It was the Springboks best performance of the tour. A real confidence booster after the shock defeat against the University side but at the same time a game that had a negative impact in more than one way. It showed New Zealand the danger of allowing the Springboks space to play the Craven-linking pattern. Not that New Zealand was unaware of the Springbok style but it re-affirmed the necessity of keeping the Springboks on the back foot. On the Springbok management side this comprehensive victory left them with the belief that the Craven-linking pattern is the master-pattern; the way to beat the All Blacks. Howe’s sterling performance left the impression that he was the key to unlock the pattern and that earned him a place as flyhalf for the 4^th test side.  

The end result was that the Springboks went into the 4^th test with a very predictable game plan and a flyhalf that could play only way – running it. The All Blacks knew exactly what was coming and was prepared for it; they had counters in place to take Retief and Lochner out of the game and strategies to exert pressure on the South African halfbacks Strydom and Howe. These four players were vital to make the Springbok pattern work – they were so effectively countered that all three had probably the worst games of their respective tours.

One of the major reasons why the pattern worked against the Maori -and not in the fourth test- was dominance at set piece. The Maori was -and still is- renowned for their razzle dazzle rugby. Pre-match concerns about the Maori pack turned out to be warranted. Forward dominance (or lack of it by the Maori) was the vital ingredient that prevented the Maori to ‘razzle and dazzle’ and which allowed to Springboks to run away with the match. In was also the key ingredient which absence ‘dislodged’ the Springboks ‘master-linking-pattern’ in the 4^th test match.

So disappointing was the Maori performance in this so-called ‘5^th test’ that the Maori to this day seems to look for excuses. In 2012 they came-up with the jackpot one – the racial card. Muru Walters -the Maori fullback in this match and now a church minister- demanded an official apology from NZRU for instructing them (the Maori) to lose the match in 1956 because they were told that if they won that would mean the end of rugby relationships between New Zealand and South Africa (see article in the box below).

Maori told to throw match against Boks
	On the left a recent picture of Muru Walters.
Former NZ Maori fullback Muru Walters said his side were told to throw their match against South Africa in 1956 ‘for the future of rugby’. Maori Affairs Minister Ernest Corbett told the 1956 Maori All Blacks minutes before the game they must not beat the Springboks “for the future of rugby”, says a member of that side. Maori All Black fullback Muru Walters, now an Anglican bishop in Otaki, said Mr Corbett visited the team in their Eden Park dressing-room and told them if they won the All Blacks would never be invited back to South Africa.The destructive message “ripped the guts out of the spirits of our team”, he told Radio Waatea yesterday. Expected to test the Springboks, they lost 37-0.It was not only the New Zealand Rugby Football Union (NZRU) that should apologise for its treatment of Maori players, the Government should as well, Bishop Walters said.The NZRU has refused to apologise for excluding Maori players from its side to tour South Africa, leaving some brilliant players at home to appease the apartheid regime.Mr Corbett, who died in 1968, told the side they had to lose, Bishop Walters said.”What he said was you must not win this game or we will never be invited to South Africa again,” Bishop Walters told Radio Waatea host Willie Jackson.“I thought he was joking, but then another official came in and said the same thing…for the future of rugby, don’t beat the South Africans.“That was a pretty destructive message, actually…and it ripped the guts out of our spirits of our team.”The tame defeat in front of an expectant crowd estimated at 61,000 subjected the side to ridicule, in a year when the All Blacks beat the Springboks in a series for the first time.Four years later an all-white New Zealand team toured South Africa, where they were soundly beaten.Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples has labelled the NZRU arrogant for refusing to apologise to former Maori players for excluding them from past tours to South Africa on racial grounds. Author Malcolm Mulholland found out about the unresolved issue while researching his book Beneath the Maori Moon. He wrote to the NZRU last year inviting it to apologise but the union did not want to play ball. The South African government’s apartheid regime of segregation was in force from 1948 to 1994. Maori players were excluded from All Black tours in 1928, 1949 and 1960. NZRU Maori Board chairman Wayne Peters has said the NZRU board considered the matter twice. It decided in the centenary year of Maori rugby it was better to focus on celebrations rather than political issues from the past. When the Maori played the Springboks at Napier in 1921, where visitors won a hard-fought match, a South African journalist Charles Blackett wrote an inflammatory match report. “Bad enough having to play a team officially designated New Zealand Natives, but the spectacle of thousands of Europeans frantically cheering on a band of coloured men to defeat members of their own race was too much for the Springboks who were frankly disgusted.” After the 1956 game the Maori captain Tiny Hill, an All Black forward, told his pack they had “played like girls”. “All eight of them,” one of the other forwards retorted. The match report in Te Ao Hou, published by the Maori Affairs Department, said the Maori tackling was “ineffectual” and it was a great disappointment to the thousands of Maori people present. “The score was hard to believe…the people were subdued, the overwhelming defeat had come as a great shock.” Bishop Walters had redemption of sorts in 1961, when he kicked the winning goal for the Maori against France.
Tiny Hill so by the way was not the captain of the Maori side in 1956 as the article above state. Bill Gray was the Captain.

Maxwell Price writes that the pre-match talks with the Maori (and the Springboks) sprung from concerns about violence in this match. There was the 1921 match which was characterized by ugly flare-up and Lochner apparently received some threats not to play in the match. Dana Niehaus wrote an annoyingly stirring pre-match article -clearly an attempt to sell newspapers- in which he stated that the Springboks will answer aggression with aggression. It did not go off well (in both camps) and without a doubt goaded New Zealand rugby officials and Danie Craven to their pre-match talks with the teams. I have my doubts whether the death threats that Lochner apparently received as stated by Gert Kotzé in an Afrikaans newspaper (see subscript of the photo in the table below) was actually real. None of the other five first-hand accounts of the match -which I referenced- mentions the Lochner threats.

