POWER; was one English commentators’ answer to a question by his co-commentator on why can’t England rise to the same heights against SA than was the case against Australia? That answer summarised the Springboks performance for me.

We were more powerful at the scrums; at the rucks; at the tackle area; at the mauls. We dominated the breakdowns and never allowed England to get into the match. They struggled to obtain quality first and second phase ball and that was in essence the difference between the two teams. Our power, structure and organisation at set piece (scrum and lineout) and our dominance at the breakdowns allowed us to create depth and space for the backline.

Matfield said as much after the match namely that the front foot ball and the ascendency at the tackle area allowed the Springboks to spread the ball and play a little wider. For the first time this year we actually had some dept on attack in the backline.

All is still not well in the back line but we had decoy runners for the first time and the ball went through the hands to the wings; Mvovo scored an excellent try because he got opportunities. He or someone on his inside could have scored a second one if CJ didn’t mess-up terribly. CJ hanged on the ball too long and then off-loaded into the hands of the England defender which went on to run the length of the field to go and score. Talk about throwing a try creating pass wasn’t that pass by Spies to Alberts just too good to be true. The way CJ did it –namely throwing the pass to the opposition to go and score- is not how you do it. That piece of play by CJ ruined to some extend what could have been a perfect day for the boks. In the end it was probably brought about by our unwillingness to run with the ball on a regular basis. You can’t get good at something if you don’t practice it and the boks did struggle to finish off; going into half time 6 all after having had 70% of the possession.

The pack was outstanding and they overpowered England upfront; the win was constructed in the engine room, the scrums, the lineouts, the mauls, the rucks and the tackle area. Juan Smith, Spies, Bakkies, Victor, Jannie and Bismarck were outstanding. Stegmann also had his best game so far in the Springboks jersey and apart from leaking a few penalties he did good work at slowing their ball down and making sure we don’t lose our ball at the collisions. He created at least one turnover.

Ruan and Morne’s tactical kicking was a lot better in this game. They kicked into space and the chasers did well to box the England back three in. The chasers were successful, I thought, mostly because the kicks were better placed but also because the team, in general, hunted in packs and were more energetic, explosive and aggressive in all facets of play but most importantly on defence and going into tackles. We were pushed off the ball only once and generally we were superb with low body positions and lots of explosive leg driving at the tackle area. The highly rated England scrum was nullified and our lineout was in a different league.

PdV got the “subbing” right for a change as well. Alberts came on, I thought, at the right time and made impact scoring an excellent team-created-try by popping up at the right place; he also made some telling tackles.

Jean de Villiers was the architect on the defence in the backline. He read the England backline like a book and rushed-up on a number of occasions to smother potential dangerous backline moves.

It is hard to find fault with this performance and this must surely rate as one of the great wins against England. This is a much improved England side, make no mistake, and the way we outsmarted and outplayed them in this match was encouraging with regard to our 2011 WC campaign.

Looking at the All Black/Welsh game it is clear our backline play is way behind the ball game. It is the one area where we need some urgent remedial work.

Why do we need to be with our back against the wall before we produce this sort of rugby? Might it be concentration levels and player fatigue -just too much rugby- or is it a case of basic skills not really on par. If we don’t psych-ourselves-up-for-it our basics skills are just not good enough for us to be consistent? Whatever it is, we need to find the answer to that question and sort our annoyiong habit to play one good game after losing or playing really poorly for 3 or 4 in a row.

I believe it was Victorious Victor who pulled the team together for this tour and the 3 out of 4 result has much to do with his inspirational leadership; his iron will; his never give up attitude. All credit to Victor for pulling the team together for this last one after the loss against Scotland which could have seen the team falling apart at the end of a long and generally dissapointing season.

Like they say here in NZ. This victory was SWEET AS!!

To be honest I am slightly dumbfounded after the loss against Scotland and the rather pathetic show against Wales. This year’s international rugby season was one colossal disappointment for me and I am really struggling to mount any enthusiasm for this weekend’s game.

I am bitterly disappointed with not only the type of rugby we play but also with our inability to execute our “game plan” if one can call it a plan.

Eddie Jones came out this week and said that the Springboks might have bigger problems than they realise as players don’t believe in coach Peter de Villiers’ game plan.

Jones told RugbyXV: “Firstly, South Africa can’t decide how they want to play. With the change of laws, most sides have committed to the way they want to play.”

“The best sides have found a balance in kicking and how they want to use the ball, and have the right mix,” said Jones who helped Jake White’s Boks win the 2007 Rugby World Cup.

“I don’t for one moment think the Boks believe in the way they’re playing. That’s affecting them.

“That’s also a reason why their attack has been so one-dimensional.” said Jones.

I think Eddie is spot on. The Springboks have started to doubt themselves and are now tentative in execution; this makes the “flawed” game plan even more ineffective. The fact of the matter is that we played a lot better in the tri nations than in most of the matches so far on tour. If we play with the same conviction and application than in the tri-nations we should beat England.

The problem is, however, we don’t believe in what we are doing anymore. The new style of playing does not mean you cannot kick at all, it is how and when you kick that is important.

Carter made more kicks than any 10 in the Tri-Nations, but it’s a case of when, how and why they kick, rather than kicking for the sake of it. Carter uses the kick as an attack and not as a means to escape pressure or as an attack option when the AB’s can’t get forward momentum. This in my opinion is also the primary difference between FdP and his imitators (Hougaard, Januarie, Ruan). Fourie made sure we were going forward, first and foremost, before using a box kick. He rarely uses the box kick if he gets static ball or back foot ball.

Fourie du Preez’s other primary difference –as compared with his imitators- is his ability to vary his play; his option taking and ability to keep his forwards going forward. A kick to relieve pressure should go out -into the pavilion- not a sort of attacking kick like the one against Wales which led to their second try.

Jones also made the following remarks:

“Every country pretty much knows which 30 they’ll pick. But they must pick correctly. You have to question why the Boks played two lighter loosies in Deon Stegmann and Ryan Kankoswki against a big Scottish pack in wet conditions. 

