The Soweto test match ended-up as just another heart breaking experience for Springbok rugby fans.
The All Blacks seems to be in a different class altogether but I thought South Africa had an opportunity to clinch the test.
What was required was to keep the game tight with just bit more preciseness in terms of clinical execution on attack and defence.
The first New Zealand try came totally against the run of play and culminated from a knock on by Jean de Villiers (if I remember correctly). That try exposed our defensive weaknesses on the edges and gave the All Blacks the believe that they could win the match. That try was one of four turning points in the match the other three being the try in the first seconds of the second half; the injury to Johan Goossen and the missed penalty try for Kieran Read taking down a Springbok maul.
Our backline play looked totally disjointed once Goossen went off and Jantjies is surely not the solution as back-up flyhalf. I think Lambie will do much better.
The boks still looked like they could win the match at the beginning of the second half but started the second stretch half asleep. The AB lifted the intensity right from the kick-off clearly with the intention to score first in the second half.
The ease with which they scored that try totally deflated the Springboks and it was all over after that even though the boks did try hard and kept on chipping at the AB defence.
Without Goossen in the pivotal No10 jersey the Boks looked slow, flat footed and a bit disorganised on attack. They did show some fighting spirit and a penalty kick to the corner created some real try scoring opportunities. A certain try was stopped with an illegal tackle by Kieran Read when he collapsed a driving maul close to the goal line. A penalty try there could have put South Africa right back in the match.
South Africa also missed with four penalties and those 12 points would have put a different perspective on the final score. It would also, in all probability, have changed the complexion of the match. For example another 6 points to the half time score would have made the try scored at the start of the second half less of an factor emotionally and strategically for the Springboks.
In the end a heart breaking but deserved victory for the AB. They were just too clinical and showed class in everything they did combined with too much flair on the wing and fullback for our outside backs.
There was no surprise in how the All Blacks approached the match as I predicted their game plan in my previous post and it is worrisome that our defensive systems at the outside had no answer for the All Blacks predetermined plan to play the ball to the wings and attack from there using their big lock forwards standing wide.
One cannot help but feel that with the solid performance of our pack that we could have clinched this one had we been more clinical on attack and defence. More clinical specifically with regard to not losing the ball so often when it looked like something was on when we attacked and better able to shut the AB down on defence out wide. The second All Black try for instance came from two mistakes namely Taute not kicking the ball out and Habana rushing out off line on defence.
A positive spin on this devastating loss at home is probably that the Boks are showing steady improvement and seems to be a work in progress under Heynecke Meyer and not a team held together by a number of senior players as was the case the last four years.
In the final analysis it was defence that cost us the match. The All Black tries just came too easy and if you disect it only 1 (maybe two) of their 5 tries were really team constructed tries. The rest of the tries resulted from Springbok mistakes compounded by poor defence.
The fact the the AB were alble to win this one is surely a feather in their cap and testiment of what great All Black team this is but heart breaking from a South African perspective. Personally, with my Springbok tinted glasses on I do feel that this match was closer than the scoreboard reflect. Marginal improvements on defence could have seen a diffrent final result.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/7780304/All-Blacks-outclass-the-Springboks-in-Soweto
Pingback: Heart breaking – SPORT24 (blog) |
Since the Wallabies have beaten Argentina does that mean the Boks are ranked 3rd in the IRB ranking?
As for missed opportunities, the AB’s missed a few try scoring opportunities as well.
As for “A certain try was stopped with an illegal tackle by Kieran Read when he collapsed a driving maul close to the goal line. A penalty try there could have put South Africa right back in the match.” Did you notice how the beast should have been penalised 12 fold for intentionally collapsing the scrum?
Obviousely I’m seeing things from an AB fans point of view but I find exception to when you stated that missed opportunities cost the Boks, same could be said when DC missed his first conversion or when the AB’s were in the Boks half for most of the time when they had ball in hand compared with stats of possession and territory without ball in hand.