Lochner threats
The photo (on the left, above) and its subscript (on the right, above) were published in one of the South African newspapers in 1956. The subscript (in Afrikaans) says more or less the following: ‘Butch is not playing tomorrow. Butch Lochner, the Springbok loose-forward who have received two threatening letters in which he was warned not to play against the Maori, withdrew himself from the match. Not because of it. The withdrawal is however not because of the threatening letters, but because of injured chest muscles. Lochner decided after this aftrenoon’s training session not to play. Lochner injured his muscles in the third test match in Christchurch but thought that he would have shown sufficient recovery to play in the Maori match’.
Warwick Roger has the following in his book ‘Old Heroes’ about Dana Niehaus and his article: “There was controversy about the game against the Maori, most of it stirred up by the South African press, in particular Dana Niehaus, writing in the Transvaaler (sic), the paper Johannesburg Afrikaners read with their morning boerekoffie, the paper once edited by Dr Verwoerd. ‘The match should not have been arranged,’ wrote Niehaus. ‘In most circles the inclusion of such a match was treated with a little bit of suspicion, especially since the Coloured section of New Zealand was playing against the representatives of a land where the dividing line is very sharp and definite.’ Niehaus went on to write that he thought he was write in saying that the Springboks wouldn’t purposely look for trouble, ‘but if their ire is aroused, then the fur will fly’.”

Nevertheless, these two articles (Niehaus and Kotzé) are in my mind evidence that the talks were not aimed at convincing the Maori to throw the match but to prevent a racial brawl.

Expectations and reactions

Personally, I believe the 2011 Maori-told-to-throw-the-match story is an opportunist attempt to exploit the heightened expectations and severe disappointment that surrounded this match for a personal agenda. The agenda, of course, to get the NRFU to apologise to the Maori population for touring to South Africa in 1949 and 1960 without them.

The Maori match had aroused immense public interest. It drew the biggest crowd ever to attend a game in New Zealand. The final official number of 59 800 eclipsed the previous record of 58 000 who had gone to see the British and Irish Lions at Eden Park in 1950 by nearly 2000. As intense as the interest was so intense was the disappointment with the Maori after the match.

Midway through the second half, with the score climbing in the twenties, thousands of glum-faced spectators began to leave the field, writes Maxwell Price.

Seldom in the history of human relationships has so little come out of what promised to be so much, writes Terry McLean in his book ‘Battle for the rugby crown’.

The match was seen as a total ‘flop’ and that thought carried so much weight that there was very little (if any) appreciation that this was the Springboks’ finest hour, writes McLean and Maxwell Price. Maxwell Price relates that the word ‘flop’ in the headlines of papers and the Star’s headline of: ‘Huge crowd starved of thrills in 37-0 rout at Eden Park’ were difficult to understand. It seems that the bright, breezy and exciting rugby that the Springboks played meant very little to the New Zealand rugby scribes, says Price in his book ‘Springboks at Bay’.

This reaction stemmed from the expectations that the Maori with their cunning, their speed, and their unexpectedness and above all their warlike instincts would show the Springboks a thing or two. Throughout the Springbok tour, from Whangarei to Invercargill, one continually heard the refrain: “I’ll love to see these boys play the Maori.”

When the match culminated into a one-sided affair Doherty of the Auckland Star went so far as to write that it would be better to play a Barbarian side against touring international sides rather than the Maori.

Teams

The teams can be seen in the table below. There was five All Blacks in the Maori side namely Tom Katene, Pat Walsh, Bill Gray and Keith Davis in the backline and Tiny Hill in the forwards. The Maori prepared for months for this matched and played in 5 warm-up matches namely against WEST COACH (June, 23 – winning 26-20); WEST COACH BULLER (June, 27 – winning 22-3); NELSON, MARLBOROUGH & GOLDEN-BAY MOTUEKA (June, 30 – winning 51-5); SOUTH CANTERBURY, MID-CANTERBURY & NORTH OTAGO (July, 4 – winning 18-15) and COUNTIES (9August, 22 – winning 30-3).

Information about the teams

The Match

Right from the start the Springboks commanded the scrums and line-outs with Johan Claassen and Salty du Rand in great form. Strydom at scrumhalf was faultless and Howe was simply brilliant.

With sure hands, tremendous acceleration and a swerve of prodigious proportions, Howe cleaved his way repeatedly through a defence that was ultimately unable to cope with him. It was one of the great performances of the tour, it was surely the finest of Howe’s career, writes Reg Sweet in his book ‘The Kiwis conquer’.

Retief, Ackermann and Starke, revelled in their biggest spree on tour. Retief was in magnificent fettle driving through the loose or linking with his inside backs, and Ackermann who scored two spectacular tries in Auckland in the 3^rd tour match added to that with another in very similar style.

Twice, Kirkpatrick hung onto the ball too long and ruined what looked like certain tries.

This picture shows one of the early try opportunities that was ruined by Kirkpatrick hanging on too long with Briers looming in the open.

It took only 13 minutes for the Springboks to crack the Maori defence with Retief scoring after Howe made a clear break with Briers cutting inside after receiving the ball to link with Retief when he got caught close to the line.

This picture shows Retief scoring the Springboks first try.

Nel was next to score in the 26 minute after another incisive break by Howe. Starke loomed up in support and ran to the 25 meter line before shifting the ball to Nel who scored in the corner.

This picture shows Nel scoring the Springboks second try against the Maori after a great break by Howe and good support from Starke.

Briers scored next after a break by Strydom who gave to Kirkpatrick who kicked the ball forward. The ball bounced favourable for the winger to produce the first of his three tries.

The fourth try was scored by Ackermann early in the second half. The try came after Howe slipped through a gap from after receiving the ball from a scrum. Retief took the ball in support and handed it to Ackermann who raced 40 meters for his try.

Briers scored the next two tries. The first (his second) came after he snapped-up a poor line kick by Menzies. His third came after Nel swerved through to create space and as the picture above shows Briers raced away to score a 50 meter try.

Theunis Briers showed in this match that he had regained the form that he showed against the 1955 Lions and scored three good tries.

The last try was scored by Johan Claassen after he forced his way through a line-out.

Basie Viviers also succeeded with two dropgoals.

