9 June 1956 - Waikato 14 / South Africa 10

The first match against Waikato is remembered mainly for two reasons; firstly, the massive three and a half hour welcoming procession; secondly, the fact that the Springboks lost the match. Here is a picture of the welcoming procession.

Jan Pickard leading the Springboks on the field against Waikato. Pickard, as captain, had awarded Waikato first use of the wind a decision Craven didn’t know about and which he regarded as a mistake. At half-time Pickard had the good sense, according to McLean, to replace Howe at flyhalf with Nel which put an end to the too many first half mistakes behind the scrum -between Gentles and Howe- and allowed the Springboks to get their backline moving with the result that they scored two excellent tries on the wing.

The first match in New Zealand was played against Waikato in Hamilton and this match -some believe- determined the outcome of the tour. Fred Labuschagne -one of South Africa’s leading sport Journalist at the time- wrote this immediately after the final whistle went according to Warwick Roger’s book ‘Old Heroes’:

Waikato kicked off. A high swirling ball which Pichard, as was his wont, awaited with monumental calm. With the ball arrived eight hoop-shirted terrors and the giant Western Province forward practically disappeared into the Mooloo mud under impact. Ian Clarke dribbled on. Buckler couldn’t stop the rush. Neither could Nel. Van Vollenhoven left his position on the wing to try and help, and the astute Ponty Reid switched direction as the ball came to him from the ruck. He gave the Waikato winger Malcolm McDonald an armchair ride to the bok line.

In just sixty seconds of hurricane rugby the Waikato side had practically wiped out the aura of Springbok invincibility. That dramatic first minute sealed the fate of the test series.

The Waikato side was psyched-up to the level of Kamikaze commitment and started to prepare for the match in December 1955. They were focussed to perfection and played themselves to a standstill. Alan Hayes who played on the flank for Waikato is quoted as follows in Warwick Roger’s book:

Seven months before the Springbok game, in December of 1955, we’d been asked to report to Cambridge for the first team talk of the squad of about twenty-five from which the team would be selected.

Then after Christmas, in the January-February period, a lot of us would get together at Rugby Park on a Sunday and work together in groups from the various sub-unions, mainly on getting ourselves fit.

We then had a three-month tour early in May, to places like Wellington and Palmerston North.

We had a final tam talk before a big steak lunch a day before the match and it was at that point that Dick Everest the coach read out his notes on the opposition. I recall quite vividly that I was told what my job was, what my marker Daan Retief’s attributes were. Dick had foolscap pages on these people. My job was making sure that the halfback didn’t run, that he had to be nailed. The usual stuff a breakaway’s supposed to do.

Bryce Cowley who played for Waikato on centre added: Dick had spies over in Australia watching the Springboks play there and noting down their strengths and weaknesses. He’d decided that their real vulnerability would show up if we could get them going backwards.

On whether they were concerned about the physical size of the Springboks or what the results would be Alan Hayes is quoted in Roger’s book saying they didn’t think of those things and that they only concentrated on what each individual in the team had to do -right from the start- to get their pattern going to ensure enough ball to do something with. The whole thing was such a buzz, he said years later, that we were going almost on nervous energy. As a result my recollection of the game itself is virtually nil.

Alan Hayes said he have never been so tired and sore after a match. The power of the Springbok scrum is something that he will never forget and no team in New Zealand that he would ever play would match the bone crunching pressure of the Springbok scrum that day. While everyone else was celebrating and carrying on afterwards the Waikato team was like stunned mullets they were completely drained by the ferocity and intensity of the effort.

Waikato launched themselves at the Springboks at the start of the game and scored a try in the first 60 seconds and then another by No. 8 Ron Pickering and led 14-0 at half time with Don Clarke adding a long range left foot drop kick. The Springboks didn’t know what hit them looking at each other shaking their heads as if to say, “What the hell have we struck here?” recalls one spectator quoted in “Old Heroes”.

A stunned Danie Craven, Viviers and other team members photographed in the pavilion as the Springboks are busy losing the first match on tour against Waikato in Hamilton.