I wholeheartedly agree that next year under HM’s realm we’lll see a different side albeit a more complete outfit given time and established players ie Bismark, Lambie etc etc come to the forefront.
You miss understood my intention with that statement. I did not say missed opportunities cost them the match. I said the boks had the opportunity to clinch the match.
What I specificically mean with that is that they were in control for most part in the first half and If they were a bit more clinical with regard to ball control and defence they could have kept the AB try less in the first half. Both the first two AB tries came from Springbok mistakes.
With that I take nothing away from the AB for taking their chances and executing brilliantly.
I also said the AB are all together in a different class. Sorry you missed that and got stuck on your interpretation of what I wrote.
As for the Beast collapsing the scrum intentionally 12 fold times I must have watched a different match. There was one incident mentioned by the commentators.
The difference between what Beast did and what Read did was that Read’s infringement came at a crucial time for the Springboks. Very very annoying from a Springbok perspective. The team was in desperate need for a try at that stage and there was still enough time on the clock to come back and score again or force a few penalties.
The AB in the final analysis was the better team and my point here is essentially that you need to stay very clinical and allow them nothing if you want to beat them. The Springboks was not clinical enough but I thought they did well enough in the first 40 minutes to have been in a comprehensive lead had they kicked their two early penalties and not leaked those two tries with unforced errors.
Congratulations with your team they were superb on the day and in this entire tournament and make no mistake it hurts like hell to admit that they were the better team on the day and in the tournament.
“The Springboks was not clinical enough but I thought they did well enough in the first 40 minutes to have been in a comprehensive lead had they kicked their two early penalties and not leaked those two tries with unforced errors”.
Yes, that sums it up well. It is one thing creating chances using the traditional South African counter-punch/defensive and territorial pressure game, but you must not squander the opportunities when they come. The All Blacks in the first half, despite being under big pressure, hardly having any decent possession and territory, and being way behind on the penalty count (all of which suggest momentum was with the Boks), snapped up what morsels that came their way like dogs that hadn’t seen food for a week!
I was predicting doom and gloom on this road trip for the All Blacks, but just like last weekend the old hands especially – Hore, McCaw, Read, Carter, Nonu, Conrad Smith, along with dynamic youngsters like Aaron Smith, and Israel Dagg (and Savea last weekend) made crucial contributions when the time came to stand up and be counted. In contrast, the Boks went awol when it counted. But if they had taken their chances…
I think this means the ABs have now won 16 tests in a row, which places them just behind the All Blacks of 1965-69, and the Springboks of 1998 with 17 in a row. As good as Garry Teichmann’s and Nick Mallett’s team was of that year, I don’t think it was a really great team by Springbok standards (1910-1913, 1924-38, 1949-53, 1960-62, 1967-71, 1980-86), and I’ve always been a bit miffed, due to the compressed schedule of modern professional football that they are equal with that All Black team of the late 1960s (in fact the entire 1960s, other than the close series loss to the Boks in SA in 1960 was one of unrivalled NZ dominance).
I once thought it would be heresy to suggest there was an All Black team to take the record off the likes of Colin Meads, Wilson Whineray, Brian Lochore, Ken Gray, Kel Tremain, Waka Nathan, Chris Laidlaw, Sid Going, Earle Kirton, Ian MacRae, and Fergie McCormick. However, the nucleus of that great team came to a screeching halt when it struck South Africa in South Africa in 1970.
This All Black team, despite going down on the score board, and being in danger at crucial stages from the initial traditional Bok onslaught as happened in 1970, kept their composure. I know we had a deserved reputation for being the chokers of international rugby heading into RWC2011. Whatever caused us to lose close games in the past, this and last year highlights that it has been well and truly addressed.