“If you wanted to pick Kankowski, he should have played against Wales.

“The Boks need to develop a belief in the way they want to play.”

Deon Stegmann has failed to impose himself at the breakdown to date. If he couldn’t slow the ruck recycle against Scotland I can’t see him improving exponentially in a week to stifle the attacking flow of a better unit, says Keo on his website.

I tend to agree with that so in addition to bossing the gain line war, England will also be dominant at scrum time. It all points to a long and frustrating afternoon for our halfbacks Ruan Pienaar and Morné Steyn. Under the circumstances –it being wet and cold- Ruan is the better option, I believe, and he will need to keep mixing it up at the fringes; making sure he puts the big guys like Albers, Juan, Beast and Spies into gaps and that he recycle quickly. We will need to blow-over and be precise with the ball in hand at the tackle area; low body positions with lots of explosive impact will have to be the norm.

I would want Steyn mixing it up as well; playing either deep or flat as the situation demands. He needs to slide deep into the pocket and punt for the corners with precision when we are in our half. The wingers then need to chase with conviction so we can force lineouts in the England 22. When inside the England 22, Steyn needs to play flatter; his passes or runs will have to be decisive, aggressive and with commitment. His tentativeness has been his greatest flaw so far; it is commitment that normally works on a rugby field; trust your instincts and do what you do with total commitment. This is so by the way all Lambie really brings to the table; he attacks with commitment and speed. The operative word for Morné is speed and decisiveness. This is what I hope to see from Morné for a change; kick and run with conviction and not as if you wonder whether you should have done something else.

Considering the wet I think the Ireland game plan could pay off; just believe in it and do it with total commitment and execute tactically better by playing into the corners. We can win this match by forcing them to make mistakes in the own half and by mauling of the lineouts.

Come on bokke get it right for once.

CORNE KRIGE admitted he deliberately set out to injure England players during South Africa’s 53-3 record mauling at Twickenham in 2002.

Five minutes of madness (link to article here; ‘Five minutes of madness’)

In an exclusive extract from his autobiography The Right Place at the Wrong Time, former Springbok captain Corne Krige talked in 2008 in detail about the day ” I wish had never happened”.

On Saturday 23 of November 2002 South Africa played against England at Twickenham in a game that became famous more for the off-the-ball action than England’s 53-3 victory. In his book Krige revelas his side of the story.

England had won the previous three matches between our two countries at Twickenham, yet, in the first fifteen minutes, it was a tightly fought contest.

But after twenty-three minutes, with England leading 8-0, New Zealand referee Paddy O’Brien waved the red card at our lock Jannes Labuschagne for a late tackle on England flyhalf Jonny Wilkinson.

At the time, even our critics suggested it was a harsh punishment for the offence. However, only moments before, O’Brien had given a general warning to both teams to cut out the niggling that had been there from the start.

I have to say that I always had huge respect for Paddy O’Brien during his time as an international referee. I also enjoyed him as a person, as he wasn’t one of those big-headed referees you come across in the game.

Paddy was always humble – a fantastic, nice guy. But, having said that, I do think he made a big mistake to give a red card to Jannes.

There may have been some malicious intent in Jannes’s tackle, but it did not warrant a red card. A yellow one, fine, but not red. Jannes’s challenge was late, but I’ve seen far worse tackles go unpunished.

See the red card incident here

Now that we’re on the subject, I want to stand up and say definitively that I personally got it horribly wrong at Twickenham that day.

Over two years later, Paddy O’Brien wrote in a South African newspaper that, when he saw a tape of the game some time afterwards, he was appalled at what had gone on behind his back.

“I should have sent off five of them,” was his comment. And I have to say that he was right. And that I should have been one of those sent off.

To this day, I still struggle to understand what went on inside my mind that day at Twickenham. When people ask me to describe my feelings and emotions during the game, I think back and recall all sorts of things.

What happened came from a combination of spirit and the heightened sense of competition. Then there was the obvious desire not to lose, and refusing to accept defeat graciously.

And there was the anger and resentment I felt towards England’s arrogance. After all, we had lost in Marseille and Edinburgh and nothing like this had happened there.

But then we hadn’t perceived our opponents to be arrogant, as if they were trying to rub our noses in defeat. France and Scotland had enjoyed beating us, as one would expect.

But they did not exhibit the sneering superiority of the England team as they put us to the sword at Twickenham.

In fact, England was the team I disliked playing against the most, for they were always full of it. I didn’t particularly dislike playing any other team, like New Zealand, Australia or Ireland.

But England was different. Because of their supercilious attitude, they were never good opponents.

Make no mistake, I’m not trying to make excuses for my actions in that match. I accept my full share of the blame, as well as responsibility for what the Springboks did on the field that day.

I had lost at Twickenham before, and knew what it was like.

But then Paddy O’Brien stunned everyone on the field and the crowd of 70 000 spectators by red-carding Jannes Labuschagne.

From then on, we were on the back foot. Playing with only seven men against their forward pack was a nightmare. That imbalance in strength, combined with England’s attitude, motivated me to be as dirty as I could for the rest of the game.

I knew that we were going to lose, but I made up my mind to take a few people down with me. I committed some appalling fouls, hitting people in possession and smashing others off the ball.

Of course, not only was it dangerous play, but also stupid. It only raised England’s ire to such an extent that they thrashed us 53-3, the worst beating a Springbok side has ever suffered.

And you can imagine how I felt as the team’s captain. You can choose whichever words you wish: humiliation, hurt, pain, anger, resentment, fury; all of them applied to my state of mind that afternoon as we trudged off Twickenham.

When I sat down in the dressing room after the final whistle, I just cried my eyes out. I was mentally shattered and in great physical pain. I had bashed my body so badly that I was in agony.

I honestly believe that I took two years off my rugby career in that game. My body was destroyed. I cried through sheer pain and frustration. We’d had a terrible tour, lost all three games and been caught up in this total humiliation at the end of it. 