By half time Waikato knowing that they had the points on the board started to play a negative type of game focussing on spoiling and disrupting in full appreciation that if they allowed the match to turn into a scrap they had the Springboks beaten. It was still hard, hard rugby recalls Bryce Cowley and the Springboks came back hard in the second half and it turned out to be a desperate, thrilling finish between men confronted with the horrifying thought that they were about to be beaten and men who were so tired that only guts and determination kept them going.

There was a lovely try by van Vollenhoven when Nel sped past his man putting the winger in space to race to the goal line. Du Preez the other wing scored in the 66^th minute of the match when van Vollenhoven broke out of a half tackle before running infield to link up with Nel who drew fullback Clarke to create space on the outside. Both tries were converted by Pickard.

Terry McLean ends his piece on this match in his book ‘Battle for the rugby crown’ with the following paragraph:

The psychological moment –so illustrative of the weakness inherent in the team at this stage of the tour- came within the last minute or two when Buchler caught the ball and began to run to the right. Nel and du Preez were in a line about ten yards in front of him. Waikato was done for. It was a supreme moment for chancing the arm, for marrying up fullback and threequarters and letting Fortune deal out the cards as she might. One could see the thought enlarge itself in Buckler’s mind. Then, abruptly, the light flickered and he put the ball into touch. South Africa was storming in the Waikato 25 a moment later when the whistle sounded once more –but this time it was the final whistle.

And Mooloo went stark, staring mad.

This picture shows the Mooloo (Waikato token) on the left and Alan Hayes the flanker who played against the Springboks for Waikato on the right.

The Springbok team who played in this match were:

Buchler; van Vollenhoven; Nel; Rosenberg, du Preez; Howe; Gentles; Lochner; Retief; Claassen; Pickard; de Wilzem; du Toit, van der Merwe; Walker.

This picture shows Tommy Gentles and the Springbok pack in action in the Waikato match. The Springboks first real contact with the New Zealand public was that night after the match at the Riverlea Cabaret ball but there was a language problem. Wife of Bryce Cowley –who played centre against the Springboks- remembers that the Afrikaners just stood and spoke with each other in Afrikaans while the girls from the nurses home who were their partners didn’t have much fun. Bryce Cowley sought out Tommy Gentles and he was apparently more than happy to talk and said to Cowley it would be a waste to talk to the Afrikaners. Cowley got the impression that Gentles didn’t get on well with them. Clearly not indicative of a happy touring group.

Every picture tells a story and the one above spins the tale of the Waikato game plan and how the Springboks lost. See the aggression with which the Waikato players try and get at Gentles (the Springbok No9) and see the ineffective rucking technique of the Springboks. Waikato won the game by storming through the lineouts and around the scrums and putting the Springbok halfbacks under pressure. The Mooloo men made no attempt to pick-up the ball on such occasions but followed a strategy of marauding foot rushes namely kicking the ball through and the Springboks had no idea how to deal with the situation as rucking the ball up to create depth/front foot ball before you spread it was not part of the South African rugby mind-set.

Craven lamented afterwards speaking to Terry McLean “but it’s not attractive rugby” at which McLean -thinking of Craven annoying habit of telling everyone “we came here to win”- replied but it’s winning rugby. The 1956 Springboks never worked out how to deal with the marauding foot rush approach of the Kiwi’s and it cost them the series.

It took another 40 years before this concept (depth before width) was introduced into SA rugby by Ian Macintosh and before then South Africa would be humiliated at least once more in New Zealand with the exact same strategy namely in 1965 losing that series 3-1.

The Springboks brought a Springbok head as trophy to be handed to the first team who beat them on tour. Here Basie Viviers hands the trophy to Dick Everest the Waikato coach.

Peter Bills wrote an article in the New Zealand Herald warning (or is it looking for excuses) that the New Zealand S15 franchises are bashing each other to pulp just in time for the World Cup.

He writes: “The pace and physicality of the Super 15 since it began in February has to be increasingly draining these guys. For the best, and that means most of the All Blacks, it will go on for the rest of this month. The Super 15 final isn’t until July 9. And then comes … the Tri-Nations.