The Springboks had arrived in Auckland thoughtful and depressed after a terrible show against the university team. It was too much to hope for a big victory against the Maori. The big victory did come however and in a manner that was exciting and brilliant. The style of play was reminiscent of the Springboks at Murrayfield in 1951. The precise handling; the power upfront; pace in the back; the ever-present support of fast loose forwards who moved the ball like accomplished three-quarters. It was a morale boosting performance. Never in the history of Maori rugby in New Zealand had an international team beaten a full strength Maori side by such a margin. Dr Craven said: “We are very happy with the result. It was the first time we have played speed rugby. I would like to thank our opponents for allowing us to play open football and for the spirit in which it was played.”

Click here to see video material of the first half of this match

Click here to see video material of the second half of this match

Springboks 15 / New Zealand Juniors 22 

Noticeably, conversation about the 1956 tour always detour to the match against the New Zealand Universities. Historically, it was the first time a New Zealand University team played against an international touring side but this match is synonymous with the 1956 tour for other reasons. The fact that the Universities team won is also not really the main reason why Kiwi’s still rate this match as the best match of the tour. It was the manner in which the Universities team won that delighted the New Zealand rugby fraternity. All the good football came from the home side. The backs demonstrated opportunism, sensible anticipation and application while the pack totally dominated proceedings. The game is nevertheless mostly remembered as the game of the great Ron Jardon ‘try-that-wasn’t’. A great howl went up in protest when Jardon was called back after a spectacular 65 meter run through almost the entire Springbok team (listen to Winston McCarthy highlights of the match here) and old-timers almost without exception still mention the Jardon try to this day whenever the 1956 tour are under discussion.

The match has been lauded as an example of a classic rugby match. Fact is it was not really a classical match due to too many handling mistakes and a general lack of technical perfection but in context of the 1956 tour by far the most thrilling and exciting tour match. 

From a South African perspective it was a despairing loss; the timing was despairing (immediately after the despairing 3^rd test loss when the team was in need for something to lift them out of the depth of despair) and the manner in which they lost despairing in its effect on team morale. The series was gone; the team was struggling to pick itself up after the 3^rd test humiliation when they encountered the university team who won them with their own game; running rugby. Blaming Skinner, the wet fields and the All Blacks kick-and-chase-style was a convenient way to justify inadequacies in the group. Losing against youngsters who played open Varsity running rugby (upon which South African rugby is ultimately based with Stellenbosch, UCT and Pretoria being the heart of respectively Western Province and Northern Transvaal rugby) in ideal conditions was an emotionally bruising bubble popping wake-up call. 

The difference between the test side and the Saturday side was never more glaringly obvious than in this match. The selection ‘errors’ on the day -and in construction of the team as a whole even before they left South Africa- produced a midweek pack of forwards that was frankly appalling. Their tight work was virtually non-existent; they showed no drive, no cohesion; the line-out work was untidy; they were, in fact, little more than rabble. Chris Koch who was nursing a sore jaw after a gruelling time in the test the previous weekend should have been rested but was picked to play. Newton-Walker a prop was instead selected to play on the lock while Jan Pickard who would have made a better lock was included as number eight. It was in short a serious mistake to leave Lochner, Retief and Ackermann on the side while picking a lock at number eight against a fast moving student side on a dry field.    

The Springbok forwards was bustled of the ball and it didn’t take the students long to realise there was no protection for the South African scrumhalf. Coenraad Strydom had as a consequence the worst game of his entire tour. Under extreme and constant pressure he was thrown completely out of his game and hassled into errors. This had an insidious effect on flyhalf Bennett Howe and the rest of the backline. Howe an elusive playmaker who can confuse his opponents –and to some extent his own-team mates- was a mixture of good and bad. Things were made worse by Rosenberg re-injuring his hamstring while Kirkpatrick normally a very accomplished rugby player seemed unable to hold a pass. Things went from bad to worse when Kirkpatrick and Howe swapped places (Howe moving to outside centre) in the latter stages of the match. On an individual basis a few Springboks tried hard like Koch, Johnstone (who was trying to find his way back into the test team) and Harry Newton-Walker. James Starke had a mediocre game in his second match after arriving in New Zealand as replacement for Basie van Wyk. Melt Hanekom won the tight head battle 3-1 but was frequently penalised by referee Tindill for ‘foot up’.

Jan Pickard (see picture on the left) considered by some to be the best leader in the group looked jaded in this match according to one report. McLean (Battle for the Rugby Crown) had the following to say about Pickard’s performance/contributions in this match: Pickard, leader of the forwards, soon began speaking to them and by the tone of his voice instantly reminded me of some regimental sergeants-major whom I would still like to meet on a dark night when I had a cosh and they hadn’t. The forwards reacted to as we all reacted to the RSM’s and they even showed some wish to imitate Pickard after he had blatantly, and inexcusably  put his shoulder into Jardon when the latter had parted with the ball.   

This picture shows Basie Viviers in action against the students. The player in process of tackling Viviers is winger Diack and the university player behind Viviers is flyhalf Fitzpatrick. Viviers according to one report had a poor day with the boot and did look uncertain under pressure on occasion. About his general performance on tour the report states that he sometimes gathered the ball beautifully and that he sometimes kicked splendidly but that he never quite impressed as the complete fullback. He didn’t move smoothly –his laboured gait could conceivably have been due to the injury he suffered earlier in the tour. 

The Springbok team that played in this match: Basie Viviers; Roy Dryburg; Ian Kirkpatrick; Wilf Rosenberg; Paul Johnstone; Bennett Howe; Coenraad Strydom; Jan Pickard; Chris de Wilzem; Chris de Nysschen; Harry Newton-Walker; James Starke; Chris Koch; Melt Hanekom; Piet du Toit. 

The Varsity side by contrast was a side full of quality players at the peak of their physical prowess who had beaten Wellington and Manawatu in lead-up games. New Zealand University sides -like in South Africa- are not chosen entirely from full-time students. It includes graduates and other former students who continue to play for university clubs. There was experience, there was proper coaching and preparation, there was intelligence, and there was true athleticism and class in the Varsity team. Four players in the backline were All Blacks and two more namely Brain Molloy and ‘Tuppy’ Diack would later play international rugby for New Zealand. The pack had two All Blacks namely John Buxton and Bill Clark while Wilson Whineray and Des Webb were future All Blacks.