The British media – especially the tabloids, whose appetite for scandal is as intense as Dracula’s for blood – had a field day.

There was a photograph of me elbowing Martin Johnson in the face. However, the picture didn’t show what had happened moments earlier: Johnson strangling me, so much so that I thought I was going to lose consciousness.

I was literally fighting for breath, and, in order to break his grip, I swung an elbow at his face. It was done just to try to get him off me, as an act of survival.

See the elbow incident here

But of course people went berserk about that incident, not wanting to hear what had led directly to it.

Twelve months later, when we got to the World Cup in Australia, I would again be surrounded by the British media, about a remark I had made to a South African journalist – one I had thought would be off the record.

In the event, it found its way into the press. I had called Johnson one of the dirtiest players in the world, and of course the British media latched onto my statement like pit bull terriers as soon as the Springbok squad arrived for the World Cup.

During the Twickenham match, I flew into rucks boots or head first. I felt no concern for my own safety or for the safety of others. I suppose you could say the red mist had descended;

I really lost it badly. The worse thing I did was to try to knock Matt Dawson out with a flying headbutt. I considered him one of the most arrogant guys in the team.

But I admit I was concerned when I heard that Dawson had suffered a neck injury, which at one stage was thought to be so serious that it might put an end to his career. It didn’t, but I wasn’t proud of my actions.

To compound matters, after the match our coach Rudolf Straeuli was questioned by British journalists about our rough- house antics. Straeuli bristled at the suggestions and said,

“We have two players concussed and one with a dislocated shoulder. Do you think we concussed ourselves?”

Unfortunately, Rudi had not been warned that Sky Television had footage showing me throwing a punch at an opponent, missing, and my fist connecting with the face of André Pretorius, our flyhalf.

I felt extremely embarrassed afterwards, as I knew the blow with which I had inadvertently felled André would not only make me look stupid, but would backfire on Straeuli for what he said at the press conference.

Twickenham 2002 was a total disaster for all South Africans, but especially for me. It has taken me years to get over that one game. Indeed, it is only recently that I have begun to deal with it.

I was very disappointed in those players who gave up. I knew a lot of them would never play for South Africa again. They never stood with me on the field, or afterwards when I was in a deep state of mental anguish and physical pain.

I felt I was in a minority, and that intensified the agony. So did the score: 3-53 is an absolute thrashing, and I still don’t think we deserved that. It added insult to injury.

Here are some more extracts about the match from an article published in the Guardian.

Woodward fears for game’s image in the wake of South Africa’s violent tactics

Test rugby is a physical contact sport and England, like all top sides, fully understand the law of the jungle. There are legitimate big hits and there are gratuitous cheap shots, but no international touring team in modern times have crossed the line as blatantly as the Springboks on Saturday.

Never mind the scoreline, a record defeat which should embarrass everyone connected with South African rugby. Worse, for those who care about the game’s image, was the manner in which the Boks shamed their proud heritage with their relentless head-hunting, sly elbows and calculated violence.

Even on the streets of Bloemfontein or Pretoria there should be scant pity for the South Africans at having to play three-quarters of the game with 14 players. The 23rd-minute dismissal of their lock Jannes Labuschagne, an optometry student who needs his own eyes tested if he felt his late shoulder charge on Wilkinson was justified, came immediately after the New Zealand referee Paddy O’Brien had warned both sides to calm down.

Even with 15 men the Boks had looked doomed once Ben Cohen completed a remarkable full set of tries against the leading nations by escaping Fleck’s tackle in the right corner.

Will Greenwood, with two artful tries either side of half-time, extended the margin and the half-century was raised via a penalty try for a high tackle on Christophers by Werner Greeff plus back-row incisions from Back, Richard Hill and Lawrence Dallaglio, a replacement for Lewis Moody who also has a damaged shoulder.

Greeff was cited yesterday for the high tackle by the French match commissioner Paul Mauriac and the full-back’s case, along with Labuschagne’s, will be heard tomorrow.

Here is a brief description of the match.

England first try started with a long break by Matt Dawson. Weaving left and right, the scrum-half found close support from Lawrence Dallaglio – a 14-minute replacement for Lewis Moody, who departed with a shoulder injury – and finally the quick gloss was supplied by Ben Cohen. The winger found an excellent line and, although tackled just short, reached out with a second movement to get the ball over the line.

A second movement?

The Springboks didn’t like it, but referee O’Brien had the last say.

The referee did, however, found himself unable to give what look on replay a second try for Cohen. Going up for an angled hoist by Wilkinson, the winger temporarily lost the ball in the air, quickly reclaimed and seemed to ground the ball as he fell backwards. After lengthy consultation a knock on was called.

But a seven-man South Africa pack still encountered great difficulty on their put-in. Twice the front row were penalised for popping up. ‘I know it’s hard,’ O’Brien told them, but you’re got to stay in.’

To the great credit of the seven, they put up a rock-solid wall when England tried to maul a lineout to the line. So the home side used their backs again. Twice the ball rippled down the line – once, with Wilkinson lying among the centre – and then Will Greenwood came on an inward angle. He had 20 metres to go and several defender’s in the way, but he showed impressive strength – in contrast to his normal deceptive stepping – to go over by the posts.

With South Africa opening their account with a Butch James penalty, and Wilkinson getting another straight after, it was a healthy 18-3 to England at the interval – an advantage they improved soon after the break when they stretched play to their left flank and Greenwood, ignoring the supporting winger’s switch inside him, kept going into the corner. Again, the try was scored in the aftermath of the tackle – this time with a bit of momentum added.

With Wilkinson having retired with a shoulder injury, Dawson took the conversion from touch and nailed it. That must have given a further surge to English spirits. Christophers now attempted to get in at the other corner, turning inwards between two defenders and catching the arm of Greeff around his neck. That resulted in a penalty try, issued with an expression of regret by O’Brien. Then England’s growing reputation as crosskick wizards, was underlined as replacement Austin Hill dinked the ball into the corner for Richard Hill to seize. Either side of that effort, Back and Dallaglio profited from English power at lineout maul and scrum against the weary seven.