Australia in Brisbane will not be a sure thing. Ironically, the Wallabies and Robbie Deans can almost rescue their entire season with a win. However, it the All Blacks do win, and then proceed to take the record in their next game against Scotland, then I’ll gladly acknowledge they are an even better team that the greats of the 1960s. That’s how highly I rate beating you guys. Which is why you get another chance at redemption in 2013…
This is remarkable result for the AB considering that the Boks threw everything at them in the first 40 minutes.
The scoreboard at the end maybe a bit lopsided in favour of NZ and not truely reflecting how close it was. This reflects how special this AB team are as other teams (like the 1970 team) would have folded under the pressure.
I thought defence was our main problem. The tries just came to easy for NZ; only one of the 5 really team constructed tries. The rest of the tries resulted from SA mistakes and poor defence.
“I thought defence was our main problem. The tries just came to easy for NZ; only one of the 5 really team constructed tries. The rest of the tries resulted from SA mistakes and poor defence.”
Yeah, although as Meyer I think made the point, the ABs are the best counter-attack from turnover possession team in the world. In their own way the ABs are also good at applying pressure, but it is a different type of pressure from the Boks. What looks like “soft” tries are scored because the All Blacks (to quote your last post) “read what is in front of them” – and they read and act very quickly!
That, and if you are going to play a rush/aggressive defence as the Boks did, you have to get it just right – or else you are caught out of position. Habana going for an intercept led to the Aaron Smith try looking easier than it was, and a Bok centre came out of the line which lead to the Nonu try. Also, the missed touch cost the Boks dear for the first try.
The NZ style is to speed up the play by moving it wide and switching direction. Kieran Read especially was popping up all over the place as an extra man, and making the vital play or pass. That isn’t by accident. The secret of genius: making the very difficult look very simple.
Last time I remember us doing this on a consistent basis to the Boks was our great series win in 1996. It also harks back to a style of play our 1905 Originals, the 1924-25 Invincibles, and that great team of the 1960s did so well.
For sheer athleticism I think our second and back row were superb. They do the hard work (and it was very willing at the break down), yet also shine with the ball in play. And Israel Dagg – the best Maori fullback since George Nepia (although Christian Cullen belatedly claimed whakapapa).
South Africa though, has time on its side. This All Black team is getting old, and it now faces the issue, as you experienced after 2007, of deciding who to retain for the next RWC, who to replace, and most important, how to tell the difference.
If your Super XV can start producing players and packs of the calibre of Hennie Muller, Basie van Wyk, Chris Koch, Martin Pelser, Doug Hopwood, Frik du Preez, Tommy Bedford, Jan Ellis, Piet Greyling, Rob Louw, Uli Schmidt and Schalk Burger, with an accent on the right combination of good game plans, skills, and flexible option-taking, (which you’ve continually high-lighted as a need if South Africa is to consistently win the big prizes), then it will be an interesting ride to RWC2015. I’m not quoting that list of great players for the sake of nostalgia. Instead, it is to confirm that South Africa has a wonderful legacy of talented forwards with the ball in hand.
But your coaches need to start to really believe that, because unless someone decides they want to do all they can to help the seeds grow, nothing will change…
Yes the AB specialise in counter attacking rugby (not neglecting the basics of good scrummaging, solid rucking, and aggressive defence). Reminiscent of the 1980 Springboks playing against the Lions when we had players like Rob Louw, Morné du Plessis, Theuns Stofberg, Gysie Pienaar, Gerrie Germishuys and Ray Mordt.
The linking game Kieran Read is playing is probably close to what Hennie Muller did and of the 1952-56 Springbok style of playing under Craven.
The failure of the 1956 Springbok team in NZ shows that it is not an easy thing to do (playing and expansive game) as you run the risk of getting bullied in the tight loose. The AB have better structure in that department than the 56 Boks so they run less risk (than the 56 boks) but as the first test against the Pumas and the Dunedin test showed they were a bit suspect in that department at the start of the series.