This picture shows the Universities captain John Buxton speaking over the announcement system to the crowd after the match. There was a festive post-match atmosphere with some speeches and lots of singing. 

The University team that played against the 1956 Springboks can be seen in the picture above 

The game 

The game started with a try by the Springboks and finished with two quick tries by the University side. The first try came within 30 seconds after kick-off. Dryburg following through on a kick downfield by Howe was able to gather the ball and score when the ball jumped awkwardly for fullback Dineen. 

This picture shows Dryburg being boxed in by three Varisty players, Hutchinson, Diack and Bremmer. Where the students defence were outstanding there could be no denying that their attacking plays –although very good- was helped by some shocking defensive lapses by the Springboks. Maxwell Price (Springboks at Bay) writes, ‘no South African international team should have tackled as weakly as the Springboks did on that day, and there was again the failure to fall on the ball to stop the foot rush’. 

The students responded to Dryburg’s try with two penalties in the 3^rd and 5^th minutes of the game to take the lead. 

Viviers tied the score soon afterwards when Whineray was caught offside. 

Kirkpatrick won the race to the line to score the Springboks second and last try when De Wilzem hoofed the ball ahead after a fumble behind the Varisty scrum. Viviers missed again with the conversion to make the score 9-6 in South Africa’s favour. This happened in the 15^th minute but by half time Varsity was leading 11-9 when Molloy (No8) broke around a loose scrum with Whineray supporting before shifting the ball to flanker Clark who scored. 

Viviers missed with a penalty soon after half time but then succeeded with a 45-meter kick after an excellent run by Paul Johnstone. 

The Springboks were in the lead for the third time (and last time) but there was no stopping the students. First, Clark dropped the ball with an open run to the line after Fitzpatrick (No10) broke clean through the Springbok backline. Some more weak Springbok defence then allowed Tanner to pick-up from a ruck, run free, drew a man, and feed Jardon who raced around Dryburg to score under the posts. Dineen converted and Varsity was leading 16-12.  

Dryburg put the Springboks within one point (16-15) with a magnificent penalty goal from the touchline with about 10 minutes of play left on the clock. This penalty resulted from yet another good run by Johnstone. 

This brought about the most exciting part of the match. McLean writes: …the situation with 10 minutes to play was that University had gained 16 points and the South Africans 15. Now began the most vital, enthralling and captivating kind of finish you could ever wish to see. It was so good that the memories of some unpleasant exchanges earlier in the game were erased and Viviers was able to say, with a ring of complete sincerity, “Thanks very much for a magnificent game. The better side won, make no mistake about that.” 

First, Diack on the wing put in a dashing run down the side-line to score after some good work on the blindside by Molloy and Clark. In response the Springboks attacked after a solid scrum and good heel by Hanekom. Johnstone, the blindside wing, jumped into the line creating the overlap. The ball went to Kirkpatrick who spun to Rosenburg in space but Tanner intercepted spectacularly and started an unbearable exciting 60-meters run chase to the line to score Varsities 4^th try. 

This picture shows Tanner scoring his dramatic intercept try. 

Right at the end Jardon send the 44 000 spectators into a frenzy with an outstanding swerve run after he wiggled himself out of a tackle to score a try that was not because he stepped out half-way through his endeavour. 

When the final whistle went Varsity recorded the highest winning margin against the touring Springboks, 22-15. 

It was an emphatic victory. It was the ultimate indignity. Playing fast and mostly open football, the Universities had beaten the Springboks convincingly at a style and in environmental conditions that should have brought out the best in them. 

The New Zealand Herald commented . . . “So, for the first time on tour, New Zealand backs took on the much-vaunted Springboks at the running and passing game, and by enterprise, intelligence and fine running beat the visitors at their strongest point. What was more, the University forwards, all magnificent workers, established a definite superiority over the Springboks. It followed that the touring team was beaten because it was beaten by a better team.”  

Basie Viviers addressing the crowd in the grand stand after the Universities match. Craven and Viviers were composed and serene in defeat and lavish in their praise. Craven said ‘the Springboks do not mind losing against a team playing such fine rugby as the Varsity team’. Viviers never more exemplary as Captain than in this moment spoke with perfect grace and simplicity, and before he could even finish the crowd was singing at the top of its voice, ‘For he is a jolly good fellow’. The crowd was then invited to farewell the Springboks by singing ‘Sarie Marais’ and ‘Auld Lang Syne’ where-upon Basie stepped-up to the microphone and said something like: “That was lovely, I shall tell my mother about you all”; a comment that melted many a female heart. ‘There was nothing else to do’ write Maxwell Price, ‘but to give the New Zealand University team full credit for their win’. Beneath it all there was however dreadful disappointment in the Springbok camp. The Springboks now had only one success (at Wanganui) in their last four games.   

This cartoon of the Varsity victory is applicable in more than one way. The description below says ‘So far the rugby seemed to bring out the animal in (previous victors having had animals as tokens) us but with their well merited victory the students did something to restore the balance. It was the fifth Springbok loss but the first one that evidenced mostly recommendable sportsmanship by both players and spectators up to that point during the 1956 tour. Maxwell Price wrote that the violence and the deliberate obstruction in the forwards that he witnessed on the 1956 tour was a shock to him after many years of watching rugby. It was robust play carried to far. Forward and breakdown techniques of aggression, dominance, pressure and interference being carried too far. Optimized to a point where it might mean the end of rugby union if it is not corrected opinionated Price in his book ‘Springboks at Bay’. This match was in light of the general happenings (on and off the field) of the 1956 tour a breath of fresh air.

Low risk rugby. 

Traditionally, Springbok teams (and Super rugby teams) has a low risk approach expressed as 10-man set piece rugby; kick and charge or soften-up first before moving the ball through the hands. 

The substitution rule and improved fitness levels (due to professionalism and better training regimes) have nullified the soften-them-up with big forwards approach. The stricter application of the breakdown rule nullified the kick and charge approach to a large extent. 

Mostly the kick and charge became too predictable and teams developed counter strategies like choosing wings that’s good under the high ball; catching and shifting the ball; quick throw-ins instead of line-outs and the back three hanging back too catch shift and run with the ball. 

