It was never pretty, but they did just enough to secure a win against Wales. Then came two lesser teams which was merely a run out, no disrespect to Fiji or Namibia, but the fact is that they are not quite on the level.
And in their final group game again, we saw some brutal power employed for long enough to win. The real question begs, after dominating early against both Wales and Samoa, are these Boks pulling wool over our eyes?
Since every literate monkey has read and written their opinion on Wales being unlucky against the defending world champions, let’s focus on this evening’s match-up.
So much was said in the buildup to the battle of the giants, about the physical ability of Manu Samoa, and rightly so: with a 927 kg scrum, you won’t find more of a physical presence at the World Cup, and yet Samoa were ruthlessly manhandled (for the first half at least) in the scrum (one of which sent Samoa in a backwards sprint), every maul, and nearly every ruck.
It was Springboks’ inability to finish off that kept the scoreboard somewhat respectable at the break, such was the dominance of the big boys from South Africa, with the Beast, Bismarck, Matfield, Brussow and Burger as the main instigators.
And what of the Samoan pack?
With the monstrous Census Johnston tipping the scale at around 130kg, they are a unit and made some headway with quick pick and drives, which yielded in a second half try to the lively George Stowers.
Did we learn anything from this match?
For one, it was heart-warming to note that Manu Samoa are a team on the rise, pushing to find a place in the upper echelons of the game.
And what of these Boks?
Nothing new learnt, if anything, much of the same reinforced; the defending champions are firm believers that a scoreline of 3-0 is as good a win, as a much larger margin – and their pack will bully you if you do not stand up to it.
Where to from here?
With little doubt, the Springboks should now find themselves facing a young and exuberant Australia, but should take much heart in the knowledge that, they can do just enough to topple any pack.
With the Aussies’ best chance of winning being when men like Cooper, Beale and O’Connor see as much of the ball as possible, you cannot help but feel that the green machine is not going to be stopped.
Why did the Springboks refer back to their kick and chase game for much of the second half and with it, hand the advantage back to the opposition?
Perhaps they are holding their cards close to their chests, perhaps they are holding their best for what they know is coming.
It was not a totally convincing performance for the entire second half, but once again it showed that the Boks would do just enough when its needed – and may be they are trying to fly under the radar of the Aussies and Kiwis.
Blinky Bill of Bellingen
Guest
Or......... Factors for a Wallaby loss. 1. Pocock is back and we become too reliant on him. Therefore when Boks clean him out or isolate him we have no answer. 2. Digby is back too, devastating runner but hard to believe he is back after hand surgery. Is this wise? 3. Barnes is back, thinks he's a great kicker & reverts to continually kicking good possession away ala S15. 4. Wallaby youth makes them delusional that they can live on past performances. 5. Youthful confidence can easily deflate under sustained pressure or when things don't come easily. Factors for a Bok loss. 1. Their experience comes at the price of age. Old bodies feel it more and recover slower. Expect Wallabies to appeal stoppages. 2. Reliance on forward power means that some of the big units will tire easier and not enjoy hurrying to the next set piece. 3. Youth doesn't know what to do once the experienced guys around them fade and are spent. 4. Morne Styen, best kicker at the cup full stop. (bugger.........he's a bloody machine) 5. New defense system will need to be absolutely 100% watertight to stop the Wallaby attack. Expect leaks. Just saying.
Suzy Poison
Guest
As a Bok fan with a family of Aussies and with most of my mates as Aussies, we have discussed this at length. We are all in agreement there is little between these teams. It may come down to the bounce of a ball or a reffing decision that will no doubt be debated for the next four years. Factors for a Wallaby win. 1. Pocock is back, you could see what a difference he made when he went off against Russia, suddenly the Russians played better. 2. Digby is back too, devastating runner and makes Quade just look better. 3. Barnes is back, great kicker 4. Mental edge, the Wallas have it over the Boks. 5. Youthful confidence. Factors for a Bok win. 1. Experience in crunch hard fought arm wrestles, the team can dig deep, even when behind on scoreboard. Previous WC's have proven experience in crucial in knock out games. 2. Brutal pack, who are hitting form at the business end of the WC. 3. Heinrich Brussouw and Pat Lambie, young guns in the mix. 4. Morne Styen, best kicker at the cup full stop. 5. New defense system is really clicking, only England have had less tries scored against them, and they were in an easier pool.
Ivan
Guest
It will all come down to - Can the Wallabies replicate their forward performance they showed against NZ in the 3N. Anything less, is going to starve the backs, and lose the match.
Ivan
Guest
They were poor against Wales - Far off their best. Smit later admitted the Boks planned to come into the WC undercooked, and find peak during the pool stage. A fair tactic, considering the 3N had just finished on the back of the Super15. Against Samoa - the Boks pushed hard in the first 40, and it showed - they pushed the Samoan heavies backwards all the time. It was obvious how the tactic to see the game off without injuries had come into play in the second half. For SA and even Aus to beat first eachother, and secondly NZ - they need their strongest squads. the loss of Pocock and Moore had significantly weakened the Wallaby pack, time will now tell what effect the loss of Carter has on the Kiwis.