If a side like the Crusaders reach the final, it could be they’ll have to play it in South Africa. Add on another punishing trip across the world to the general fatigue that is slowly creeping up on them like some silent assassin. By the time they get back, their best players will be about due to go into camp for the Tri-Nations.

The intensity of matches like the Crusaders v Blues on a heavy Timaru ground on Saturday night made light of unenlightened Northern Hemisphere critics who say anything played south of the equator is candyfloss rugby. The physical commitment at the breakdown, the scrums and in the loose would have had the All Black selectors grimacing.

Watching All Black World Cup forwards like Keven Mealamu, Kieran Read, Jerome Kaino and the Franks brothers smashing each other into submission may have made great viewing. But there could be a price to pay at the end of this extended competition. They could be playing into the hands of the Northern Hemisphere nations”.

He seems to be more concerned about the Northern Hemisphere benefitting from it than South Africa or Australia as he writes: “The season is over in the Northern Hemisphere. And apart from some warm-up games in August, matches such as France v Ireland and Wales v England, the British, Irish and French players won’t be involved in anything much until the World Cup starts on September 9.

You might think that’s too long without serious involvement. But most of the World Cup pool games will act as warm-ups; the standard of the early games is so low that teams a bit short of match fitness can acquire it against lower level opposition early in the tournament”.

Fact is the South African side has the same problem and Jamie Joseph (Highlander’s coach) has complained about the lightness of the Australian S15 contests in comparison with intensity and severity of the New Zealand clashes. Bills didn’t want to go that far (classifying the Australian matches as light) but writes: “There may be only one answer to the dilemma facing Graham Henry, Peter de Villiers and Robbie Deans, respective coaches of the three great Southern Hemisphere nations: to totally devalue the Tri-Nations by leaving out most of the top guys to give them a chance for some rest.

Now that might upset the TV moguls who fork out millions for the right to show these games. But it’s time rugby stood up against television, not just cravenly capitulated to every demand. The game has bowed to the screen for too many years and it’s time it stopped”.

South Africa has the Currie Cup on top of the yearly S15 and Tri-nations and in general our A level players are playing way to much rugby. It is not just the physical strain but also the mental strain that culminates into players losing form. It is interesting that almost all the South African players who have left South African shores to play in France and the UK have shown remarkable improvement in form. Yes they are a little of the pace when they are dumped into Southern hemisphere test rugby but that is exactly the point here. The drop in intensity of the rugby gives them some mental and physical recovery time.

Don’t be surprised if England or France walks away with the WC this year due to South Africa and New Zealand players being either injured of mentally and physically too exhausted to handle the pressure and strain of WC semi-final matches.

I have to admit that I’ve watched very few matches so far. It is just too much rugby and I’ve just switched off to be honest to the extent that I’ve even started to reduce blogging efforts. 

In an article in today’s Dominion Post former All Black coach and current Lions coach reasons the All Blacks will need a change of direction if they want to win the WC later this year.

A shift in rule interpretations from last year to this year by referees is playing into South Africa’s hands in the run-up to the Rugby World Cup in Mitchell’s opinion.

The All Blacks will have to shelve the expansive counter-attacking style used to dominate world rugby last year as it becomes more and more difficult to maintain possession at the tackle.

“Last year’s breakdown was a lot different to this year,” he said last when asked to assess the cup hopes of New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. “The tackler assist is getting away with murder in this comp [Super Rugby], so I think you will see a World Cup of territory and kicking goals.

“The breakdown will be a huge influence, how you look after and hold on to your own ball and how you can get away with slowing down the opposition’s.

“That will certainly help the Boks. Their kicking game last year was poor when they didn’t get the balance right between run, pass and kick and they gave the All Blacks and Australia too much possession.

“But you have to respect the fact that they play great pressure football.”

Mitchell’s assessment is probably fair considering that the Stormers, Bulls and Sharks could all make the Super Rugby playoffs with the former two playing a conservative brand of rugby.

Mitchell also said selection and discipline would be crucial as referees cracked down on infringements and that coaches would need to pick players to match the style.

“The All Blacks will have to change their game and play a little more football in the front fifty,” he said. “Their set piece will need to be accurate, but I think they have the best scrum out of the three and that will allow them to get one-on-ones with the backs.”