England crossed twice in the first half to go in at the interval 18-3 in front, but it was in the second period when the weight of taking on a fiercely fit and powerful England side began to tell. South Africa shipped a further five tries, the last of which was a pushover touched down by Lawrence Dallaglio, on as a substitute.

Clich here to see a post-match interview with Will Greenwood as well as the Greenwood tries.

The teams:

England: Robinson (Sale); Cohen (Northampton), Greenwood (Harlequins); Stimpson ,(Leicester), Tindall (Bath), Christophers (Bristol); Wilkinson (Newcastle); Healey (Leicester, 44), Dawson (Northampton); Gomarsall , (Gloucester); Leonard (Harlequins), Thompson (Northampton), Vickery (Gloucester), Johnson (Leicester, capt), Kay (Leicester); Grewcock , (Bath); Moody (Leicester); Dallaglio , (Wasps), Back (Leicester), Hill (Saracens).

Tries: Cohen, Greenwood 2, penalty try, Back, Hill, Dallaglio. Cons: Wilkinson, Dawson, Gomarsall 2, Stimpson 2. Pens: Wilkinson 2.

South Africa: Greeff (W Province); Paulse (W Province); Russell (Pumas), Fleck (W Province), James (Natal), Lombard (Free State); Pretorius (Lions); Jacobs , (Falcons), Conradie (W Province); Jordaan ,(Blue Bulls); Roux (Blue Bulls), Dalton (Falcons); Van Biljon , (Natal), Carstens (Natal); Van der Linde , (Free State), Labuschagne (Lions), Venter (Natal), Krige (Western Province, capt), Wannenburg (Blue Bulls), Van Niekerk (Lions).

Pen: Pretorius.

Red card: Labuschagne.

Referee: P O’Brien (N Zealand).

During May and June 1984 England toured South Africa playing a series of seven matches including two test matches against the Springboks. They won four of the seven matches but lost both of the test matches as well as drawing the fixture against Western Province.

Tour record of the 1984 England team in South Africa

The team left for South Africa in the face of much criticism, and in spite of covert political pressure, the England Rugby Football Union decided that the tour of South Africa should go ahead, but probably with hindsight, in the light of results, later wished that they had not. Many players were unable to tour (not for political reasons, only Ralph Knibbs of Bristol stood up to be counted in that respect) and the squad was relatively inexperienced. Ten of the 26 players were uncapped before the tour and 7 gained their first caps in South Africa.

The English Touring party was:

It is because of the inexperience in the side that these two test count -in my book- as the most enjoyable and not the most satisfying and/or best wins against England. We demolished them and the boks scored some brilliant tries including a hat trick by a vintage Danie Gerber in the second test but it was against dubious opposition. Nevertheless, it was fun to watch and Gerber was at his exhilarating best. It was enjoyable and unforgettable rugby but that uncertainty factor which add satisfaction to a win was lacking and in the absence of real quality opposition one can hardly describe these wins as the best wins against England.

For the first time in history the Springbok team had two black players in the team namely Errol Tobias –the first black Springbok- and Avril Williams. Tobias who played in his first test in 1981 against Ireland on centre was playing on flyhalf in this series with Williams on the wing. Click here to read more about Tobias.

There were a number interesting players playing for South Africa as can be seen in the photo below.

Back: Hempies du Toit, Vleis Visagie, Schalk Burger, John Villet
Middle: Johan Heunis, Avril Williams, Gerrie Sonnekus, Carel du Plessis, Chris Rogers, Errol Tobias
Front: Danie Gerber, Divan Serfontein, Cecil Moss (coach), Theuns Stofberg (captain), Prof Daan Swiegers (manager), Rob Louw, Ockie Oosthuizen,

Schalk Burger senior was the one lock with Vleis Visagie –two huge men- John Villet –the poor man’s favorite centre- on inside centre. Gerrie Sonnekus who made his debut on scrumhalf in the third test against the 1974 British lions was back in the Springbok team but this time on No8 and Theuns Stofberg was the captain.

Big Schalk Burger with the ball in one hand in the second test.

I wonder how many people can actually remember that Stofberg Captained the Springboks. I also wonder how many people can remember the Gerrie Sonnekus right hook on the Wasps prop Paul Rendall (see photo’s below) in the second test.

Sonnekus getting ready to sort Paul Rendall on the first picture and delivering the right hook on the second picture.

The second test was by far the better of the two tests with the Springboks scoring 6 tries. Tobias opened the scoring with a try in the right hand corner after some nice stepping and aggressive running.

Errol Tobias scoring the Springboks first try in the second test.

There were also tries by Stofberg and Sonnekus and the cherry on the cake was the three stunning tries by everyone’s favorite centre Danie Gerber.

Gerber bamboozled the English backline and ran circles around them.

For his second try Gerber ran over 40 meters and then slide in classic Gerber style on his back over the line in the right hand corner but did not place the ball he then got up and ran in the in goal area to place the ball behind the uprights (See photo’s below). I’ve never seen another player do this before or since Gerber.

Danie Gerber scoring his second try in the second test.

Carel Du Plessis going over for his try in the first test.

The Springboks totally outplayed the English scoring 9 tries in the two tests and one was left with a euphoric feeling that all is well in South African rugby. How can anything go wrong if we have somebody like Danie Gerber in the backline was the prevailing or lingering thought in the back of your mind.

