France’s scrum-half Dimitri Yachvili (centre left) runs with the ball during the IRB Rugby World Cup quarter final between England and France at Eden Park in Auckland, New Zealand, Saturday, Oct. 8, 2011. (AAP Image/AFP, Franck Fife)
It has been noted by many commentators that the four teams in the RWC 2011 semi-finals are the same sides that contested the semis in RWC 1987. There is, though, a different lineup of matches. In 1987, New Zealand played Wales and Australia played France.
The All Blacks played splendidly to defeat Wales comfortably.
The Wallabies, the favourites to win the tournament, were eliminated with a late-minute try by Serge Blanco. There was a hint of a knock-on in the build-up phases to the try.
The Wallaby coach, Alan Jones and others, made a fuss about supposed mistake by the referee. Refereeing misdemeanours, if this was in fact a mistake, have always been with us in RWC tournaments, it seems.
This should provide something of a context for the ferocious attack from South Africans on the New Zealand referee, Bryce Lawrence, over his handling of the Australia vs South Africa quarter-final.
You expect supporters to go over the top when a referee does not seem to help their side win an important match. And South African supporters are among the most vicious and foul-tongued going around.
Some of the emails I have received, for instance, from South Africans, many of them judging from their job descriptions on the bottom of their emails in important executive positions, are unprintable, even in the most vulgar of websites.
But the intervention of Andre Watson, the former South African referee, and his claim that the South African Referees Association was going to hound Lawrence out of international rugby was shameful.
To begin with, Watson’s handling of the Australia-England RWC 2003 final was severely criticised by the England coach, Sir Clive Woodward. England’s superior scrum kept on being penalised.
Woodward was not happy.
The fact that England won probably prevented the sort of action against Watson that he now wants to take against Lawrence.
As for the South African Referees Association? In my opinion, the South African Craig Joubert is the best referee in the world right now.
He is 33, three years younger than Brad Thorn, fit and referees for an open, skilful game. He is accurate in his decision-making.
It is hard to make the same generalisation about his fellow countryman, Jonathan Kaplan.
Even four years ago, in RWC 2007, Kaplan had trouble keeping up with a sweeping French attack in the France vs New Zealand quarter-final and missed the most obvious forward pass imaginable, even though it was only metres away from him.
If I tried to discuss other South African referees, I would, unfortunately, have to travel into defamation territory. But suffice to say, Lawrence, for all his failings, is a better and more accurate referee than any of the others.
This row over Lawrence and all the talk about Richie McCaw’s fracture on his right foot have distracted some attention from the first semi-final, Wales v France.
An Irish drinker in the Welsh Bar in Wellington said to some New Zealanders after his team was eliminated from the tournament by a rampant Wales side: “You’ll be sorry Wales won and not us because they’re tight-fisted, mean bastards.”
This may be true of their supporters. But their national side is expansive, skilful and generous in its exploitation of the talents of its players on the field.
In their first match of the tournament, the English referee Wayne Barnes refused to use the TMO to confirm his decision that a penalty goal kicked by James Hook did not go through the posts.
It looked to me, and to the kicker more importantly, that the goal had been successfully kicked. But Barnes dismissed his call for the TMO to review the matter.
South Africa was the beneficiary of this decision.
But the Wales coaching staff just took it on the chin. There were none of the tantrums that Watson is indulging in.
Wales are a young side, with a 20 year old number 8 Tony Faletau, a 19 year old winger who is massive George North, and a 23 year-old captain, Sam Warburton.
The side is extremely fit.
I noticed with some surprise, for instance, that Adam Jones, the prop with a beer gut and wild hair, was positively svelte. He has apparently sworn off beer for the tournament (something that England should have done!), along with all his team-mates.
As a consequence he has ‘slimmed’ down from 127 kgs to 120 kgs.
The slimmed down, in comparitive terms only, forward pack is complemented by a back line that has two monsters playing at halfback and inside centre (Mike Phillips and Jamie Roberts) and a mercurial winger and fullback (Shane Williams and Leigh Halfpenny).
This combination of size and twinkle-toes was too much for the much-vaunted Irish backline to cope with.
It is surprising to me that none of the pundits, nor the bookmakers, are giving Wales much of a chance to win the tournament.
The fact is, in my opinion, they have been one of the most impressive teams in the tournament. They have improved with every game. Although they had many players out with injuries before the tournament started, they are coming through relatively unscathed in the actual playing part of the tournament.
Their young number 10 is out, but James Hook and Stephen Jones in the reserves are more than adequate replacements.
And what about the French?
They are claiming that they did not have to produce their ‘one great game of the tournament’ to defeat England. England were easy to knock over, they are claiming. They are fielding the same team that knocked over Martin Johnson’s hopeless and hapless side against Wales.
They claim that all the divisions that seemed to split the side into factions, who were also split from their coach, have all been fixed up.
