As everyone knows, I am a Springbok partisan. One big fact is looming for South African rugby. To win the World Cup, Heyneke Meyer’s men will need to win three straight Test matches on three consecutive weekend afternoons in October at Twickenham.
You will notice an assumption baked into that statement: I am banking on the ‘Boks besting Samoa, Scotland, and Japan in pool play. If South Africa does top its pool, the three-step campaign will involve a quarter-final against England, Australia or Wales and then a semi-final against New Zealand, and lastly some finalist yet to be known will be waged exclusively at “Twickers.”
This grand old stadium has regularly been referred to as the “Cabbage Patch”. Actually, that’s what it was, in 1909. The Rugby Football Union bought the 10.25 acre cabbage farm southwest of London for a little over 5,500 pounds sterling, attracted by the concept of exclusive rights to big game gate revenue.
The grounds also became the headquarters of the RFU, and for many years, the global game of rugby union. In many ways, this was the spiritual home of rugby union; today it could be argued that the soul of rugby is south of the equator, but not back in 1909.
The first rugby match at Twickers was Harlequins versus Richmond in 1909. The first Test match staged at “HQ” was England versus Wales on 15 January 1910. Photographs of this dire struggle depict a muddy paddock with bemused and stationary players. The “stands” were tiny; indeed, it was only in 1921 when capacity increased to 12,000 that you could say Twickers had real grandstands.
It should come as no surprise that England used this rich soil in World War I as grazing for horses, cattle, and sheep. It was more suitable for agriculture than scrums.
Now, of course, Twickenham is well-drained and very big. RFU claims it is the biggest rugby-only venue in the world, with an official capacity of 81,605.
A few observations:
1. It is not true that only rugby is played here. Lady Gaga plays here, too; and U2.
2. Against both the All Blacks and Springboks in 2014 more than 82,000 crowded into HQ.
3. Apparently, although I cannot swear to it, the Jehovah’s Witnesses rally there.
Twickenham stays busy. For instance, in the last few months the World Club Sevens was held there, as was Oxford v. Cambridge, the QBE Internationals, and a couple of Harlequins games. After the Six Nations Tests, various finals of English schools competitions will be held at HQ, the Champions Cup final will be played in May, Under-20s finals, Army v. Navy, and finally the Aviva Premiership final.
All this history and reminiscing leads us to a vital question, what was the greatest game ever played at Twickenham?
From an English perspective, it must be the 2012 thumping of the All Blacks, who had been unbeaten in 20 matches but were annihilated by a relentless England boasting just 206 combined caps of experience. Only their seventh win over New Zealand in history, the 17 point victory was the largest ever by England over the All Blacks.
What made the victory even more significant was that it was completely unexpected. South Africa and Australia had beaten England in the preceding weeks and New Zealand had steamrollered everyone since their World Cup win in 2011.
Stuart Lancaster and all of England’s redoubtable rugby community will be hoping for some of that magic to inure once more to the 2015 Sweet Chariot. Once again, any foe will face a strong pack, devoid of a true openside flanker, but full of English roast beef, red-cheeked and rampant when going forward in tight spaces. There is a lack of invention in the backline, but then again, maybe England will have too much mustard for the Wallabies and Welsh, and find a way to the final.
For the Springboks, it will almost certainly involve three straight wins at Twickenham against three of the world’s top teams.
One of those wins will need to come at New Zealand’s expense; and Meyer has shown in Wellington and at Ellis Park in 2014 that he has an idea of how to keep the ‘Boks in the game until the last minute. Being in the Northern Hemisphere, with players like Francois Louw having more of a home-field advantage than any All Black, should skew the ‘Boks’ chances to be greater than in New Zealand, but even in Africa, beating the All Blacks is the most difficult task in rugby.
One of the other wins may need to be over England on their own patch. Lately, that has not proved as problematic. It was 2006 when England last beat South Africa, a two point victory, and since then, there have been 9, 48, 33, and 36-point wins by the ‘Boks, resulting in a five-Test win streak at Twickenham.
The best thing for Meyer’s men to do is fall in love with Twickenham. To adopt it.
Finish above Samoa and Scotland in pool play, and then go win three rugby games at Twickenham.
K
Guest
I mentioned it once .... But I think I got away with it (B.Fawlty)
Harry Jones
Expert
I think it'll be easier to dislodge Dusatoir from a ruck than Pocock so that's perfect practice
Harry Jones
Expert
I concede the point There is no NH conspiracy on this issue
Jerry
Guest
Ah, right you are. The thing about RWC seedings is that though the process for determining seeds has invariably been stupid (eg using the previous tournament's results or doing the draw 2 years out), the reality is that with the small number of genuine contenders it simply doesn't matter that much. Especially when all it takes is one upset (not even an upset necessarily, just a team seeded to win a pool coming 2nd) and seedings are no longer that relevant.
Birdy
Guest
Jerry, I wasn't being very clear. I meant that those finalists were ranked somewhere between 1-4, not necessarily that 'number 1' was always there. It was just to indicate that overwhelmingly 2 of the top 4 sides get to the final which is what you want a seeding system to produce. When it hasn't happened it's normally been because of a surprise result rather than a quirk of the seeding system.