The Grand Slam is a relatively modern term coined to either represent a full house of wins by one Six Nations country over the other five participating nations or a full house of wins by a touring Southern Hemisphere team over the four United Kingdom (UK) home unions. The term Grand Slam was first used in 1933, by the American journalist John Kieran. In describing the attempt that year by Jack Crawford to win all four titles, he compared it with “a countered and vulnerable grand slam in bridge”. Kieran singled out these four titles as being the biggest in tennis because, at the time, they were the main international championships held in the only four countries who had won the Davis Cup. Crawford failed to achieve the Grand Slam that year as he lost in the US Championships final to Fred Perry. It wasn’t until 1938 that Donald Budge became the first person to achieve the Grand Slam. The expression Grand Slam, initially used to describe the winning of the tennis major events, was later incorporated by other sports, notably golf, to describe a similar accomplishment. 

Considering that each of the four UK teams (and France) generally play a different style and have different strengths and weaknesses a Grand Slam is, in terms of adaptability, probably a greater feat than winning a series against one country.

The following table contains the results of end of year tours since 1906.

The Boks have achieved the Grand Slam four times, in 1912/13, 1931/32, 1951/52 and 1960/61 (the 1912 and 1951 sides also beat France). If you consider France as part of the Grand Slam then the boks have only achieved it in 1912/13, 1951/52 with a close call in 1960/61 when they drew the last test against France.

I’ve seen and heard remarks that South Africa have not achieved a Grand Slam in 52 years, namely since 1960. That is technically correct BUT we’ve only played all four home nations twice on the same EOYT (1998 and 2004) since 1960. In 1998 the Springboks under Nick Mallett and Gary Teichmann were on track to do it, and also set a world record of 18 successive victories, but lost their last test against England at Twickenham.  The last time we attempted a Grand Slam was in 2004 when we lost two (Ireland and England) and won two (Scotland and Wales). This was the tour where Jake White motivated the Irish to the extreme two days before the test when he said none of the Irish players (or did he refer to only one of the Irish props and it somehow got lost in translation) are good enough to play for Maties; they are a side with sub-standard players that don’t have -per implication- a snowball’s change in hell to win the Springboks. Jake’s remark -specifically the fact that it enraged and motioned them to kamakazi like exaltation- was thought by many to be the primary reason why we lost against Ireland. It was of course also the match in which O’Gara took a quick tap kick and scored while Smit was still talking to his team on instruction from the referee.

Since 1992 the Boks achieved five mini-slams (1994, 1996, 1997, 2007 and 2008) by winning all their test matches but unfortunately didn’t play all four the home nations on those tours. In 1997 when Mallet took over from Carel du Plessis the boks -after winning Australia 61-22 in Carel’s last test- proceeded to win all five their EOYT tests namely against Scotland, England, two against France and one against Italy. This is as close as you can get to a Grand Slam. There can be little doubt that the 1997 team would’ve pocketed a Grand Slam if they had played all four UK teams on that tour. In 2008 the Springboks went north on the back of a 53-8 demolition job on the Wallabies at Ellis Park and beat Wales 20-15, Scotland 14-10 and England 42-6, another mini slam that could have been a big slam had we play all four the home nations.

Here is a newspaper article of the match against Wales in 1994 which South Africa won 20-12. The outstanding rugby the South Africans played elicit a standing ovation, after the match, from the Welsh crowd.

Overall the Springboks have played in 66 tests against the big guns (excluding Italy and the two tests so far this year) on EOYT’s since 1906 and have won 65% of those tests, losing only 27%. That is an extra-ordinary achievement considering not only all the political and off the field obstacles the Springboks had to deal with, over the years, but also the different players, playing styles, playing surfaces they encountered on these tours. In 1912 for instance the boks had to play a match against Swansea on a sopping St. Helen’s field (see photo below) and lost 0-3, however, the team overcame that disappointment and went on and won all four test matches in the UK and then beat France as well to top it off for a Super Grand Slam.

The St. Helen’s field was so filled with water that the boks used the puddles on the field to watch the mud of their arms and faces as this picture shows.

Cardiff Arms Park was also a see of mud and water when Wales and the Springboks met in 1912.

On the photo below Duggie Morkel is shown in the act of kicking the decisive penalty which gave his team victory against Wales on a muddy Cardiff Arms Park in 1912.

In 1960 –when the team under Avril Malan also achieved a Grand Slam- Cardiff Arms Park was completely flooded when the boks met Wales (see picture below). Chris Greyvenstein writes about this match:

 “In a few hours Avril Malan and his Springboks are due to meet Wales on Cardiff Arms Park and you look at the field, lying there like a soaked green blanket with the chocolate-coloured water of the River Taff lapping at the edges, and you wonder if it would be necessary for the Springboks to leave their Hotel. A test match can surely not be played under such conditions.”

The 1969/70 “betoger” tour was a gut wrenching experience for the Springboks. The English media and general public were protesting in harsh and extreme ways against the tour and everywhere the team went there were people shouting insults and profanities. They had to play matches behind barbwire fences and one has to read Gerhard Viviers book “Rugby agter doringdraad” to appreciate the amount of “hateful” insults, the general neagtivity, and the extreme difficult circumstances under which this Springbok team had to tour and play. This team could manage no more than to draw two of the four tests but won the last so called “fifth test” against the barbarians. A match in which Jan Ellis scored two absolutely brilliant tries.

Jan Ellis in the match against the barbarians during the 1969/70 tour

Looking at performances against the individual Northern Hemisphere teams, during EOYT’s, it is clear that England is the only NH team that were able to stand up against the Springboks, over the years. The Springboks share a 50/50 record with the POMS having played 15, drawn one and won and lost 7. Wales have never won SA during an EOYT (there was a draw in 1969/70 and we lost once against them but that was in a one off match in June 1999 and not an official EOYT) and the Springboks have a 93% (13 won out of 14 played) success record against them on EOYT’s. The Boks have a 69% (9 wins out of 13 played) record against the Scots, a 58% (7 out of 12) record against the Irish and a 58% (7 wins out of 12) record against France on EOYT’s.  

The All Blacks, who were unable to pull it off while the Boks were dominating world rugby have three modern Grand Slams to their credit since the term entered rugby’s lexicon – ’78, ’05 and ’08 and, having beaten England, look to be heading for another this year.