One of the rugby writers has made the point that “the French are only a peace when they are at war.” They have had their war. They were impressive in defeating England.
But then, how good or, more accurately, how poor were England.
That is a statement, not a question.
When France knocked New Zealand out of RWC 1999 in the semi-final, I predicted they would lose comfortably to the Wallabies in the final. My confidence about the result was based on the truth that “a souffle does not rise twice.”
This French side claims that it is still to rise.
We will see.
The best aspect of their victory over England is that the semi-finals feature four teams that have generally kept the faith in running, enterprising rugby since 1987. This has worked more for the Wallabies, with their two RWC triumphs, than the other three sides in all the previous World Cup tournments.
The All Blacks, famously or infamously, won the first tournament when the dominant referee was the Australian Kerry Fitzgerald, a referee in the Craig Joubert mould.
It was a tragedy for rugby that Fitzgerald died young of cancer.
Bossy, officious referees like Andre Watson tended to dominate in succeeding tournaments. This worked to the advantage of South Africa in both the World Cups they won, 1995 and 2003, for it rewarded their negative kick, chase and tackle game over the more expansive running game (especially that of the All Blacks) played by the teams playing out the semi-finals this time.
This is why I call the semi-finals the Deam Finals.
Four teams are now involved in playing out the rest of the tournament. Whichever team comes through, it will be a side that plays real rugby, which is rugby played in the main with the ball in hand and with the object of scoring tries.
Saturday night’s match between France and Wales is shaping up to be the sort of heart-stoppoing thriller the France-Australia semi-final in RWC 1987 proved to be.
Bring it on!
Dino
Guest
Semi Final 1-> France 9 - 8 Wales Epic game to watch a true world cup Semi Final2-> Aus 6 - 20 NZ Disappointing to say the least, and to make it worse NZ did not play that well (missed 15 points). We cant have such a great difference in points in the semi final of the RWC !!! I hope the final offers more entertainment (I can only see that happening if France win)
Sage
Guest
Funny to be dominated in sports you invented ?? Fair enough. I would say though that most do comment mostly on rugby/sport here whilst you seem more fixated on churlish Aussie barbs. If you want to talk rugby that's great. If you want to be a petulant long term tourist, at least leave your baggage at the door
Rugby Diehard
Guest
Brick - I have also developed the following strategy for dealing with people I don't like in bars/pubs. It goes as follows: 1. Talk to unknown person at bar 2. Verify whether you think they are worth talking to 3. If you don't like them or find them irritating find an alternative person to talk to 4. If they still want to talk or are the only one at the bar - go to a new bar. I was discussing this strategy with my brother the other day who had experienced something similar to you when he was in a bar a few months ago - he had employed my strategy but had still not found anyone worth talking to. I reminded him this strategy doesn't work if you are a pretentious git - which he is.
Brick Lane
Guest
Sage: Not galling. Just funny. As I say, it's just sports. I know plenty of Aussies in London who feel the same way in reverse. Rugby: My 'murky' facts are based on real experiences. Some good, some bloody awful.
Rugby Diehard
Guest
"The only reason I say we should leave, is because we have become (actually always been) the bad guys of SH Rugby, the enemies, the boring-ners, the butt of NZ/AUS jokes." - GreenLantern you are comedy gold my friend. Can you also give me a real life example of a "negative precaution"?
Rugby Diehard
Guest
"I think you will find as many of my mates have discovered that supporting Aus with a English accent is unacceptable to many Aussies." - BL - one minute you are telling us our whole team is full of non-Australians and we're lampooned for it and the next we won't let anyone not born in Australia even barrack for us in the pub? It's almost like you use murky "almost facts" to prove one point and then some weak examples of unverifiable mystery mates in pubs to prove an almost completely opposed point. As I have had a couple of light-hearted discussions with you regarding other aspects of Australia where you have appeared less than complimentary would you mind mentioning specifically the areas you support Australia other than in you trying to find gainful employment for the hapless Australians at a work place that may or may not exist.
Scot Free
Guest
What a coincidence, BL! I must have been at that same bar last night and spoken to the same bloke! He actually told me he'd met some poncy English twerp earlier - a rugby fan still butt-hurt after the shafting they got from the Froggies. But he couldn't for the life of him understand why a Pom would be slagging-off Australia, not just because he lives here but because we never even played 'em! I shrugged my shoulders and said the Pommy mentality is obviously neither comic nor genius.. Then I asked the bloke how he felt about the whole thing. He just looked at me, smiled, and said: Mate, you know what they say - Every time the Pommies lose, somewhere a little girl gets a pony. So I bought him beers until closing time.
Sage
Guest
You're on fire today Brick Head. I think that you will find my Pommie ex-pat mates and my recently immigrated Californian cousin would certainly disagree with yet another of your silly, broad, inaccurate generalisations. I can understand why it's sport focussed though when we have been so generally dominant over you, particularly in the games you "invented". It must be galling although your cricketers are finally looking solid and that's good to see for the state of the game. What is it really anyway ? Did a Koala crap on you at Lone Pine in the past or something?
