Skipper Richie McCaw has marked his 140th appearance for New Zealand with a late try to deliver a 27-20 victory over arch-foes South Africa.
The All Blacks flanker won a line-out close to the Springboks line and brushed off scrum-half Ruan Pienaar to cross six minutes before time in Saturday’s Rugby Championship second round Test at Ellis Park in Johannesburg.
Debutant fly-half Lima Sopoaga converted and kicked a last-minute penalty to give New Zealand a sixth victory in their past seven clashes with South Africa.
The match was a carbon copy of the loss last weekend in Australia for the Springboks as they led for most of the 80 minutes only to concede a late try.
South Africa were left ruing a 10-minute second-half spell when they had a numerical advantage after replacement lock Sam Whitelock was sin-binned but failed to score.
It was an absorbing clash between the world number one-ranked All Blacks and second-ranked Springboks and indicated why they are among the favourites for the Rugby World Cup in England from mid-September.
New Zealand are famed for scoring late in the opening half and they did it again to leave the teams level at 10-10 after 40 exciting, fast-paced minutes on a chilly evening.
A turnover, a clever inside pass from centre Ma’a Nonu, and a break by Sopoaga set up right winger Ben Smith to score after 40 minutes.
Sopaga, who opened the scoring with a close-range third-minute penalty awarded for a Springbok going off his feet at a ruck, converted a simple kick.
The first-half highlight for South Africa came on 10 minutes when a turnover triggered a try by full-back Willie le Roux.
Hooker Bismarck du Plessis caught slow-reacting All Blacks No. 8 Kieran Read in possession, South Africa stole the ball and an inside pass from centre Jesse Kriel allowed Le Roux to dot down.
Fly-half Handre Pollard converted for a four-pont advantage that stretched to seven when he slotted a mid-half penalty after New Zealand flanker Liam Messam high-tackled Kriel.
Both teams had cause for satisfaction after the first half, with the Springboks solid in the scrum, combative at the breakdowns and strong in defence.
New Zealand took the lone first-half line-out steal and the world champions always looked dangerous with the ball in hand.
South Africa regained the lead seven minutes into the second half as Kriel burst between vastly-experienced centres Nonu and Conrad Smith to score a try that Pollard converted.
But the lead lasted just three minutes before New Zealand hooker Dane Coles scored a similar try, displaying the power of a forward and pace of a back.
Another Pollard penalty restored the lead for South Africa, and they stayed in front until McCaw struck the decisive blow.
Oh please, another one on the bandwagon.
Ryan
Guest
Sorry Biltong your tone really is quite condescending and I agree with what he has said here. I have been around this site long enough to know how certain posters react so have no problem with others speaking on my behalf. He does make a very good point in the fact that your "two lined comment" is very basic in the fact it infers a lot yet also infers very little. I too would say tone your posts down and take out some of the aggression that you are displaying to people who do not agree with you. You tell others to look at the other side of the coin, I would suggest you take heed to some of your own advice or just leave well alone. Good luck to your team in Argentina then the World Cup. Ngā mihi o te wā
soapit
Guest
jerry usually its not enforced because it makes no difference with the half halving plenty of time to get to his position when he not directly involved in catching the lineout. different situation when the reciever becomes the catcher as thats what the laws really for players suddenly being part of the lineout itself and the opposition lineout no time to react..
Pommie John
Guest
What about JDV, will your coach not play him, but where?
Firstly, leave Ryan out of this, there is nothing that needs to be said between him and me. secondly, you chose to see my comment as dismissive, as for the reason I left, have you actually looked at the other side of the coin, or just the side you felt most suited your own agendas? Every coin has two sides, as much as some would like to beleive it doesn't
Winnie
Guest
well you should not make such crass statements claiming a team won by the virtue of one move. That is extremely dismissive of the rest of the entire match. We could argue South Africa were only in the match because of one defensive mistake by Conrad and Ma'a. But that makes no sense at all. Both teams played a great game and to compound an entire game of rugby into one comment is disingenious to say the least. I do find it interesting that you didn't bother to clarify your position until I questioned your stance. No where in your comment does it infer that one side had a plan and the other did not, if you leave your sensibilities aside and read the comment again you may actually see the tone for what Ryan saw it as and now I do. A rather off the cuff comment and somewhat denigrative towards the ABs game plan. You expect us Roarers to interpret your two line comment into what you have now explained well after the fact so I'm sure you can understand that it can also be interpreted into something completely different to what you may have intended your comment to portray. Also Biltong you may want to leave your little personal jibes out because if I recall talking about sensibilities or should we say say sensitivities this wā one of the reasons why you disappeared awhile ago. Debate the point by all means which is what I am doing but leave the personal digs out, because it became very clear a few months ago that you reacted extremely badly to other roarers around this time of the year who did debate your views. We will never agree on everything and like Ryan I do find your comment to be slightly lacking and not until later have you clarified that position albeit tainted with a lot of sarcasm.
