… And so it goes that SA announce their fitness schedule for the top Boks.

Wow. What profound and intellectual thoughts.

David V, I suppose the varous debacles that have occurred in the NRL don’t affect your ability to swing that moral compass as broadly as you do?

Al, tone it down. You’re embarassing yourself. Perhaps you should spend your time on an EDL forum?

The SA backrown was pretty much the same during the 2008 3N: Van Niekerk, Smith and Burger, and Smith, Burger, Spies.

I thought in 2009 the back row also had the problem of playing behind a callow tight five.

If you examine Henry’s selections over the past two seasons, a core features in basically every game. Only players on the periphery are occassionally swapped, and only then against non-3N teams.

Cory Jane’s transfer to the wing isn’t a big deal a) because it has been successful, and b) most back three players can interchange. Likewise Carter and Donald. Their switching was worth a punt, and Mitchell also played Carter at 12. Also, I’m sure Read played 8 at junior level? I think Kahui was played on the wing just to give him Test level experience. Afoa hasn’t played hooker yet, so to be fair there are no real examples of anything overly odd, rather the ocasional gamble to see if something different is workable.

That will teach me to read something properly before responding, Brett. Ouch. You’ll have to excuse me, it’s late and I’m catching up with work having had two holidays in quick succession (Thank you very much volcanic ash!). I saw the reference to the SA tight five and my mind went into overdrive given the age of some of those chappies. England’s front row is positively youthful compared to those boyos.

Part of the issue in 2008 was McCaw’s absence at the beginning. SA have basically kept the same back row for a good few seasons now, and the work and size of their tight five at the ruck meant that the law interpretations didn’t affect them as much. Conversely, injuries to the NZ pack compounded issues last season. However, I agree that the permutations that Henry has picked have been muddled but I don’t think NZ lost 3 games to SA last season due to the composition of the back row. Interestingly, Brussow was a revelation last season, but it’s probably fortunate for SA that he’s injured because I don’t think he has the right game for the law interpretations.

‘Since the loss of form or retirement of both Jerry Collins and Rodney So’aiolo, the All Black back row has been comparatively weak. Kaino, Read and Thompson have not been convincing as inhabiting the same class.’

The NZ backrow munched the Australian back row last season. The only real struggle it had was against the SA back row, and Brussow’s ‘superiority’ over McCaw was exagerrated.

‘The other problem last year was the second row where the Springboks dominated New Zealand. Sam Whitelock is raw but may have the talent to redress that too.’

Second rows don’t dominate other second rows. Head to heads don’t really occur in Test rugby. The NZ second row was fine when Tom Donnelly gained a start. Prior to that Isaac Ross had shown just as much Super form last season as Sam Whitelock has this season.

‘The new Boks are more of the same in the same positions, and do not constitute an increase in the total quality, although perhaps one of depth.’

Louw and Potgieter are the same as Smith? Du Jongh is the same as De Villiers? Aplon the same as Steyn? They’re all totally different players.

All things considered I don’t think Whitelock and Cruden would be adequate replacements for Carter and Donnelly were they selected this weekend. Neither would Ranger be an ideal swap for Jane. There’s a huge difference between potential and reality.

Du Preez is out, but Januarie won the MotM against Wales recently and scored that rather cheeky try when SA broke their NZ hoodoo two seasons ago. I know that a lot of SA fans are on a bit of a downer about Januarie but he’s never undermined the efforts of the team with a lack of technical ability like Burgess has Australia. The other absence which Spiro ignores) is Frans Steyn. Clearly he is not a full back, but he is a prodigious kicker, and thus his absence means that the SA kicking triumvirate of Du Preez, Morne Steyn and Frans Steyn is already two down. This will affect SA in broken play but also if SA get a really long shot at goal which Frans Steyn might have fancied.

5. Not so sure about England’s front row, Brett. Tim Payne, 31, is understudy to Sheridan, 30. Dylan Hartley, 24, was England’s first choice hooker during the 6N, and was injured prior to the SH tour. Steve Thompson is 31. Dan Cole is 23, David Wilson and Paul Doran-Jones both 25. Then there is Matt Mullan, 23, capped versus Italy during the 6N. He was also injured prior to the SH tour. Payne and Thompson are the oldest pair, and neither is a guranteed starter. Seems like a perfect mix to me. Although, I could imagine why you would want them to be past their best given recent performances. 🙂

Gerrard has impregnated either his sister’s wife or a 16 year old girl whilst retaining the England captaincy. This infuriated Terry and thus the camp divided along the lines of Terry-Gerrard, who now hate each other. That’s the main rumour which will allegedly come out in the British press in a few weeks.

I’m confused: how have Henry’s selections been erratic, and which positions conversions are you referring to, Nathan?