Being brutally honest my feeling is SA teams (especially the Stormers) have adapted to the stricter breakdown application by just finding another way to play negative rugby. There has been lately (as I will explain at the end) a delightful change with the Stormers. It is this change that had me pondering what went wrong. I believe after some contemplation that the lost against the Crusaders was a hang-over from the negative style over the last two years. The new approach will pay dividends if they proceed with it and select the right players in key positions.   

Let me clarify this statement by explaining how I see the SA and NZ rugby response over the last two years on the stricter breakdown rule interpretation. 

From SA teams came innovations of negativity; from New Zealand teams came innovations of positivity. And I am talking mostly about Stormers, Bulls and Springbok rugby under Heynecke Meyer. The Sharks and Cheetahs had other issues. 

Focusing on their unique strength namely freakishly talented South Pacific players with speed, flair and size in the same mix New Zealand rugby saw the rule interpretation adjustment as an opportunity to play attacking rugby. 

Keeping possession and patiently building tries has been the New Zealand style since the mid nineteen sixties. New Zealand rugby specialize in ball control at the breakdown; punching holes in the midfield and/or dominating the tackle line with big second five-eighths (No12 centres) and loose forwards.    

They pull you in with midfield punches (originally with stampkar rugby but there has been a new approach since 2007 which I’ll explain in a moment) before exploiting the holes that open up with offloads in the tackle or on the outside. 

Jake White realised that the only way to stop the midfield punches is to put the halfbacks under extreme pressure. He did that with the rush-up defence (he did not invent it he just made it his main approach) and that worked for a while but New Zealand adapted by firstly making sure they dominate the set piece and drive though the line-out. Set piece dominance provided more space for the scrumhalf but they also started shifting the point of contact with quick short passes between forwards standing flat on the d-line next to No9. The scrumhalf when under pressure will just shift the ball to a tri-pod of forwards standing flat on the defensive line. The first player receiving the ball would just shift it again -when under pressure- and that player then have options to either run into a hole or just shift it left, right or backwards to No9 doubling around. 

Normally the second receiver will begin by attacking the line and offload back to the first receiver or just receive and shift to yet another forward standing on his outside. There are many permutations with this d-line tri-pod approach but essentially it pulls the rush-up defenders out of line and creates holes. As a variation they will send the ball back to the doubling round No9 who will then whip it to Nonu (or players like him) coming with speed from deep. Nonu then normally runs right into a hole because defending 12 has been pulled in to block the second wide standing forward.  Another variation is No9 sending the ball behind the No12 (running up as a decoy) to the blindside wing coming from deep and angling wide to link with No15 and the other wing. 

I wrote a post last year to explain how Argentina (in the first match against NZ) and England countered this approach (read here). 

You can see how this approach will pull the rush-up defenders out of line and the holes opening up. Part of the problem for the defending team is the need to force the opponent back and/or to compete for the ball in order to create turnover ball. 

The Stormers approach over the last two years (and on Saturday) was not to commit at the tackle (competing or trying to force the opponent back). Instead they pulled the opponent down and fanned-out making sure the defensive line stays intact at all times. Patience is then the name of the game as eventually the attackers will lose the ball or one will get isolated or they will be able to hold one attacker up to create turnover ball. 

The Crusaders approach on the weekend was not to try and offload in the tackle or to try and play an expansive game. They just kept on going straight through the middle. Pick-up and go. Done enough times the fanning defenders end-up defending on their goal line where they have to commit at the tackle.   

The fan-out defence kept the Stormers in the game but their problem like last year started when they fell behind on the scoreboard. This forced them to go over on attack and to put it bluntly if you never attack you won’t be able to do so when you have to. 

My point is that the defensive mindset is still a safety first approach and a form of low risk rugby like the kick and charge and the 10-man flyhalf dictating game. 

On the positive side the Stormers did start to work hard on their attack after having lost their first 3 games this year. They came-up short against the Crusaders -who has some of the best defence in the competition. I believe however if they keep on working on their attacking moves they will crack this bunch next time they play them. So even though they lost I feel positive (for the first time in a long time) about Province rugby at the moment. 

A few key players had poor games as well which had a significant impact on the game and scoreboard at crucial times. Poor tactical and line kicking as well as below par line-out throws in particular were problematic and that cost the Stormers I believe the match as much as anything else. 

It was a good show by the Stormers against a classy outfit. Why they have to wait until they are behind before they start attacking is just beyond me.  Hopefully they will get more confident in their attacking game and we’ll see more of it as the season progress.      

A tour was consequently arranged for these unlucky players to Argentina and the team was officially called the Gazelle. This tour took place in 1932 under the management of Paul Roos and the captaincy of Joe Nykamp. The side consisting of uncapped players wore blue shirts emblazoned with springbok head, red stockings and white shorts. They played eight matches; won all of them and scored 269 points with only 24 points scored against them. The two matches against a representative Argentinian side the Gazelles won 42-0 and 34-3 respectively. Gimnasia y Esgrima, a club coached and captained by B.H Heatlie gave the South African Gazelles stern opposition and lost by only 11-5 in the last game of the tour. Heatlie was the man who captained South Africa in their first ever international against a British touring side.

Without making any overgenerous assertions about the ability of this first Gazelle side Paul Roos said afterwards that the best fifteen ‘would have given any South African provincial team more than a good run for their money’.

The team that went on this historic tour were: D Jordaan (OFS); J Vlok (WP); J Cunningham (Rhod); R.S. Elliot (N); J.H. Gage (OFS); I Townsend (WP); R Cornell (Bor); K Moodie (WP); P McCarthy (GW, Vice-captain); B Nolte (WP); J Gillett (Bor); A Smit (WP); R.S. Cheshire (Bor); M Rest (OFS); H Wardrop (SWD); J Seymour (N); L Hattingh (OFS); W Wollheim (WP); J Robertson (Bor); J Nykamp (T, Captain); A Gerricke (GW); G D’Alton (WP); J Aspey (WP). Manager: Paul Roos. Referee G Finlay (T).

Two of these players became Springbok test players and three Springbok tourists.

