Well, they’ve done it. New Zealand’s dream of becoming the first nation to win back-to-back Rugby World Cup titles is well and truly alive, after a heroic 20-18 win over South Africa at Twickenham in London.
Though it was played in constant and sometimes heavy rain for the duration of the 80 minutes, this was far from a wet-weather slog. New Zealand needed an outstanding defensive effort – they missed just three of 87 tackles for the match – to overcome first-half discipline issues.
Early tries in both halves, to flanker Jerome Kaino in the 6th minute and Beauden Barrett in the 52nd, were the difference in the end, with Dan Carter missing one penalty but kicking another, along with two conversions and a drop goal.
For South Africa, Handre Pollard (five penalties) and Patrick Lambie (one) enjoyed a perfect night from the kicking tee, but ultimately, they were cruelled by their inability to crack the New Zealand defence, and a severe downturn in fortunes once their bench players entered the fray.
At halftime, though, it really seemed as though New Zealand were doing everything they could to lose the game. The All Blacks had enjoyed 72 per cent territory and 65 per cent possession, and South Africa had even missed 10 first half tackles, yet New Zealand only had Kaino’s try to show for it, and even writing this straight after the game, I’ve still got a major question on Richie McCaw’s pass over the top that put Kaino away.
Where South Africa were maintaining a solid defensive line and contesting the breakdown exceptionally in the first forty, New Zealand were killing themselves with ill-discipline. The Springboks showed an early penchant to play wide in opposition territory in the opening exchanges, but for the most part they didn’t need to, the All Blacks’ ill-discipline was keeping the scoreboard ticking over for them.
At 12-7, I’m sure I wasn’t the only person in the world thinking ‘boilover’. And that thought was only solidified by the stat that came up which said that South Africa had not lost to New Zealand in the previous 21 Tests when leading or level at halftime. The All Blacks had not come from behind to beat the ‘Boks since 1999.
However, there’s always a nagging feeling when this All Blacks side finds its back to the wall.
And so it proved to be. They came out in the second half with a steely intent to overcome the Springboks, and as usual, it was the big names that came up with the crucial plays.
Carter seized on an opportunity just after halftime, when from the back of a scrappy lineout win, the South African defence was slow to come forward. Carter took the extra fractions of a second to pot his sixth career drop goal, his first in just over three years.
Six minutes later, with penalty advantage that would see Bryan Habana yellow carded for a cynical knockdown of the ball out of Aaron Smith’s hands at the back of a ruck, Ma’a Nonu would stand up Jesse Kriel, which was enough to put Barrett away in the corner.
In the space of 13 minutes, New Zealand had swallowed the halftime deficit and even opened a five-point lead themselves.
Sam Whitelock stole a South African lineout in front of Victor Matfield, and it was only moments later that Matfield would be the cause of a penalty reversal, when TMO George Ayoub spotted an illegal ‘neck roll’ infringement in the 60th minute. Another Carter penalty made it 20-15 at this stage, but it was already obvious South Africa were losing the battle of the bench rotations.
The ‘Boks had been enjoying periods of scrum ascendancy, if not complete domination, in the first half, but that quickly disappeared with the injection of front rowers Trevor Nyakane and Jannie du Plessis.
Adriaan Strauss replaced Bismarck du Plessis in this same period, which proved to be the double whammy, with South Africa losing an on-baller as well as Strauss’ lineout throwing turning that strength into a very shaky and suddenly contestable commodity. Strauss’ first couple of throws were picked off, including Whitelock’s crucial steal in front of Matfield.
Matfield has had a long and distinguished career in the green and gold jersey, but his game has rapidly deteriorated in 2015, and he’s been a virtual liability in this World Cup. It’s sad to see what should be such a proud legacy being tarnished before our eyes.
In his 21 minutes on the field, Matfield gave away the crucial penalty, and lost several lineouts that he called to himself – Sam Whitelock admitted to Fox Sports post-match that they deliberately targeted him in their defensive set-up. And it was Matfield that lost the ball at the end of the game when the ‘Boks were trying to build the phases and hold possession to mount one last-ditch attack.
By contrast, New Zealand gained impact with their bench, with Charlie Faumuina and Ben Franks wresting back scrum control, Sam Cane adding to the turning of the breakdown screws, and with Sonny Bill Williams adding elements of attack with his offloads.
They weren’t perfect, New Zealand – though defensively they were pretty close – and that only makes them more dangerous next weekend in the final, where they will face the winner of Sunday’s second semi-final between Argentina and Australia.
No doubt, Los Pumas and the Wallabies will have seen the success South Africa had around the breakdown in the first half, and will be tucking that away for the final preparations and game planning.
But as we well know about this great New Zealand side, knowing how to beat them is only one thing. Actually beating them is quite another thing altogether.
lassitude
Guest
indeed - and not for the first world cup. Late in 2002 the IRB said they wouldn't introduce new laws into the game in a world cup year. But then promptly (as in the first 2 months of 2003) gave directives as to how the breakdown should be refereed that was disparate from how it had been up til then - they may as well have changed the law. Serendipitously that did seem to favour England.
lassitude
Guest
Really ? You weren't watching last year's replay by any chance rather than the actual game ?
lassitude
Guest
Yeah that's a fair point, The Bok kicking out of hand was generally as poor as I've seen it - even FdP was often poor. In fact with the game plan they had (if that's what you call it) they should have selected Morne Steyn - even starting Lambie (perhaps as a fullback but using him as a first receiver when required) would be better. So Pollard's kicking from hand was poor and clearly he doesn't have a general license to run and get the 2 centres going then it does seem a bit of a waste.