I agree with Mr Laidlaw: there is something about this current Springbok side that elevates it above the 2007 WC winning side and the 3N winning side of last season. Of course, a big loss in New Zealand will undermine such a suggestion, but I just have this gut feeling that the Springboks have something about them. Realistically it is hard to judge the 3N teams (at least NZ and SA, anyhow) on the basis of their performances in the pre-3N tests, but I just have this feeling in my stomach…

Having read Sean Fitzpatrick’s analysis I also agree with his assertion that Aplon and De Jongh add an extra dimension to the SA brand. Their quick feet bring a threat that the bulkier, but very classy, players like De Villiers and Fourie simply don’t possess. Louw also brings an extra energy, perhaps something that will galvanize the older heads. One other significant point is the scrummage: SA were heavily penalised in this area last season. With Smit at hooker and Botha at 3 (potentially) that may well be a big weakness remedied.

It goes without saying that NZ will be better than they were last season. Their tactics in SA last season may or may not have been a poor choice for the occasion, but we’ll never know as they were executed so poorly. The current side seems far better equipped to counter-attack more accurately and not be pressured into unecessary mistakes – especially in the absence of Du Preez’s kicking game. I like the idea of Vito playing off the bench – Read, whilst steady and typically physical in a NZ manner, is somewhat pedestrian, and with Kaino’s tendency to drift in an out of games it may be a clever call from Henry to have such an impact player to ignite the back row.

Wayne Smith made the cliched coment about the 3N being won up front, but that rugby cliche is often true. The NZ tight five looks steelier with the return of Donnelly, and I do like the look of Owen Franks. He is occasionally too excitable, but is aggressive, and sometimes that can turn games. NZ have the obvious benefit of only playing one game in SA, but they do have the problem of a lengthy break toward the end of the tournament, and SA play Australia twice at altitude. Personally, I have put some spare change I had in my online bookmaker’s account onto NZ for the simple reason that I feel they are better equipped to garner try bonus points. If their backline clicks then they could rack up some big scores – as could SA, I just happen to be siding with home advantage early on.

NZ and SA, therefore, have added to their squads with in-form players who look ready to play Test rugby: Whitelock, Vito, Dagg, Louw, Potgieter, Du Jongh et al, and the teams appear to have hit the ground running in terms of the new law interpretations – which should make good viewing for the rugby fan, however the 3N might be slightly undermined by Australia. History informs us that it would be churlish to write off an Australian side, but as I get the gut impression that SA and NZ are progressing, I also get the gut feeling that Australia is lurching toward disaster. It always seems one step forward, two or three back. The last excellent Australian performance was against Wales last year, and even that was preceeded by some uninspiring guff. It will take a lot to gain parity up front, and for the Australian backs to challenge the SA and NZ defensive systems. If Australia struggled to do that with a full team, how will they perform with a weakened team? The mind boggles… Can’t wait for the Test next weekend.

Would MacQueen not have purchased players with a specific style in mind?

But when a club player fails it isn’t necessarily due to a gulf in class or ability. Torres doesn’t excel in the Spanish side due to the Spanish tactics, likewise Lampard has never been given a free run as he has at Chelsea. It has long been apparent that playing Lampard and Gerrard together compromises both players. That is why Zidane played so well in the 1998 WC, because his side had the right balance to accomodate his talents. Noto nly that, but his side had a core of genuine world class players.

I’ve never understand the demand for performance based contracts. NZ lost the 2007 WC QF basically due to a forward pass and injuries to Carter and Evans, yet the entire squad would suffer financially due to freak occurrences.

Err… Chelsea’s best players on the European stage are their English players. Without Terry or Lampard the team struggles.

Did Zidane and Maradonna ‘do it against the odds’? I’m not sure. You’d have to be both Argentine and French and have lived in both countries during the appropriate periods to answer that question.

I think Gerrard was very committed and passionate, and one or two others, but by and large the team lookied lethargic and uninspired. They didn’t look organised, and they didn’t look turned on, but I don’t think that means the players didn’t want it enough… so to speak. I wonder what people will say if the rumours turn out to be true in a few weeks? Are the non-English Roarers aware of the rumours doing the rounds, btw?

This beaut disagrees with you, Jerry. What an article:

http://www.keo.co.za/2010/06/28/backing-the-superior-boks/

I don’t think this particular ‘debate’ can progress anymore. I genuinely don’t think you have watched any Test rugby union over the past two seasons – and I don’t mean that comment to be offensive. I have said what I have said – offering explanations, I have offered data where possible, and I have offered to furnish you with more data. You cherry pick your responses, answering some comments and ignoring others, whilst repeating various things which don’t make a great deal of sense and fly in the face of fact and history. Anyhow, thanks for your time and your words.