Jerry
Guest
Birdy's right on this one - from memory, since SA returned, there's only been one time all 3 TN sides were actually seeded on one side of the draw (2007) and it didn't actually pan out that way. There's been 2 times they've ended up on the same side of the draw (03 and 11) but that's been because one side has come 2nd in their pool when they were seeded to win it. Though, I don't think he's right about 87, 91, 95 or 99 being "1-4 finals". NZ weren't ranked 1 in 87 or 95, Aus weren't ranked 1 in 91 or 99.
scrumpoacher
Guest
I was pretty embarrassed watching that game as I was on night shift in UK with my saffer mate-we were both appalled. Lots of moaning since with good reason....
Kia Kaha
Roar Guru
Consider the first down-payment made. I'll triple your money Harry if you practise for Pocock on Dusatoir if we come up against France in the quarter. You don't even have to go to the game. Just get him coming off the bus. ;)
Kia Kaha
Roar Guru
If only you'd asked me sooner, you could've placed some large bets risk-free. But now you know the secret, you could win back your money this year. :)
Birdy
Guest
"I understand the need to have NH teams in SF/F, but I would like a tournament that regularly pits teams 1-4 at the end." Harry; if the implication of this is that somehow the draw is 'rigged' to the advantage of NH teams, then I think that's nonsense. While I agree it was madness to make the draw 3 years out from the '15 WC, this has hardly been deliberately done to the NH advantage or England and Wales wouldn't be in the same pool as Australia. It's the 'luck of the draw' based on the seedings when it is made; just as the football world cup is. The reason you haven't seen 'more '1-4' finals (although '87' '91, '95, '99, and 2003 were '1-4 finals, so we're only talking about 07 and 11) is usually because teams get knocked out rather than some dodgy attempt to favour the NH. France beat NZ in '99 and '07; and England beat Australia in '07. The only reason SA was up against Aus in the '11 QF was because Aus had lost to Ireland in the pool so had finished 2nd as opposed to their seeded prediction of topping it. Assuming you're working on the not very accurate assumption that NZ, SA and Aus are always seeded 1-3; you obviously can't 'seed' 3 teams to all reach a final; especially as NZ and Aus have been knocked out of WC's more often by lower ranked teams than by another one of the 'big three'. It's not the seeders fault that the top seeded teams have often shown themselves to not be good enough to justify their ranking.
Akari
Roar Rookie
Just hilarious HJ, RT, KK, and Red or White Wine grapeseed(???) and made my morning a great start.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
The old guard is still light for international standards harry, Dusautoir, Nyanga and Ouedraogo are around 100kgs. But I think the new generation like Virgile Bruni are taller and heavier. The French aren't as obsessed by height and weight as most other nations. We have always had a smaller, lighter scrum yet have been doing very well there. Its actually always something that makes us proud that our 850kgs pack dominates a 900kgs one. But if we have a good, big guy who can play 6 we will use him there. guys like Benazzi who was a 4-6-8 for example. Its just that the current generation is pretty average, light or heavy doesn't really matter. We don't have a Louw, Kaino, O'Brien etc.
Misha
Guest
I think you are missing the point - the virus is so debilitating that if an Olympic athlete gets it 3 months before the Olympics they are basically history and no shows to perform well.
Harry Jones
Expert
If every ROARer pays me £10 I'll do it
Harry Jones
Expert
NOS, I have read several times your thoughts on the light super-fast flanker philosophy (Hooper style!). Is this still viable in France? Not sure anyone does it except OZ, now? Brussow can't get into Meyer's good books.
Rugby Tragic
Guest
Well Kia, your rationale, sounds as good as any... go back further in 1987, AB's won 29-9 in the final against France. 29 + 9 = 38..... 3+8 = 11 ...... 2011 the next time to win the world cup, so I wasted all my money in the years in between??
Rugby Tragic
Guest
Happy New Year Rob, ... yes Steve Walsh reminds me also of Bill Harrigan, the type of guy who will take an extra 10 mins just to comb his hair before he runs out, but I contend that he is one of the better refs from down under. And Harry, comment on Nigel Owens needing cardio made me smile, just had a heart stress test myself, not easy when overweight, unfit and lacking in exercise nowadays!
Harry Jones
Expert
The silly thing about appointing Victor as captain (and I think he's probably HM's favourite) is that he surely has less than 2 seasons left in him. At any point, his career will be over even sooner, because nobody wins the fight against Father Time. I'd rather pick a 28-30 year old in his prime, and go through an entire WC cycle like NZ does. So, we have Flo (but he's at Bath; would need to come back to WP), Thor (headed to Europe, needs a little polish on the verbal skills), Bismarck (maybe a bit too whiny), Strauss (not first pick at hooker), and HERE'S A DARK HORSE....Pollard! Meyer will go with Matfield.... :(
JT
Guest
Duane would b a great long term captain, lead by example kinda guy, but the rumours are he's definitely heading overseas after this year, don't think you can have a captain that doesn't play in the country, just wouldn't feel right
Harry Jones
Expert
Great point ab use of advantage Lotta discretion. And big differevces in how 9s play it FdP usually tries a miracle kick play He fears the ref will call advantage over if he does phase ball