Jack Gage	George D’Alton

John Aspey

Jack Gage and George D’Alton played for the Springboks in a test against Australia in 1933. J Vlok, J Seymour and J Aspey went with the famous 1937 Springboks side to New Zealand but did not play in any of the test matches.JT (John Travers) Apsey did howver played in three Test matches. His debut was against the touring Australians as eighthman in the 4th test at Crusader ground (PE) in 1933. He played in the following 5th test. He waited 5 years to play his third and final Test as flank against the touring British Lions in 1938.

After the 1949 trails a Gazelle team was selected for the second time in SA rugby history. The reason was yet again to provide an opportunity for players that missed out on selection for the Springbok side to play for a representative South African side. This side toured to Rhodesia in 1950 and played 5 matches of which they lost one against Mashonalan-Manicaland 14-26.

The results of that tour can be seen in the table below.

The 1950 Gazelle side that toured to Rhodesia were: AC Keevy (ET); JK Osche (WP); R Boyes (WP); O Haarhof (ET); M Gilmour (EP); D Retief (NTVL); D Fry (WP); H Joffe (OFS); G Muller (T); G Woodward (Bor); A du Plooy (EP); HJ Bekker (NTVL); W Louw (EP); S Pienaar (SWD); W Koch (Bol); SP Fry (WP); G Dannhauser (T); E Dinkelmann (NTVL); HN Walker (N); E Norton (EP, Captain); A Hummel (GW); J Morkel (WP). Manager: At Horak (OFS).

Sixteen of these players became Springboks according to Danie Craven (Rugby in South Africa). I was able to identify 10 (those in bold). Hopefully someone will be able to help identifying the others. I don’t think W Koch is Chris Koch who also played for Boland like the W Koch mentioned in the list above. Jakkals Keevy, George Dannhauser and Dennis Fry was tourist on the 1951/52 tour to the United Kingdom but never played in any test matches.

The idea to use the Gazelle team to develop future Springboks came to light in 1955 and the name Junior Springboks came into use. This policy (to select a Junior Springboks side) was direct result of the achievements of the 1932 and 1950 juniors but mostly due to the fact that 5 of the 1932 team and 16 of the 1950 team did eventually became Springboks. The basis for selection set in 1955 was: a player must be a prospective Springbok and must be young. Once a Junior Springbok he should become a Springbok, all things being equal (Craven, D.H. 1964. Rugby in South Africa – 1889 to 1964. Johnston and Neville. p. 216)

So in 1955 two Junior Springboks tours were organised through the interior of South Africa. The first tour during July 1955 under Danie Craven as manager and played three matches namely against Natal (9 July 1955 at Kingsmead – score 19-11), Central Universities (11 July 1955 at Maritzburg – score 31-14) and Rhodesia (16 July 1955 at Bulawayo – score 18-9).

The team that played in these matches were: J du Toit (WP); M Antelme (N); F Roux (T); J Nel (WP); D van der Spuy (Rh); W Rosenberg (T); L Nel (T); C Ulyate (T); T Gentles (WP); W Koch (Bol); J Wessels (OFS); W Wessels (ETVL); M Bekker (NTVL); P Pelser (T – Captain); J Claassen (WTVL); V Wilkins (NTVL); DSP Ackermann (WP); J Bahlman (Bor); D Retief (NTVL). Manager: Dr DH Craven.

The second team under management of Basil Kenyon played 5 matches in September 1995 against Western Transvaal, North Eastern Districts, Border, the 1955 British and Irish Lions and Northern Transvaal. Piet Pelser was the Captain of both these sides. The September tour resulted in two matches lost namely against the British and Irish Lions (15-12) and Border (28-22).

The second or September team was: D Holton (ETVL); (WP); M Antelme (N); F Roux (T); P Williams (T); P Montini (WP); J Nel (WP); J du Preez (WP); L Nel (T); F Gerricke (GW); P du Toit (WP); W Koch (Bol); J Wessels (OFS); M Bekker (NTVL); C de Wilzem (OFS); P Pelser (T – Captain); V Wilkins (NTVL); P van der Merwe (Bol); D van Jaarsveldt (Rh); R Johnstone (EP); GP Lochner (WP). Manager: Basil Kenyon.

The match against the 1955 British and Irish Lions was played in Bloemfontein on September 14 – midway between the Lions’ third and fourth Tests – and resulted in a narrow 15-12 win for the tourists.

Danie Craven writes in one of his books that the 3^rd test had shown that the Springbok team was in need of strengthening in a few positions. The South African selectors were consequently keenly interested in quite a number of ‘juniors’. These include players like lock forwards Piet van der Merwe and Vic Wilkins, loose forwards Chris de Wilzem and Des van Jaarsveldt, scrumhalf Fred Gerricke as well as Jeremy Nel and Pat Montini in the centre. Everyone was expecting a fast open game but the juniors decided to keep it tight –‘soften’ them up in the forwards in the hope that the cracks will appear. Neither in the scrum nor in the line-out were the juniors however able to gain the upper hand. It was in the end a disappointing match with only Gerricke and Des van Jaarsveld impressing the selectors. Mannetjies Roux -who was considered a certainty on wing for the Springboks up to the Transvaal game against the Lions – scored an excellent try in the second half. Roux however had no change of making the Springbok team due to being totally outplayed by Tony O’Reilly when playing for Transvaal against the British and Irish Lions. The 19-year old O’Reilly went around Roux on a number of occations and scored two brilliant tries on that day. In his second try O’Reily accelerating like a racehorse went straight for the line from about 20 meters out dragging three transvaal players including Roux over the line for a brilliant try (see picture below).

The Juniors did not get enough ball and the possession they did got was kicked away by flyhalf Lance Nel. Though the scoring margin of 15-12 in the Lions favor suggests a close match it did not accurately reflect the difference between the two sides in all-round forward play and finesse behind the scrum, according to Craven.

Vivian Jenkins, who covered the Lions tour for the London Sunday Times, felt the match was akin to a fifth Test for the tourists and suggested that it should be dropped from future itineraries, arguing: “It is unfair to the visitors to ask them to take on such a stiff fixture on top of their other commitments.”