Erm… I hope that’s banter, because if it isn’t then I’ve surely imagined a lot of sporting events over the past year or so. That can’t be good!

I really don’t see what the confusion is here? Firstly, a host of players were out of form as the tournament commenced: Terry, Upson, Lennon (coming back from injury), Barry (also coming back from injury), Defoe and Rooney. Secondly, this disrupted the team and Capello clearly had no idea what his best side was: King, Carragher and Upson with Terry, and Milner, SWP and Lennon down the right. That, to me, speaks of poor or confused management. That the side seemingly had no cohesion and tactical unity confirms this IMO. Thirdly, there are various rumours of huge in-camp divisions. All in all not a happy holiday home. Let’s be realistic, Johnson is not an international footballer. Aside from the lamentable Glen Johnson England have/had a good balanced squad full of players who have proven themselves at the highest level. It was simply a poor tournament, no more no less.

‘not have they been bashing the line apart for him to wreak havoc.’

‘Mr S not having two big backs, I mean big like Mortlock and Tuqiri not big like AAC, prevents ‘the Wallabies from battering down the opposition defence.’

Your choice of words guides the reader to infer that you are suggesting that only Mortlock’s physical presence was necessary, as opposed to any of his other qualities which you distinctly fail to mention. I don’t recall saying that you said Mortlock was a cart horse, btw. I said that Mortlock wasn’t a cart horse.

AAC is an excellent ball carrier. Either you have watched him or you haven’t. If you have then I can’t imagine how you could deny that he is a very dynamic and powerful ball carrier? Would you like me to list the statistics that illustrate his carrying ability? I’m beginning to think that you haven’t watched any of the players you have made comments about.

You still don’t seem to understand that the Australian backline has lacked penetration WITH big players (which it has had for two seasons), and that big players aren’t a requisite for intelligent and successful back play. You still also seem to be ignoring the fact that the Australian backs are basically the same size as most other backs in Test rugby. Really, that makes whatever you are attempting to suggest about bulk totally redundant. Incidentally, are you aware that Mortlock is referring to the past three games?

What is a low quality runner? What does that even mean?

I can tell you all about the Italian backline: neither Picone or Tebaldi are dominant figures at 9. Neither mixes the play well, kicks accurately or threatens around the ruck contest. They both tend to spend to long before passing and don’t look left or right before passing. Obviously this means Gower garners excessive attention from the defence. Gower is severely limited. His passing game is fast and accurate on the gainline but he often stands to deep and when presented with attacking opportunities tends to kick, either with a garryowen or a chip behind the defence. Masi is a big presence but is little more than a bulwark. His passing is limited and he rarely looks outside him when given the ball. The same applies to Canale. Both Masi and Canale are big men but lack pace, can’t kick and suffer from tunnel vision. Kaine Robertson is a good finisher, but not particularly quick for a winger. His height means that Gower can’t cross-field kick, which is problematic given that he plays on the right. Luke McLean is composed at the back, but lacks the searing pace of a proper 15. Mirco Bergamasco is as physical as Masi and Canale but equally as uninspired. He often gets on the end of moves but doesn’t have the creativity or pace to finish them. The trio are much of a muchness. Could Carter organise and galvanise such a backline better than Gower? Yes. Of course he could.

I think most people would agree that good 10s don’t rely on good ‘runners’ outside them, otherwise they wouldn’t be a good 10 in the first place.

To suggest that Mortlock was simply a battering ram is inane. Mortlock was a great defensive organiser, an intelligent attacker, a good leader AND a physical presence – simply a very good footballer. Aside from that Tuqiri’s form was poor prior to his dismissal, so I have ny idea why you keep mentioning his name? Mortlock was the glue that held the Australian backline together, not a mere cart horse. AAC is, if not more, as much of a punishing carrier as Mortlock, and Cross is just as big, so not only are your comments about size overly simplistic, they also ignore key facts. Another key fact is that the SA attack was inconsistent and limited last season, and that neither JdV or Fourie base their games on brute force. There’s only so many times I can repeat that.

Look, this is simple: the ability of the fly half to impose his talents, and those of his backs, onto a match depend on myriad factors. Primarily a fly half depends on quick ball, and accurate service. Giteau was not the recipient of such things. Obviously this affected the Australian backline. Giteau also had a backline beyond him that has not improved under Deans. A lack of bulk has nothing to do with that.

I don’t understand what you’re attempting to suggest? What is critical about SA having two bigger centres when AAC is just as big, if not bigger, than most other Test 13s? Problematically, the South African back play was as bad or even worse than that of Australia last season, and neither JdV or Fourie base their game on size. You might also be interested to know that Ryan Cross featured in the 3N last season, a player who is 1.90m and 100kg.