A more competitive battle at the tackle could also hinder Australia and potentially take away their greatest strength, halves Will Genia and Quade Cooper, Mitchell said.

This certainly is an interesting perspective and suggests that coaches and players have adjusted to the way the All Blacks played last year. So the question is have the new rule interpretation really accomplished anything?

The idea behind the new rule interpretation was certainly to diminish kicking and create more running. It seems to me however that we are back at the trench warfare and the kicking game.

Less high kicks maybe but tactical kicking with the aim of playing in the oppositions half is certainly on. The sharks scored two of their tries from counter attacks on the weekend and the Cheetahs certainly have won a number of games with that exact approach this year.

I haven’t really analysed the S15 games but from memory it seems to me that we’ve seen less tries from set piece and phase play and more tries from counter attacks after poor tactical kicks. The game for me is turning into league with a smash it up against the defensive line approach being the primary objective with angled runners every now and again as a variation.

If one listens to Mitchell is seems that the game is yet again favouring the conservative approach with tactical kicking but that the tactical kicking has to be spot on and the follow-up work aggressive to avoid counter attacks from deep. Am I missing something or are we back at what worked in 2009?

These remarks by John Mitchell suggest that this year WC will be no different than previous WC’s once the tournament reach semi-finals stage, namely conservative rugby with lots of tactical kicking and that defense and structure at set piece will be key to winning the tournament.

Wheteher the All Blacks are going to convert and accept that as the way to play during the world cup is certainly the question. Or  are they going to persist to try and prove the rest of the rugby world wrong and attempt once again to win the WC with flair and running rugby?

The 15^th of August 1992 was South Africa’s official return to first class international rugby after 11 years –the 1981 tour to NZ- of rugby isolation. The Springboks did play two “test matches” against a world XV in 1989 (6 years prior to 1992) and 4 “test matches” against the NZ Cavaliers in 1986 and of course there was the two test matches against a 1984 touring English side but these matches were in all fairness not the real thing.

Even if one considers these rugby lite test matches -against the World XV in 1989; the Cavaliers in 1986 and the 1984 English side- a Springboks side had not played together for 6 years when they ran on the field against the All Black on 15 August 1992. It was an unfair contest to put it bluntly and I still feel the irritation that I felt at the time for the arrogance and stupidity of SARU for re-entering the international arena with test matches against the All Blacks and Australia -a week later- in 1992. You would have thought that SARU could have at least considered a tour to either South America and/or Europe -playing Italy, Scotland and maybe Wales- before taking on the big guns of international rugby.

New Zealand in contrast was extremely well prepared for this match. They started their 1992 season with two test matches against Ireland -on May 30 and June 6- and then went on a short tour through Australia playing three test matches as well as tour matches against Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland before landing in Johannesburg late in October 1992. They then played three tour matches in South Africa against Natal, the Junior Springboks and Free State in August 1992 which they won with relative ease 43-25, 35-14 and 25-10 before lining-up against Naas Botha’s Springboks side on Ellispark. The Junior Springbok side was full of future Springboks and included players like Johan Styger, H. Roberts, Piet Bester, Kobus Wiese, Dirkus Hattingh, R.B Rossouw, Ruben Kruger, Tiaan Strauss, Joost van der Westhuizen, Jannie de Beer, Jacques Olivier, Heinrich Fuls, B.G Fourie, Chris Badenhorst and Gerbrandt Grobler.

Nevertheless the match turned out to be quite an exciting affair with both sides scoring three tries.

Back: Pieter Muller, Ian MacDonald, Adolf Malan, Adri Geldenhuys

Middle: Theo Jansen van Rensburg, James Small, Pieter Hendriks, Robert du Preez, Lood Muller, Johan Styger

Front: Uli Schmidt, Jannie Breedt, John Williams (coach), Naas Botha (captain), Abe Malan (manager), Danie Gerber, Wahl Bartmann

The Springbok and New Zealand sides –as well as the Anthems and Haka- that played on this historic day can be seen on the video clip below. Danie Gerber –past his best- was a surprise inclusion after Brendan Venter got injured a week before the match.

http://springbokrugby.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/13807284-teams-anthems-and-haka-nz-sa-1992