I do think they were showed up in that the department again and a bit rattled in the first 40 minutes of the Soweto test but kept their composure. The ‘soft’ tries did help them to regain believe and composure. We needed to made the game very tight once they scored that firts try and Taute going for a long kick when we needed to keep it tight just shows the inexperience in the team.
I am lamenting the fact that we provided them with ball that they could counter with like the knock on by de Villiers leading to the first try and the missed line kick by Taute leading to the second try.
This AB team has perfected the high tempo/expansive game and it is hard to play against them for 80 minutes not making one mistake that they could use to luanch a counter attack.
It is also sad that with all the ball we had in the firts half we could not score tries and we surely need to cultivate ball players in the No7 and 8 positions. Players like Teichman, Andre Venter, Hennie Muller, Daan Retief, Bobby Skinstad and Rob Louw.
Kimbo you wrote: “For sheer athleticism I think our second and back row were superb. They do the hard work (and it was very willing at the break down), yet also shine with the ball in play.”
After having watched the game again I have to agree with you on this statement. People talk about the athleticism of the NZ outside back but many fail to see the role the NZ locks and loose trio play in the NZ expansive and high tempo game.
For instance when the the box kick or up and under is launched by the opposition you’ll see the wings, fullback and outside center work hard to form a line so that the ball reciver have options. However in that line you will always see Kieran Read and one or both of the locks. These ‘forwards’ in the line then exhibit the same ball handling skills (passing, offloading and doubling around) than the backs and it is often one of the locks (like Whitelock when he scored his try) who receive the last pass on the ouside and who scores the try in the corner.
Also from phase play you’ll often see a lock as first receiver (yes in the flyhalf position) with another forward outside him flat on the defensive line. The lock receiving the ball like a flyhalf running into it then exhibit the passing and decision making skills of a top class No10. That is ablilty to make a decision on whether to take the ball into contact, pass the ball to the forward on his outside to take the ball in contact, play the ball back to a player charging into space on his inside or passing the ball to Carter sitting deep behind the forward on his outside.
It is the the ball handling ability and athleticism of the locks and loosetrio that allows the All Blacks to play the high tempo game.
Part and parcel of that is also the aggressiveness of No 6, McCaw and the tight forwards at the rucks and collisions. Without the fearless commitment of these players at the collisons, rucks and mauls the locks and Read would not be able to play the expansive game they do play. Add to that the fact that Read and the lock does not shy away from the contact and that most of the other players like Messam, McCaw and some of the props are also players that can handle the ball well and most importantly understand the importance of running lines of the ball in order to create space for the more fleet footed players in the team.
Habana’s try was never off a knock, was an AB hand that knocked it back from the off load of Alberts and Jean juggled it before passing. I believe to say Elton is not the backup we need to Goosen is a bit harsh, the whole team was lacking in consentration after the first half and was given tonnes of opportunities but did not execute. The first AB tryLambie wouldn’t have done any better playing with a team performance like that.
The AB’s were the better team on the day, executing when they were given the opportunities, but having said that, played a much more “disrespectful” game. I don’t actually know what to call it, as people would tell you thats the way rugby is and bending and actually breaking the rules is part of a cunning gameplan etc etc. Yes, good players like Richie and the like do bend and break rules, as its their job to do so, pushing the limits. But this is where the refs should have a no tolerance standpoint, and i dont see this in the modern game. Players have adapted to be more cunning, but the refs dont adapt to catch those guys and enforce the rules. They play a buddy system where when they know the player is that type of sneaky player, they just accept it and let them get away with alot of it. Yes the AB gave away MUCH more penalties and they were carded, but i believe if Roland enforced a much more strict calling on the AB’s spoiling tactics like he should, it would have been much more. This is probably why we dont win any games with cunning and deceptive play, with the refs blowing those fifty fifty calls our way. We maybe stick to the rules too much.
You wrote: “Habana’s try was never off a knock, was an AB hand that knocked it back from the off load of Alberts and Jean juggled it before passing.”