Zero Gain
Guest
OK, well explained this time. I watched the first part of the game and thought the Boks were well on top, but in the end I agree and have stated above, the ABs were very good and definitely deserved to win. Wanted it more? Not sure, maybe just superior.
If you can't see the Boks beating the All Blacks at the world cup, then you are dismissing a potential outcome by ignoring a number of factors of this match. I certainly hope Steve Hansen, the players and every New Zealander believe that. Sport has stats and records that suggest the general trend, however, it is still sport and therefor unpredictable. Were the Springboks a team with no talent, I and most others would see it your way, but that is not the case here.
Winnie, your sensitivity is clouding your judgement, I can go througb this whole analysis of each brilliant move and each brilliant defensive move each player made, I can write paragraphs of each moment in the match. Both teams played great rugby, as I alluded to on the match blog when congratulated the All Blacks on a great win. Utlimately if we consider the two teams were on par with each other, there has to be a moment in time that made the ultimate difference as to why one team won and the other team lost. FOr me it was the brilliantly plan moved that was executed from the line out that gave Richie McCaw his try. When South Africa were in the same position they had no plan. Hence they didn't score. So if you leave the sensitivity aside and just consider my statement again, you might find that there is truth in what I am saying, one team had a plan and the other didn't. That was the difference, I am not dismissing anything else. If you don't see that and want to continue arguing the fact, go ahead, I have moved on.
Jerry
Guest
They would have figured he was there to receive the ball and set up a maul, I guess.
bill donoghue
Guest
How soft was Richie McCaw`s try, by possible the best rugby player I have ever seen, Shame h was not a Waratah!
Jerry
Guest
Retallick had a shocker? Must have missed that.
Ralph
Guest
Dead right he is. Bok's were awesome for 65 minutes, certainly better than we were.
Ralph
Guest
If Messam's legs are going why not run him as a 60 minute player and ask him to lift for that long, then bring on Vito?
Ralph
Guest
Mostly agree James. Boks were winning the collisions and breakdowns for the majority of the game. It was awesome to watch and that first 20 minutes was like the breaking of a storm. I really don't know if any team has the fitness to play four sets of 20 minutes at that level though. I hope SA bring that level of game to the RWC, love to see what Ireland and England do with the storm.
Akari
Roar Rookie
So, the engine room is working well if Aaron Smith is under pressure for most of the game, Batdown?
Akari
Roar Rookie
I agree. The SBs will remain a threat at the RWC and the ABs will have noted this on the weekend.
Wal
Roar Guru
Harrys you comment got my mind ticking over, how much is home advantage worth? ..Sad I know but here is a selection NZ average points difference at home is 16 and 11 away/neutral so home advantage is worth an additional 5 points SA is 10.2 and 4.4 so 5.8 so more important Eng is 7.7 and 0.2 so 7.5 important considering where the RWC is this year Aus is 6.8 and 0.5 so 6.3 but the 0.5 is ifar lower than I expect but may be due the large %age of AB's matches in NZ The most surprising is ARG who's home differential average is 5 but away is an incredible 13.
Kick Start
Guest
Kick start: Jerry: Yes, I understand you cant dive on a player on the ground so its a matter of interpretation. Whether Habana dived on the player or dived for the ball. Obviously, he did make contact with the player on the ground so play might have been stopped for this anyway. I agree, a harsh decision. The whole sequence was so inconclusive that the ref would have been better to let whatever developed from there. On my other question re RM's line-out try. I now have the concept and am clear on the law. I don't need to analyse frame by frame whether RM's little toenail violated an imaginary line. RM has made a career of living on the edge and basically getting away with it. More power to him. But the move did underline the Boks inability to think on their feet. What were they thinking when McCaw took up such an unusual position? He was going gain more momentum for a push over try by running from further away. He could have helped this cause more quickly and efficiently by being in the line-out. A double bluff? How could they not think he was going to be involved in the move and post one player at least to shadow his movements. In the end up to the ref and on balance better to reward than discourage bold and innovative play.
Jerry
Guest
Where are the World Rugby Regulations even available? When I looked on worldrugby.org, the regs are obviously out of date as they refer to 7 replacements, and only 2 specialist front row replacements. Honestly? I don't even care that much about this. If you wanna have an argument about it, you're gonna have to look elsewhere. If it were a mistake on Garces part, don't you think the Bok management might have something to say?