The Wallabies have managed a Grand Slam only once, in 1984, and fondly refer to Mark Ella’s Grand Slam team, but also have to bear the cross of being the only ones to suffer a Grand Slam of defeats against the Home Unions in 1957/58.

South Africa worst year was in 2002 under Rudolph Straeuli and Corné Krige when they lost all three their EOYT matches, 6-12 against Scotland, 3-53 against England and 10-30 against France; a mini reverse Grand Slam. Fortunately, they didn’t play all the home nations on that tour or we would have shared this terrible honour with the Aussies. That 3-53 loss against England was without a doubt the lowest low in the history of Springbok rugby.

May I never experience another day like that!

Team photo of the first Springboks.

20 July 1976 – South African Gazelle 15 / All Blacks 21

Boet Erasmus, Port Elizabeth

Weather: fine, warm with a wisp of a breeze.

Ground: Perfect.

Crowd: 27 000.

Referee: Max Baize (Eastern Province).

Teams

Barry Wolmarans here playing for the Springboks during the 1981 tour to New Zealand. He was one of the future Springboks who played for the Gazelles against the 76 AB’s.

Hermanus Potgieter also played in this match. Here he is on his way to the 1977 try of the year against an invitation XV.

Before the game incidents/issues/stuff

Port Elizabeth was hit by a howling gale the day before the match and there were fears that the wind will “blow the match away as a spectacle”.

Happily, on match day the wind had ease of to just a gentle breeze.

A Mercedes-Benz 350SE automatic was made available to All Black skipper Andy Leslie for his exclusive use while in PE.

The All Black coach J.J. Stewart caused quite a stir when he was quoted in one of the local newspapers saying that the Springboks would win the series. “We are not a great side,” he said, “and New Zealand rugby is passing through lean years at the moment.”

A set of white rugby jerseys -purchased on behalf of the All Blacks by Phillips Ltd- was presented by the All Blacks in PE to the Leopards. The Leopards were the South African representative team of black players -who normally wears black jerseys -and they were due to play against the All Blacks in the 19^th tour match.

Run of play

About the match

This was an extremely talented SA junior Springboks side and the majority of them later did wear Springbok colors (10 of the 15 later becoming Springboks with Doc Louw, Cheeky Watson, Corrie Pypers, Noel van Rensburg and Wouter Hugo being the unlucky five who never played for SA).

Terry McLean wrote this about the Gazelle team:

The youngsters had many qualities. Confronted though they were by a powerful pack which, in the vent, determined the game, the Gazelles’ forwards were game and quick.

The locks, Hennie Bekker and Theuns Stofberg, were huge and ardent, Corrie Pypers on the flank chased and chased, and a boy who was thought to be a Springbok in the making Nick Mallett, certainly showed promise as a Number 8, thought there was a suspicion he had been praised too much.

Barry Wolmarans was dynamic quick and effective at scrumhalf, Cheeky Watson on the left pointed himself out as a fine player with an especially fine chase across the field to nail Terry Mitchell, and Louw at fullback might get to be a Springbok ahead of Mallett because not being the darling of the critics, he simply got on with the job.

Lastly, the Gazelles had de Wet Ras –no Tony Harris, no Keith Oxlee, no Hansie Brewis this lad but- boy can he kick. He landed a 64 meter penalty with ease and declared afterward it was not his longest by quite a stretch.

Cheeky Watson (Luke Watson’s infamous dad) played for the junior Springboks against the 1976 All Blacks. He also played for EP against the kiwis and on the photo he is shown making an excellent try saving tackle in the EP match.

Theuns Stofberg was moved into the lock position (with Hennie Bekker) and he and Corrie Pypers had blinders playing like Frik du Preez and Piet Greyling of yester year. Pypers scored the Gazelles only try in the 33^rd minute after storming through a lineout.

The Gazelles led 15-9 with 15 minutes to go and they were in front not necessarily because of superior play. There was nothing wrong with the kiwi’s lineout or their work at the rucks. The kiwis had the beating of the Gazelles; winning the linouts 15/12; the rucks 7/1; and the tightheads 1/0. The aspiring Springboks were found wanting in the last fifteen minutes of the match when the AB’s shift gear and started running with the ball. The kiwis were behind because of two factors, one their goalkicking had hit rock bottom and two the kicking game plan they utilized or more specifically the poor execution of tactical kicking by Duncan Roberton on flyhalf that nulified the original game plan.

Max Baise, the referee, awarded a staggering 30 penalties in the match and had the AB’s landed all their kicks they would have won quite comfortably but they established themselves in this match, most conclusively, according to Terry McLean, as the worst goalkicking All Black team in living memory. This goalkicking failure as well as Laurie Mains’ goalkicking breakdown against Western Province culminated in the surprising selection of Duncan Robertson –normally a flyhalf- on fullback for the first test with Bryan Williams taking responsibility for the place kicking.

De Wet Ras kicked 11 points (3 penalties and 1 conversion) missing only one penalty of 47 m while Williams missed penalty attempts from 36, 42, 34, 31 and 36 m. Fawcett missed penalties from 27, 23, 36, 54 and 36 m.

The positive side of this goal kicking fiasco, from a spectator’s perspective, is that the match turned into quite an exciting spectacle with a number of rather crazy moments. The winning try in the 78^th minute, in particular was one of those screwball moments with the All Black snatching a bizarre win after seemingly having resigned to the fact that they could do no more than rescue the match from the jaws of defeat with a draw.

The winning try was the result of the unpredictable bounce of the rugby ball and the never say die attitude of Joe Morgan. Terry McLean entitled his section on this match “Then along came Joe” in his book “Goodbye to Glory” and here is how he describes this try and Joe Morgan’s contribution:

GOD SAVE US, what was Duncan Robertson doing, trying for a dropkick at goal with the score tied, 15-15, and the minutes ticking inexorably towards fulltime? It was the end of the road, good-bye to glory, blind faith, inglorious stupidity and all the rest. And then – and then . . . Along came Joe. As the ball bounced in the in-goal area, having swerved well wide of the upright, “Doc” Louw reached for it this way. The ball went that way over his head. And then, along came Joe.