Not entirely sure why you refer to this as I said nothing about the Habana try. The first All Black try started from a knock on while we were on attack. They picked the ball up and countered and that eventauted into a try.
You wrote: “I believe to say Elton is not the backup we need to Goosen is a bit harsh, the whole team was lacking in consentration after the first half and was given tonnes of opportunities but did not execute. The first AB tryLambie wouldn’t have done any better playing with a team performance like that.”
Elton did nothing specifically wrong but the difference between him and Goossen is vast. The backline had no flow when Jantjies came on. Goossen is in another class and the closest to him due to the fact that he plays a similar style is Lambie.
You wrote: “The AB’s were the better team on the day, executing when they were given the opportunities, but having said that, played a much more “disrespectful” game. I don’t actually know what to call it, as people would tell you thats the way rugby is and bending and actually breaking the rules is part of a cunning gameplan etc etc. Yes, good players like Richie and the like do bend and break rules, as its their job to do so, pushing the limits. But this is where the refs should have a no tolerance standpoint, and i dont see this in the modern game.”
I think its called gamesmanship. I had a similar discussion with a older (than me) kiwi this morning about the Kieran Read incident and his remark was that its called experience and gamesmanship. Knowing when to change your arm to stop another team from getting momentum. When Jaap Bekker did that to them in 1956 during the first and second tests of that series all hell broke lose eventuating in the selection of Kevin Skinner to sort Bekker and Koch.
That is the difference between us and the Kiwis when they do something to us we whinge. When we do something to them they make a plan and sort the trouble maker. It’s time somebody stand-up and sort McCaw ‘within the rules’. That means sort him and the Frank brothers consistencely in a way that would not result in a yellow or red card. No Greyling like forarm is required neither ear biting like Johan le Roux just tackle him low and hard every time he is in the wrong position until he get the idea that it will be better for him not go where he don’t belong.
Lastly with regard to Alan Roland. Sorry I m not going there. I don’t watch the referee I watch the game. Roland was good in my opinion. He made a few mistakes notebly allowing Read to get away with a sneaky tackle but the Kiwis will also find things to complain about. Referee mistakes tend to even out in most instances.
We need to concentrate more on our rucking and ball handling skills and less on what the referee does wrong, in my opinion.
Sorry, i was reading two blogs at the same time and got mixed up. Other blogger mentioned de Villiers as well and our first try being a knock on and your comment on the AB first try was similar in words used. Apologies.
I agree Goosen is miles ahead of everyone else in the country, but Elton is definitely the no. 2 flyhalf, and using our (should actually be, kirchner is useless) 1st choice fullback as a plug isn’t gonna solve it, just another bumping about like the Sharks do with their players. Give Elton time in the jersey to become that player not needing a senior player to lean on for him to succeed. Goosen is something special and doesn’t need that time in the jersey like Elton does.
And i agree with the gamesmanship comment, but the ref shouldnt be part of that. I get the feeling (just as most supporters do) that some players can get away with certain things and others not. It is the players job to do that, but the refs job to weed them out, being skeptical about everything. I find it funny that we push for the players to become better and perform better at a higher level and pace, but still have the same excuse for refs for the past 20years. Roland has had a good game probably, but the standards for refs aren’t moving as fast as the game develops, and in my view, all refs these days are behind. The rules are simple. Enforce it.
“And i agree with the gamesmanship comment, but the ref shouldnt be part of that. I get the feeling (just as most supporters do) that some players can get away with certain things and others not. It is the players job to do that, but the refs job to weed them out, being skeptical about everything”
That’s a fair comment, wesvulcan, but I think it has always been a part of the game. The All Blacks in South Africa in 1976 complained that Morne du Plessis had Gert Bezuidenhout wrapped around his finger when it came to stuff like (what they considered the illegal) lifting of Kevin de Klerk in the lineouts, and Johann Strauss’ scrummaging methods. The 1956 Springboks thought the All Blacks had the ref they wanted in Bill Fright, who let Kevin Skinner and Peter Jones get away with what they thought was mayhem in the 3rd test of that year.
