vs England. But ask the AB's about World Cup's, risk and pressure and you'll understand the logic behind this, and then there's that little 50% win ratio statistic of WC's entered by a SA team that also comes to mind. What but skill is it then to win your set peices, win the collisions and win the kicking game. Now I know it's flash to run around like a bunch of headless chickens to entertain the crowd, but that you can do at Super 14 level. Tests are holy ground for those who truly understand the game and winning, especially against NZ is everything, well for us at least. But if you ask most Rugby players from Europe and Aus, they'll all say that winning against the AB's or SA is someting very special, and for the most part someting that they enjoy more than any other win. And you could also see how much it meant to the French. Test Rugby is hard, is supposed to be hard, and is filled with pressure, because as I think Chris Koch or it could have been Jan Ellis put it in one of his team talks, rugby is war and the honour of the country is at stake
MM
Guest
OJ - Okay - looks like there's a week to find someone who can sing the National Anthem properly - the Boks & Co should maybe then be happy with the National Anthem then and bugger the score.... The Vid is a hilarious one though looking at the facial expressions....
NickSA
Guest
Stevedarke That is the difference between the great all black teams and the great boks teams consistency... Every single test match is important and if u want to achieve true greatness u ahve to sweep all before u! We should have been fired up for france, we have not won there since 1997!
Nelson
Guest
yeah i saw that and was about to reply to spiro. you couldnt make this stuff up! should have known it was unlike the french to commit such a faux pas.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Okay then, but I like this news that the South African embassy chose the singer. Considering South Africa screwed up the order of the anthems at home this year, it's all very amusing.