The opposite however happened. Due to the match against the 1955 British and Irish Lions it became policy to play the Junior Springboks against touring sides. In this way the Junior Springboks played against the Australians (1963, 1969), British and Irish Lions (1955, 1962, 1980, 1997 and 2009), French (1958), New Zealand (1960, 1970, 1976 and 1992), South American Jaguars (1980) and Ireland (1981) touring sides.

South Africa lost the rubber to New Zealand in 1956 and also to France in 1958. A Junior Springbok team was consequently dispatched to Argentina in 1959 to build up South African rugby.  Kobus Louw was the manager and the Captain of the side was Peter Allen. The team that went on this 1959 tour was: C Meyer (WTVL); J Engelbrecht (WP); R Twigge (NTVL); O Taylor (N); J Gainsford (WP); N Bridger (T); F Roux (WP); C Holtzhausen (N); D Steward (WP); G Wentzel (EP); F Gerricke (T – Vice Captain); CM Smith (OFS); S Kuhn (T); D Putter (WTVL); D Holton (EP); D Edwards (Bor); J Wessels (T); P Allen (EP-Captain); P van Zyl (T); F de Jager (OFS); D Hopwood (WP); L Nel (T); W van Rensburg (NED); J Bezuidenhout (WTVL); H Meyer (OFS). Manager JF Louw. Assistant Manager: C Ackermann (Bol)

They played 13 matches won all 13 and scored 456 points with only 47 scored against them. The table below provides information about who they played; the venues and the scores.

Argentina undertook non-Test tours of South Africa in 1965 and 1971, and the Gazelles toured Argentina in 1966 and 1972. The results of the matches played between the sides in those years were as follows (click on the links to see teams):

1965 – Junior Springboks 6-11 Argentina, Johannesburg
1966 – Argentina 3-9 Gazelles, Buenos Aires
1966 – Argentina 15-20 Gazelles, Buenos Aires
1971 – Gazelles 12-6 Argentina, Port Elizabeth
1971 – Gazelles 0-12 Argentina, Pretoria
1972 – Argentina 6-14 Gazelles, Buenos Aires
1972 – Argentina 18-16 Gazelles Buenos Aires

This is the complete team that toured to Argentina in 1972. Fifteen of this 1972 Gazelle side namely Paul Bayvel, Morné du Plessis, Dawie Snyman, Piet Cronje, Ray Carlson, Joggie Jansen, Niek Bezuidenhout, Gerrie Germishuys, Klippies Kritzinger, Kevin de Klerk, Dougald MacDonald, Jan Schlebush, Carel Fourie, Johan Strauss and Jackie Snyman became Springboks.

Jannie van Aswegen was the Captain of the 1972 side in this picture shows him in his Junior Springbok jumper

Carel Fourie (also known as Tossie) was a future Springbok that went on this tour. Here is Carel in his Junior Springbok jersey.

For a bit more info on the Puma South Africa rugby history read here.

The table below provides statistics of the Junior Springboks/Gazelle/Emerging Springboks against international touring sides. Those in blue provide match description (if you click on it).

Interestingly, the 1968 and 1974 British and Irish Lions did not play against the Junior Springboks and neither did the 1967 French side. The 1974 British and Irish Lions did play a match against the Quagga Barbarians (which they almost lost 27-20) who was essentially a junior Springbok team.

For the 1980 match against Bill Beaumont’s Lions the team’s official title reverted to Junior Springboks lately they are referred to as the emerging Springboks.

Brief summary of the 1980 British and Irish Lions against the Junior Springboks

This picture shows Gavin Cowley trying to start something playing for the Junior Springboks against the 1980 British and Irish Lions.

The Gazelle also played against a combined and invitational side from the United States, the Cougars that toured South Africa and Zimbabwe in 1978. The Cougars played six games in South Africa: against Natal, Combined Universities, Griquas, Northern Transvaal, South African Gazelles and Rhodesia, and won once. The victory was against Northern Transvaal who was the reigning currie cup campions.

The picture below shows Rob Louw in action against the 1978 Cougars. The Cougar player directly behind Louw is Clarence Culpepper the captain of the 1978 Cougar team. The other Gazelle players on the picture from left to right are a young Schalk Burger senior, Ockie Oosthuizen and Martiens le Roux. Apart from the fact that Rob Louw scored a try and that the Gazelle team won I have no further info about this match.   

This picture shows the Jaguar centre Rafael Madeiro scoring against the Gazelle team in 1980. I am not sure who is the Gazelle player on the picture. Might be W Kirkham. 

Gazelle teams that played against the Jaguars in 1980 and against the All Blacks in 1992 

It is interesting to notice the difference between the Gazelle team that played in 1980 against the Jaguars and the team that played in the same year against the British and Irish Lions. It is in essence two entirely different teams (compare the team above with the one in the picture showing Burger Geldenhuys).

The 1992 game against the All Blacks was a bit of a dissapointment. The Junior boks had no idea how to construct a try; how to build phases; the importance of dominating the advantage line and how to use starter moves to create forward momentum. Kick and charge was the basic game plan. In short they got outsmarted and outplayed in the line-out and at the breakdowns. It was a case of every player that get the ball just charged straight ahead trying to break through tackles. In most cases they then lost the ball forward when the All Blacks tackled in on the ball or they got rucked of the ball once they went to ground with the ball. Placing the ball in the tackle with supporting players that bridge over the ball was a foreign concept and they had really poor technique and discipline at the tackle ball. They kept falling over the ball and or lost the ball forward or came in from the sides and was as a consequence extensively penalized by the refefree. At once stage the refree actually lost his patience to such and extent that he started lecturing the South Afican players on the field.  

White is a perfect match as a coach for Australian rugby -as I’ll explain in a moment- and my second prediction is, therefore, that he’ll be the next Australian national coach.

Jake is a set-piece and defensive structure man which is what Ozzie rugby struggles with due to their Ozzie league influence. Jake’s biggest problem as a Springbok coach was his inability to move beyond set piece and defence. Flair or fast pace phase-after-phase-running-rugby is as natural to Aussie rugby as set piece rugby is to South African rugby. Jake, therefore, doesn’t really need to worry about teaching Aussie players to run with the ball. Credit to him for not trying to coach that out of them. 