Sage
Guest
If we'd known how terribly hurt you'd be after the Pieterson "country of origin" niggle in the cricket Brick Head we wouldn't have wound you up but who was to know just how hurt you'd become. We're all immigrants apart from the first Australians afterall. Let's not even start on the England v Brit hyprocrisy. That Andy Murray is a great Brit don't you think......... ?
Sage
Guest
Good blog Poth but "Australia are the new England" ? I'm sure there is a better example without resorting to name calling. And your last paragraph is intriguing. So do tell who has played "real" rugby and what in your opinion is "a final worth getting up for"?
Frank O'Keeffe
Guest
Alan Jones wouldn't tollerate that. His Wallabies were professional long before the game went professional.
Brick Lane
Guest
Spiro is a curious one. Given his Kiwi upbringing I'm not sure how him, Cooper et al can look themselves in the mirror. I can understand the desire to live and work here but to become one....wow. I excuse Deans from this. There's something lovely about the Aussies having a Kiwi coach, it tends to keep flag wavers quiet at debate time.
Brick Lane
Guest
I think it was eye opening post given Aussie fans are the first to bag other countries who field non-locally born players, when you are quietly the worst offenders. Let's not even start on the Aussie olympic team which typically has 40-60 athletes born overseas who didnt even grow up here....
Brick Lane
Guest
I think you will find as many of my mates have discovered that supporting Aus with a English accent is unacceptable to many Aussies. One of my mates has tried to support Aus and been abused in pubs for it. Which is why the idea of even trying is madness to me. Americans who attempt to support Aus get even worst treatment. My position is that I'll support Australia in anything other than sport. I think that's fair enough. There's bigger battles out there. Banter aside, in my organisation I'm strangely the lone voice for employing more Australians. At the moment the numbers are embarrassingly low. The UK/US/Sing management team think I'm mad for pointing this out as they hungrily recruit from anywhere else. It's crazy to have to put Aussies on the diversity hit list of a company based in Aus!
Hugh Dillon
Guest
Quite right. But it's a problem that Craig Joubert has to go home to Andre Watson and some of the astonishingly angry people who have been frothing at the mouth so much this week. His phone will have been running hot with messages urging him to watch Pocock and not to let him get away with anything. Pocock is so good he will play to the ref but my guess is that Joubert will nullify him and that the ABs will get a red carpet ride at the breakdown. Not because Joubert is corrupt or biased -- he is a very good ref -- but because public opinion influences perceptions. It will take an enormous moral courage and integrity to resist the roar of the Eden Park crowd.
Strayan
Guest
You're right ExRef. There are a few voices of reason in SA rugby blogs, but too many reacted with abuse and threats. And I don't know whether there's a lack of high-definition TV over there but some of their fabrications and delusions are astonishing. For instance one said that next time Vickerman plays in RSA he will be left a bloody pulp in retaliation for deliberately attacking Brussow's ribs. And you know that if the Wallabies beat the All Blacks, there will be those in SA who will say they really won this world cup – even if the Wallabies then lose the final (though we know that couldn't possibly happen) – they will say that they would have won it. They will claim to be the real winners of five world cups including '87 and '91 when they weren't allowed to play. The only way that those of this mind-set will not claim to be the real winners in 2011 is too awful for Aus fans to contemplate. Sport brings people together, the interwebs give too many the opportunity to do the opposite
Rugby Diehard
Guest
Moaman - "How long does someone have to live in Australia to become an “australian”?" - I know you didn't intend to start this here but I'm going to offer my definition anyway. For me I don't care if you are here 5 mins or 50 years if you enjoy the place and nominate it as your primary country of allegiance then you are Australian. I think if you don't declare your allegiance then you could never be really considered Australian despite what it says on your passport. But whether you choose to make your first allegiance to Australia or not doesn't mean you shouldn't live here and contribute to the place we all love. If you love sport it does seem pretty easy to define, this is how I would do it anyway: 1. Born in another country and would choose that country over Australia in a sporting contest - you are an ex-pat of your native land and not Australian 2. Born in another country and would choose Australia over that country in a sporting contest - you are Australian 3. Live here and choose any country over Australia in a sporting contest - you are a POM and you probably go under the alias of Brick Lane travelling in a caravan from town to town trying to find mentally ill Australian born people to wind up and reinforce your hatred of all things Australian
Sage
Guest
Recognise a name change too. There is only one who writes in swahili and makes my head hurt like that and it's KiwiDi.
Sage
Guest
How much time did you waste coming up with that pointless post Brick Head ?
Sage
Guest
Shameless self promotuion there Shag. The graphics are an addition but that Heimlich pic, well, i think you could have found better shall we say