The most astonishing fact of the game was the New Zealand game plan. Totally out of character for the team Duncan Robertson on flyhalf hoisted kick after kick on Natal fullback Doc Louw. These kicks were so badly aimed that Louw had no problem catching them, lining himself-up and sending the ball right back from where it had come; in most instances even further back. Yet Robertson persisted. Not even the diligent endeavours of Lyn Davis to clear the ball rapidly enough for the three-quarters like Bill Osborne to have time and space produced a flicker of appreciation of the match-winning possibilities, or probabilities, of running the ball, according to McLean.

It seemed that the All Blacks took onto the field with a preconceived plan to tame the young Gazelles by the old might and power of 10-man rugby and they kept at it for 64 minutes. It was only when they had their backs against the wall –unable to land their penalty kicks and being 15-9 down with only 16 minutes left on the clock- that they started to run the ball. It was obvious at that stage that they will not win with penalties; they had to score tries. For 5 minutes they hammered away inside the Gazelles 22, twice getting desperately close to pushover tries. They declined close-range penalties in a bid to achieve a match-saving try.

It came nine minutes from time. From a scrum close to the posts Duncan Robertson moved right and tossed a high, lobbed pass to Bryan Williams whose class did the rest. He went round Cheeky Watson to score in the corner. Most people at the field would have bet their bottom dollar that Fawcett would miss the conversion but to everyone’s surprise he goaled it to make the score 15-15.

The Gazelles stormed back; Bekker and Stofberg leading the charge. Wolmarans went off on a dangerous run but the AB intercepted his pass and surged downfield and forced a lineout inside the Gazelles 22 m. It was from here that Robertson attempted his dropkick which eventuated in Morgan’s try.

Christo Wagenaar making a tackle on Bryan Williams with Cheeky Watson grinning in the background.

There was some more helter skelter stuff in the last 90 seconds –three successive interceptions seeing play sweep from one end to the other- before Max Baise blew the final whistle.

After the game reactions/occurrences

The big talk after the match was the announcement of the Springbok and All Black test sides with surprises in both teams. In the bokside the big news was the inclusion of Edrich Krantz in the place of Chris Pope on the wing.

The omission of the All Black number one fullback Laurie Mains and the discarding of Kit Fawcett the second string fullback for flyhalf Duncan Robertson was the big shock in the All Black team. The audacity of Stewart to go into a test without a recognized goal kicker –relying on the erratic boot of Bryan Williams- was the thing that shocked both the South African and New Zealand rugby public.

Dirk Froneman the Free State centre also destined to play for the Springboks, here on the left, chasing a ball while playing for the Gazelles against the 76 All Blacks. The All Black No10 running towards the ball is Duncan Robertson who was major news after the match for various reasons. One, his poor tactical kicking almost cost the All Blacks the match, two, he kicked the dropkick that led to Joe Morgan’s winning try in the last minute of the game and, three, he got selected in the fullback position for the first test ahead of both the two touring fullbacks Laurie Mains and Kit Fawcett.

Between the referee, Habana and the box kicks we nearly lost the match. The score line is certainly flattering to the Welsh and we should be concerned by the fact that we made such hard work to put away a Welsh team that was fairly average on the day.

In the end the boks showed great character and composure coming back from 17-6. Things started going better when we kept the ball in hand and kicked less. In fact we started off well by keeping the ball in hand forcing a penalty within the first minute. We then got the ball again and at about 2 minutes into the game we gave the ball away with a box kick. We didn’t see the ball again until after the first Welsh try 3 minutes later.

This try of course was no try as there was undeniably gross obstruction by Shanklin.

Here you can see the blocking of De Villiers by Shanklin very clearly. De Villiers and Shanklin are in line with the right hand upright. Jones is about to give the ball for North (in the circle). De Villiers is clearly in position to tackle North and without any doubt would have if Shanklin did not ran into him.

We went on the attack after that try and created a 2 man overlap on the left hand side just for François Steyn to ruin the overlap by skipping two players; sending the ball with a long pass to Habana on the wing. It was really very simple what they needed to do; Steyn or the man next to him should have ran directly at the outside defender and that would have put at least 2 Springboks (three if Steyn kept the ball) in space on the outside. In fact the man outside Steyn could have made a dummy angled run to the inside of Steyn to draw the defenders in and/or make them hesitate. Even more basic just moving the ball throught the hands would have created the overlap. [There were a few more such incidents in the match were we had clear overlaps and then with poor passing/decision making ruined almost certain tries].

We then forced a ruck on the Welsh goal line and out went the ball to Spies who was standing in the first instance to deep and in the second instance with no support players; trying to force his way through 5 Welsh players.

That was just absolute rubbish playmaking.

I am getting increasingly irritated and frustrated with our backline play. Not only are we making annoying mistakes on defense but we are butchering tries with poor decision making; to top it off we are way too one dimensional when we send the ball down the line.

The Welsh second try also came from a kick down field. The kick was on as we were in our 22 but with the best lineout in world rugby why not kick the ball out?

The third Welsh try was on first impression dubious, for me. I was not entirely convinced North was not in front of Jones when he launched the corner kick. After looking at the evidence on Frisbee’s blog I’ve made my peace with it. If ahead of Jones it was marginal and surely he should get the benefit of the doubt (if any). A lot more concerning, for me, was the fact that this try, yet again, resulted from Habana sitting too flat and infield on defence.

Last week I was full of praise for Ruan Pienaar. This week he had an average game and I thought we looked a little more dynamic around the fringes when Hougaard came on. Pienaar again controlled the game well around the rucks and scrums but the Welsh defence was a lot more aggressive on the gain line than was the case with Ireland. Wales obviously watched the Ireland game and sharpened up their defence around the fringes. This is were you flyhalf need to start create play a little wider and Morné again did not impress as a playmaker. Pienaar kicked to much -probably on instruction- and that deterred from his overall performance.  