The Apartheid regime’s Anthem “die Stem” was still the official Anthem –Nkosi Sekela officially became the Anthem in 1994- but there was an expectation if not agreement that Nkosi Sekela would be played before the match. To everyone’s astonishment and to the delight of a large amount of Afrikaners who were waving the old South African flag in the stands “die Stem” came blaring over the sound system. It is interesting to watch the reaction of the South African players as the camera passes over them; some seem a little unsure how to react while others were chest-boastingly pleased with proceedings. This daring –one may say disrespectful- act caused quite a political ruse at the time and the politicians made 100% sure there was no similar slip-up 7 days later when South Africa played Australia at Newlands.

The match started with high kick and charge tactics; both teams obviously not sure what to expect. There was much talk before the match about New Zealand having a secret plan. This secret plan panned out to be to attack the Naas Botha/Robert du Preez channel. Not much came of this secret plan but New Zealand’s first points resulted after a strong break by the NZ no.9 -through that channel- and a “high tackle” by Robert du Preez which culminated in the NZ No.9 needing some recovery time and treatment. Notice in the clip below how the spectators try their utmost to off-set Grant Fox by counting out the steps of his kicking line-up process.

http://springbokrugby.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/13809448-1992-return-match-first-points

Naas Botha had an opportunity with a relatively easy penalty soon afterwards but missed striking the ball rather poorly indicating that even the experienced players were affected by the 11 years of isolation.

The first try of the match came after 37 minutes after a penalty awarded against one of the South African players close to the Springboks goal line for hitting the ball forward. While the Springboks were arguing with the referee about the penalty Zinzan Brooke took a quick tab and scored. I think the whole South Africa felt cheated by the sneaky and cheaky manner in which this try was scored. Truth is the players were not aware enough for the faster pace of the international game. They were rusty and not streetwise enough.

http://springbokrugby.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/13809470-zinzan-sneaky-try

The lack of shrewdness and experience in the competitive and challenging environment of international sport was also demonstrated in what followed after this try. South Africa went on the attack but referee disicions, some good defence and gamesmanship by the New Zealanders kept them from scoring. First the referee ruled lifting in the line-out when South Africa forced a line-out on the New Zealand goal line and charged through to score. South Africa maintained the pressure and Danie Gerber came close to scoring but first Robin Brooke and then Zinzan “faked” injuries to break the South African momentum and concentration allowing NZ to ride the tide up to half time with-out leaking a try.

http://springbokrugby.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/13809483-gamesmanship

It was in the fifth minute of the second half when Naas Botha slotted a penatly goal to put South Africa on the score board.

http://springbokrugby.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/13809500-1992-return-match-first-points-south-africa

Naas in general had an average day at the office. The occasion after the isolation clearly got to him as well. He missed with two easy penatlies which in hindsight –looking at the final score- “could have” won South Africa the match; that is not considering the relative ease at which New Zealand forced penalties and scored tries in this match. South Africa certainly had their changes but was rusty and way too tense due to years of islolation. This penalty came after a great break by Walter Little who incidently was voted this week on a rugby talk porgram here in New Zealand as the greatest All Black inside center ever.

http://springbokrugby.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/13809520-1992-return-match-naas-miss-again

Early in the second half John Kirwan ran an excellent line to take the ball from Frank Bunce who made a snipping break after a poor clearance kick by Robert du Preez. This was an excellent worked try after some unconscious rugby by South Africa and New Zealand took a commanding lead in the match.

http://springbokrugby.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/13809512-1992-return-match-kirwan-s-try

Late in the second half Danie Gerber scored two tries to make the score line look more respectable. This is the first of his two tries.

http://springbokrugby.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/13809548-1992-return-match-gerber-s-first-try

Poor defence by South Africa and being out of sync with the modern game lead to this try by NZ.