Ivan
Guest
Perhaps increasing a conversion to 3 is the easier option ?
Ivan
Guest
And in the end, they lost Frans Steyn for the rest of the tournament, Hougaard was knocked out cold, Habana limped off. Samoa may play dirty, but they are tough guys - and knowing they were going home just brought out their worst. Boks did well not to get too involved in the off the ball stuff.
Cattledog
Guest
Chrissi, I have been a long time advocate against this silly law regarding knocking the ball down. If any player can interfere with the ball from an onside position in general play, except a half back clearing the ball, then the attacking team has obviously passed it too late. It's a natural reaction to attempt to catch a ball passing in front of you. In Smit's case, the yellow card was just a matter of evening up the game as the referee had to go with a red card because of his less than satisfactory assistant's say so. He looked a right tool when the replay went onto the big screen. A penalty should have been the most severest consequence...red card, what a joke. These are professional players, not subbies on a Sunday afternoon trying to provoke a reaction. Again, poor decision making by the officials. The overall standard of refereeing in this WC has been poor, IMO, and Paddy O'Obrien should be taking a long hard look at himself, as the buck should be stopping with him. On another note. Since we have the technical advantage of cameras from all angles, I think we'll see these used more astutely in time, especially to report forward passes and the like to the referee, especially if such actions lead to a try. On the weekend, the forward passes had little consequence in the one sided pool matches, the same may not be said as we head to the 1/4s, semi's and final.
peterlala
Guest
Bazza, I totally oppose rule-changes on principle. For example, the ruck has gone. Now ref's "run" too much of the game. As well, this has led to on-going rule tinkering. The scrum is now run by refs, which is a lottery. They should let the referees put on a show of whistle-blowing at the SCG and see how many people pay to watch. On the drop goal. It is a favorite of "ugly" sides, forward-based, kicking sides. The fact that different styles can be used effectively is a strength of rugby, not a weakness.
Sage
Guest
We never underestimate the Boks. We have too much respect for you to do so but I believe we have your number this time, as we have more often than not of late.
Chrissi
Guest
Helped by the refs you say? Did we watch the same games? Esp re the Samoa game, there were so many incidents where, if it were any other two teams on the field, any other ref in the worl, we would have seen more penalties, more yellow cards for the tactics employed by the islanders... The boks did well not to relatiate, and you have no idea as to the self control that must have gone into that! Also the yellow card that John Smit got was BS, just because he's a forward does not mean he cannot try for the intercept, or does it mean that it was foul play, in my opinion it was a natural reaction and should have been seen as such.
GPC
Guest
thats not a bad idea
Cattledog
Roar Guru
Correct, no excuses whatsoever ;)
Cattledog
Roar Guru
I think it would be better for the game if they increased the conversion to 3, making a converted try 8 points!..All kicks then would be worth 3 points. Much easier for the sceptical to accept :)
jason8
Guest
I just read a piece by Brendan Nel that quotes P Divvy as saying the boks decided to kick the ball more after finding they were being targeted for too much dirty stuff when they had their hands on the ball - they were worried about injuries and being hauled up by citing commissioners if they reacted. Yes it was a bad idea if you ask me cause it backfired magnificently as the Boks were absolutely in control in the 1st half. Also Divvy said they will NOT be bothering with the citing commissioner themselves due to the fact that to prepare something for them takes 2/3 hours per case and they would rather just prepare for the Aus game - this is pragmatic but not right either as others will soon learn they can get away with it too. I dont think anyone can accuse the Boks of being angels but after watching the Samoa game im pretty sure they are worse !
jimmy Dee
Guest
The world cup is not won in the newspapers by arm chair criitics. Underestimate the Boks at your peril. Ivan Nel a wannaby Auzzie from RSA.
BOKBOY
Guest
Well reading all these comments, i'd say the Wallabies should have absolutely no excuse not to beat the Boks next week then???
dazell
Roar Rookie
Agree with ny ben I think the Bok's are just fooling themselves, were helped by the referees against Wales and they didn't deserve to win against Samoa. They have certainly had their share of help from officials.
ny ben
Roar Rookie
I thought the Boks looked poor against Samoa and simply lost to wales everywhere but the score board. The Wallabies know how to play the boks which is side to side and wear them out.
sixo_clock
Roar Guru
Partially agree. If you know the opposition is not going to surprise any more then you conserve yourself. A different take on Samoa's game. They lose when they were reckless with possession and spill or kick away good ball. Manu Samoa would be a dream coaching job for the next campaign because basically you have 15 loose forwards and with a little Rugby sense they could start making it into the finals.
Lee
Guest
It seemed ridiculously stupid to play a kick chase game against Samoa in the 2nd half, kicking the ball back time after time to a team who loves to run it. Maybe it was part of the plan, the Boks thought they had the game sewn up and what better way to test your defense than kick the ball back to them non stop for 40mins.