Bob McGregor
Guest
Great match but 3 crucial SAfr brain explosions cost them the match. Two courtesy of Brian Habana and the other Victor Matfield. Boks lost by 2 points which was the retaken Carter conversion of Kaino's try - missed when he rushed out VERY early only to be successful on second non contested attempt. Later was penalised and yellow carded for slapping ball from Aaron Smith's hands. Another 3 points then the reversal of the penalty to Boks for Matfield's apparent neck roll. Was desperately unlucky as it looked to me he had the ball carrier head on around the chest. Once again Boks lose a match they could well have won due to POOR discipline and judgement.
William Tell
Guest
I think some people are in denial - the replay offered by The Roar shows the No 7 run in an arc closing on the SA side of the ruck and, as he passes a player beginning to rise from the ground, he strikes backwards with his right elbow into the side of the head of the SA player. The player reacts when the contact is made, but maintains concentration and follows play. Nothing unusual here some would say - McCaw does that kind of thing all the time, usually out of sight, buried in the ruck or maul, except when he gets caught out in the open - as in the tripping incident. We all despise the tripper in the game - it is a sneaky, desperate act that is just so contrary to the spirit of the game and is in fact an admission that the tripper has been beaten fair and square and only has the cheap shot in reply. But a strike to the head of a player is a foul. It is a yellow card. Add the fact that the blow was with the elbow puts it in a potentially dangerous class. Still, if the two Scots players can have a three week suspension entirely removed, then McCaw is safe for the final. Could one possible imagine that such a prospect - to be immune from censure - might not add, um, power to his elbow?
Peter Robinson
Roar Rookie
I had a problem with both those yellow cards actually. Kaino's brain-explosion was well outside the redzone and should have been a penalty only. I thought Habana's YC was extremely marginal too, Aaron Smith had the ball, so it wasn't in the ruck, maybe a deliberate knock forward, maybe he didn't come from the gate, dunno, but yellow card seemed harsh. You could say both actions were cynical, I suppose, it just seems like yellow cards are handed out far too often. Thank goodness neither card severely hampered either side. I also thought the AB's wasted a lot of good possession with needless kicks in or very near the redzone. Of all those kicks only Barret's kick, that Savea nearly regathered, was an excusable option in my opinion. Some of them were downright ridiculous.
Not Bothered
Guest
35 kg bigger, not 46
Not Bothered
Guest
SAs front row was bigger by 14 kg. SAs 2nd row was bigger by 6kg. SAs back row was bigger by 9 kg. SAs halves pairing was bigger by 8 kg. SAs centre pairing was bigger by 2 kg. NZs back 3 were bigger by 4 kg. SA were bigger by 46 kg in the starting 15 according to the official WC profiles shown before the game.
PeterK
Roar Guru
NB - All the personal attacks show your immaturity
PeterK
Roar Guru
NB - Nothing emotional about it, just objective analysis
Not Bothered
Guest
NZs loose trio is not bigger. SA was bigger by 9 kgs.
Not Bothered
Guest
Guys like PeterK are negative towards NZ all the time and are best ignored. He will say "I dont hate NZ, I think they are good" as if saying that NZ is good makes him less of a hater. Hes just bitter.
Not Bothered
Guest
PeterK=anti-NZ
Shane D
Roar Rookie
The ABs agreed & stopped kicking to him.
Not Bothered
Guest
PeterK=anti-NZ. Yawn.
Harry Jones
Expert
Yes, I will fish soon... My point is there were only a few (3?) player size mismatches (slight) out there. le Roux = Ben JPP = Savea Habana = Skudder Centres = similar 9s = same Props = identical Locks = precisely same Loose trio = NZ bigger Hooker = SA bigger 10s = Pollard bigger
RobC
Roar Guru
Thanks Brett. Lineouts. It killed the Boks Uncle Vic's penalty was tough against him. Instead of 3 pointer / lead or corner kick for SB, it was more territory and possession by AB. In any case awesome match. A true brutal gentleman's match. Congrats NZ. SA 2016. BELIEVE IT
Harry Jones
Expert
The All Blacks were the better team. If the Boks had played a more open style, the score would've been worse. It will take 1-2 seasons to retool SA to be able to play rugby with NZ for 40+ minutes of ball in play and come out ahead. But SA was not smashed or dominated.
etienne marais
Guest
There's also one that plays for Canada (it this very RWC). But he has a full head of hair. ;-) (and his knees don't creak)
HiKa
Roar Rookie
It wasn't the push that did the damage. It was Habana's boot on the back of NMS's lower leg. That's an occupational risk of jogging in front of someone who is sprinting. All around, Habana should have done better to reduce his contact with NMS, while NMS's play in slowly running an obstructing line on Habana was pretty ordinary too.