It is especially hard for rugby refs, because our game is so complex, courtesy of the contest for possession at the tackle. Other full-body-contact games like Rugby League, Australian football and American football are much simpler in comparison, and football is even simpler still. Watch it for about a minute and you’ve pretty much worked out all the necessary and essential rules!
Plus the rugby referee is usually the first one blamed if the game degenerates into a penalty-fest, and whatever rugby purists might say, the game has to be an entertaining product in the competitive professional era. The poor old ref has an extra brief to fulfill his part in that obligation. I don’t see that sort of pressure put on, say, football referees, or cricket umpires, because the play is out in the open, and there is less to distract from making the “black and white” call. But then you don’t see half the players on a cricket field or football pitch competing and interacting in an area the size of a small car as you do at the rugby breakdown!
Which is why there is no doubt that clever teams seek to influence referees, and because we are all human, refs sometimes succumb to it. South Africans and Aussies (and the odd honest Kiwi or two when they support the NZ team playing the Crusaders at the time!) will readily cite Richie McCaw as the most consistent offender. Which is fair enough. What you saffers call the “fetcher” has to be pushing the laws to the margin, and inevitably offending at times, if a team is to compete. And referees are human beings, and they are subject to influence. Clever and astute teams know the value of “massaging the thinking” of referees. It is, and always has been a case of poacher and game-keeper!
This article confirms that McCaw’s ability has improved immensely over the years since he, of his own admission, got it badly wrong including his handling of Wayne Barnes in the RWC final of 1/4 2007 (when we lost a game similar to how the Boks were bundled out in 2011): -
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/7785582/McCaw-hid-foot-injury-during-World-Cup
McLooks comment, “That is the difference between us and the Kiwis when they do something to us we whinge. When we do something to them they make a plan and sort the trouble maker” is an interesting one. We Kiwis have always historically thought of South Africans as crafty and cunning, probably courtesy of our experience and paranoia about Danie Craven. Plus when you don’t understand Afrikaans, and players and refs are talking a language you don’t understand, the paranoia used to go up another notch! I suspect the whinging of our 1976 All Blacks can probably still be heard echoing around the veldt!
However, that experience of 1976 probably caused us, or at least our top players and coaches to reflect a lot more on the need, and ways of influencing referees. I’m not saying that the saffer refs of 1976 were cheats (they weren’t, but McLook and I have had a good kick-around of that topic elsewhere on this blog), but it is most certainly a bed-rock belief of the NZ rugby community that the All Blacks of that year were robbed – and we were going to do everything we could to ensure it didn’t happen to us ever again. When we went back in 1992 it was amazing how naive it seemed to us your players had become. From experience saffers, especially their youngsters are much more respectful of authority than Kiwis. Maybe that is the answer – our brats are cockier and less obedient than yours! Hey, I don’t make the rules – I just report them!
Either way, I know as a country Kiwis like to whinge, but at the highest level, when it comes to rugby, the stakes are far too high to just stand by and leave matters to chance, and allow a referee to be influenced by others. Our coaches and players are cynical/wordly-wise enough to know power abhors a vacuum, and if the ref isn’t dancing to the tune we are playing, then he is susceptible to the song the other team are playing.
Thanks for the insight Kimbo, good to see the story from the Kiwi perspective. I agree that this has always been part of the game, this influencing etc, but so has fist fighting. But we have managed to control and attempted to stamp that type of play out, because it is illegal. Now in the professional era, where refs and the IRB get paid a blerrie lot of money to be professional and not allow themselves to be influenced, this shouldn’t be a factor right? We expect this from professionals in society like eg. judges, and lambaste those who don’t enforce or abide by the laws / rules. Why should rugby be different? Why should anything be different? Call me purist or whatever, but i cant see this being good for the game in general.