I might be a bit hard on Habana in my first sentence but his defense is still a concern. We look vulnerable every time the opponents took the ball to his side of the field and his direct opponent -a 18-year old- scored two tries. Once again a try against us with a simple corner kick; the result of Habana being out of posistion. How many more of these corner kick tries are we going to give away?

Stegmann played well being active on defense and at the breakdowns but Willem Alberts made a huge impact when he came on.

In the end I thought the boks played better in the first half than the half time score suggests; apart from repeatedly kicking possession away we actually looked OK when we kept the ball in hand.

Matfield’s captaincy and the calming effect he seems to be having on the team must be complimented. If there were any doubts whether we can go to the worldcup without John Smith then I think these first two games have provided us with an answer.

The way we came back in the second half, the commitment of the players and the defense at the end were impressive. We should start to trust ourselves with the ball in hand; we clearly need to work on our attacking options and our decision making when we do take the ball down the line.

We need more starter moves and more variety as we seems to be doing the same thing over and over namely forwards coming in on an angle bashing it up or Jean de Villiers bashing it up.

I would have liked to see us play more for the corners in the first half and maul, pod or starter move of the lineouts in their 22.

Tactically we didn’t play the game as well as we could and that and our lack of initiative (or our predictability) with ball in hand as well as our poor decision making -when we do create overlaps/opportunities- are the things that were, in general, disappointing for me.

However, I am as happy as the next person with the won and thought we made Wales look better than they were.

There is a lot more method to Quade Cooper’s play than meets the eye, says Will Genia in this article.

The English press have been lavish in their praise of Cooper’s freewheeling ways ahead of Australia’s clash with England on Saturday at Twickenham.

Genia, who first played with Cooper at the under-16 national championships in 2004, says the No.10′s deep thinking and homework on the game is something that has been overlooked.

Cooper himself is a bit to blame for that, even though he has gone some way to addressing his larrikin reputation after having burglary charges dropped against him in July.

“He has settled now in terms of his maturity, from when to play and when not to play, he still has a lot to learn,” Genia said.

“The thing about Quade is a lot of people do not know but he is a massive student of the game.

“He sits down and studies players and looks at things from different perspectives and from different angles.

“He is someone who is very smart when it comes to rugby knowledge and rugby sense.”

It is easy for people to look past that with Cooper’s skips, kicks and impulsive tactics more akin to backyard or touch football than the unforgiving stage of international rugby.

Look at this fantastic Cooper sidestep on Corey Jane.

See also some Qaude Cooper skills here and here

This article and clips got me wondering. Why don’t we produce players like this in SA? Surely there must be players with similar ability. Cooper clearly reach the heigths he did because he was given opportunity but also because he worked on his skills mentally and physically.

He studies defensive patterns and opposition players but more importantly he spent time analysing foot movements and develop, practice and experiment with, new ones. The hop sidestep is in all probability one of his inventions but apart from that he also has a superior grasp of supporting running lines and a intuitive sense of space and time allowing him to make breathtaking directional changes and to show up unexpectically in support and catching seemingly wild passes or pop-ups with ease. See also the one hand backflip pass towards the end of the third clip.

It is interesting, for me, that he always step of his left foot; even if he does an outside break he’ll hop en step of his left foot. He also seem to favour the inside break; he’ll feint a inside break with a hop and then make a second hop of his left foot if he goes outside. He tend to be more prone to try tactical kicks (running less) if the backline line-up to the right namely if his left foot is on the inside and he can’t step off it.

I believe that Cooper’s successfulness as an evassive player has much to do with his left-footedness. It is like a left handed boxer or batsman or bouler; everything is suddenly opposite for the opposition and with 99% percent of players being rightside dominant a skilled player which is leftside dominant is extremely hard to workout. Also the lefty’s have that split second advantage moving onto the weaker or non-favoured side of the rightside dominant opposition. It is no co-incidence that Carter and Gitua are also leftside dominant and successful playmakers.

If I play him as a coach I’ll make sure to keep him on the left side (his left side) of the field so that he can’t step to the inside of his left. I’ll also make sure the defenders stay on his inside forcing him to try and take the outside break with which he is clearly weaker than with the inside break.

Back to my question –why no such players in SA? Is it a case of players with that type of talent don’t get opportunity because coaches don’t like unpredictable players? Are we coaching players to become like robots killing all creativity or is it a wider cultural problem namely that creative thinking, self-expression and outside the box behaviour are frownd upon in SA?

In 1965 we had a player like that by the name of Jannie Barnard. Jannie didn’t have the exuberant hop-skip side step but his ability to fool opponents with his running lines and directional changes was spectacular. The Aussies loved him and the Kiwi’s thought he was a fantastic talent. Unfortunately he had a shocker in the fourth test of the 1965 series against the All Blacks and never again played for South Africa.

In 1976 we had a player with such silky and smooth footwork by the name of Gavin Cowley (also a lefty). The kiwi’s thought he was one of the best runners with a football they’ve seen in years. Cowley played in three matches against the 1976 All Black’s; having outstanding matches in all three but was never selected for the Springboks. The kiwi’s was perplexed about our persistanece with the one-dimentional kicking maistrio Gerald Bosch.

SA coaches and rugby public seem to favour the Bosch, De Wet Ras, Naas Botha, Bennie Olser, Morné Steyn type flyhalf’s and I wonder if we’ll ever produce a talent like Quade Cooper. Carlos Spencer was also an unorthodox player with silky and extraordinary running and play creating ability. He was –granted past his best- a disaster at the Gauteng Lions; he just didn’t fit into the SA rugby mold and one can’t but wonder of this type of outside the box players would be able to make it and exist in the conservative SA mold.

Sure we have talented players and students of the game like Matfield but they are not outside the box type of players and that is the real question here whether SA rugby even have space and tolerance for players like Quade Cooper to establish themselves.