Almost immediately after the first Danie Gerber try NZ scored again. South Africa had no idea of the importance of dominating the breakdowns or tackle area. Notice how this try resulted from poor tackling and lack of urgency by the South Africans at the tackle area. NZ had at least four runners who took the ball up before the spread it wide and on each of those four instances the ball carriers had no problems crossing the advantage line either placing the ball or offloading after weak tackles. This try is probably one of the best examples of how the islolation years have impacted on South African rugby. The game moved on and South Africa was way behind the ball game.

http://springbokrugby.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/13809560-1992-return-match-nz-s-3rd-try

See in the clip below how SA messed-up two try scoring opportunities after the 3rd NZ try. First, James Small knocked a ball with a clear run to the goal line. Then Naas missed with a dropgoal and lastly Pieter Muller made a break but neglected to pass to Theo van Rensburg in the open.

http://springbokrugby.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/13809575-awful-james-small-knock-on-1992-return-match

Pieter Mulder did made up for his mistake by scoring a try -South Africa’s 2nd- with only 5 minutes left on the clock.

http://springbokrugby.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/13809582-pieter-mulder-try-1992-return-match

South Africa kept on attacking and Danie Gerber scored his 2nd and South Africa’s 3rd try in the dying minutes of this test to give the Springboks a respectable final score of 27-24.

South Africa did show a lot of patience with this try and did quite a number of things right like keeping the ball alive, using angled runners, constantly changing the direction and moving the ball though the hands to attack space instead of trying to barge through opponents like the modern tendency seems to be.

However, it was abundantly clear that South African rugby was off the pace and not on par with how the game developed during the isololation years. The talent was there but the South African players was not streetwise and the South African game in need of some updating.

http://springbokrugby.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/13809587-danie-gerber-s-2nd-try-1992-return-match

In the end the final scored flattered South Africa and very few South Africans could disagree with Sean Fitzpatrick when he said in the post match interview that NZ took the foot of the pedal in the last 10 minutes of the match allowing South Africa to score some tries.

http://springbokrugby.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/13809591-post-match-interview-1992-return-match

New-Zealand was clearly the team in control for 70 minutes of this match and those who wanted to disagree quickly changed their tune 7 days later when Australia demolished the Springboks 26-3 –scoring three tries to zero- at NewLands. If anything else this two test matches demonstrated the impact of 11 years of isolation on South African rugby.

Well there you have it. Mr untouchable Richie McCaw has been penalised –in the last seconds of a match one have to add- costing the “holy-grail-team” of New Zealand a match against the Reds. Out comes the long knives and the referees are suddenly to be better policed, helped, demoted for errors and you just can’t imagine what else.

I am still trying to work out wheter the whingeing resulted form the Crusaders having lost or from the fact that Mr untouchable was actually penalised. How dare any referee do that??

Jimmy Cowan jumps on the bandwagon and aggressively state as a “senior All Black” that a two referee system need to be implemented with the second referee being someone on the side line with an overall view of the game but in contact with the referee to advise him during the game.

Too many referees in Super Rugby appear to just guess when it comes to penalising teams in the scrum and at the breakdown according to some scribes here in NZ.

Present thought is that the role of the second referee would be limited to things like offside lines, scrum infractions and the like.

The current video referee system where they can only adjudicate when the ball crosses the line – meaning the Reds’ first try against the Crusaders couldn’t have been pulled back by the video referee despite the clear forward pass – is clearly inadequate.

Personally I think the second referee system –with one sitting in the pavilion and advising in the ear of the referee on the field- might have some advantages but would not really solve the problem of recalling wrongly awarded tries and penalties.

A far better call in my opinion would be a challenge system like cricket has been using over the last season. The Captain can challenge a decision and the TV referee can make a call on the fairness of penalties and can recall tries awarded after obstruction (like in the Wales game against South Africa last year) and forward passes.

To prevent unnecessary or too much interruption of play the challenges can be limited to a few situations for instance a penalty in the last minutes of the game which changes the final result; any try being scored where players feel there might have been obstruction or a forward pass involved; scrum penalties against the attacking team; yellow and red cards.

Scrum penalties are probably the hardest to judge from the side line but sometimes it is as simple as the prop slipping.

The technology is available and for the benefit of the game it is time that rugby embrace modern technological development. It takes pressure of the referee’s and makes the game fairer for everyone involved.

At the very least my superbru score would be less influenced by poor referee decisions and more importantly we’ll endure less whingeing when the Crusaders lose.