Robbie Deans problem is he is trying to change the phase-play-Aussie-style into the NZ dominate-the-breakdowns-with-bulky-loose-forwards-style. Jake’s approach is to leave Aussie phase rugby as it is but to add to it structure at set piece and on defence. The result is a team that is competitive at set piece, almost impenetrable on defence, disruptive at the tackle ball -due to the rush-up type defence- but who have an innate ability to switch from defence into attack before you can say ‘blink-your-eyes’.

You take the Wallabies with their natural ability and desire to run with the ball and you induce discipline on defence, good tactical kicking -to ensure you play in the opponents half of the field- and physicality at the breakdowns and you have a world beater.

My third prediction is as a consequence that Australia is going to win the next world cup with Jake White as coach.

It is ultimately a sad tale for SA rugby. The sad part is that Jake grew-up after burning down his bridges in SA. Sadder, however, is the fact that SARU just couldn’t see what they had in Jake; a sort of a rugby coaching genius. It is told that Danie Craven instructed the under 20 coach at Maties to not interfere with Mannetjies Roux but to adjust to what he does because genius is temperamental. Craven understood that interfering would ruin the authentic contribution that’s part of what genius brings to the table.

It is always easy to see something clearer in hindsight and the truth is that most SA rugby supporters felt at the time that Jake had become too predictable as Springbok coach and that it was time for him to move on.

Jake understood his own limitations hence the reason why he added Eddie Jones to his coach staff during the 2007 RWC tournament.

I believe that Jake would have proceeded on that path, had he stayed on, as coach. I also think that we would have had a good change winning the 2011 RWC with him as coach. We will never know; one thing we do know is that Jake is a great coach. In almost 20 years of Super rugby no side won more than 5 matches away from home. Jakes’ Brumbies just won their sixth match on the road. A first – undoubtedly helped by the fact that they played mostly Aussie sides so far this year.

The Sharks however sit with a Springbok front row that gave the Bulls and Stormers major problems at the set piece this year. This weekends’ solid win by the Brumbies over the Sharks therefore says a lot about how far the Brumbies have come with Jake as coach.

Take a bow Jake you’ve showed you have the ability to grow and move beyond your comfort zone; something that the current Springbok coach was unable to do last year.

Making my Superbru picks, I thought the Crusaders might be a bit rusty after having had a bye in the previous round.

It panned out to be the case but let’s not take anything away from the Blues. It fascinates me how everything Graham Henry touch turns to gold –relatively speaking. Henry is of course the last coach able to gel this disjointed bunch into a cohesive unit. The Blues was a class above everyone else when they won the Super12 competition in 1996 and 1997 with Henry as coach. 

It is hard to pinpoint what exactly the Blues are doing differently this year – in comparison to the last few years. It is mostly the same players with a few inexperienced but freakishly talented new ones. The Henry success recipe, if I were to make a call, is threefold. Firstly, and probably most importantly he has an innate ability to gel players into a unit. There is clearly a lot more commitment amongst the Blues and Ali Williams said after both the first two matches the players are playing for each other. Kirwan is the coach but I believe it is the contributions and presence of Henry that fostered this heightened sense of group unity and application. The approach -to create unity- Henry seems to favour is to make influential personalities leaders in the group.  Henry’s philosophy is that players will handle the challenge if it is their challenge. The power of player leadership and the importance of player leadership is the main message of Henry’s autobiography ‘The final word’. Ali Williams and Rene Ranger were made for example leaders in the Blues this year and they both were not only outstanding in terms of doing their position specific tasks but were instrumental in stopping the Crusaders getting momentum with beyond normal contributions. These two players are very much individualistic personalities; poor followers and consequently potentially destructive influences due to the fact that are also so freakishly talented.  If they commit the team play well; if they don’t fully commit the whole team lack special commitment. Henry’s approach is to make players like that leaders in the group.

The second part of Henry’s success is to have playmakers with cool heads in the pivotal positions of 9 and 10 and on the wings players that are strong, fast with x-factor. In short, players in the pivot positions who can create space for x- factor players out wide who need half a yard to make something out of nothing.

The third component is hard work and his attention to detail in setting up structures and cohesiveness at the set pieces and breakdowns. He plans well and prepares well.

This Blues are going to get increasingly tougher to beat as the season progress because Henry’s leaders are getting better at their jobs; his playmakers are gaining in confidence and the commitment to structures at the set piece and breakdowns are bound to be enhanced by winning early matches. (Let me repeat I know John Kirwan is thhe coach but believe much of this early success is a result of Henry’s contributions to get the players to commit and gel as a unit).

This match, for me, demostrate the importance of the coach in the modern game.

Waratahs/Rebels

The Tahs in short lack energy. There is no zip in that team while the Rebels is all flap-flap with no real penetration. The Rebels had 70 % of the ball when I stopped watching but was unable to do anything with that against a lacklustre Tahs outfit. Fact that the Tahs scrambled a win is no compliment to either side.

Hurricanes/Reds

This was a scrappy affair. The Reds was very good slowing the ball down at the breakdowns and to dominate the possession stats (keeping their hands on the ball). This kept the Hurricanes playmakers out of the match. The Hurricanes on the other hand just want to Razzle-dazzle without doing the hard yards up front. Like last year they are slow to develop forward cohesiveness/structures and are starting the season playing well below their ability. One has to wonder about Coach Mark Hammett attention to detail when it comes to developing and refining unity at the tackle area. Last year it took them almost the whole season to get that in place but once they did they toppled the log leaders but at a stage when they were too far behind to work themselves into play-offs.

Stormers/Sharks

“It was a ripper of a match”, said Bobby Skinstad after the match. “SA rugby is glowingly healthy”, was Andy Capistagnio’s remark after the match. Well they are either marketing bunnies for their broadcasting corporation or I must have watched a different match.

Yes, it was tight, the defence was outstanding and the field wet and greasy, but these are the conditions they will encounter in New Zealand were the kiwi sides play far more entertaining rugby.

So, before I get told that comparing South African rugby with New Zealand rugby does not make sense, let me explain why I disagree with the above mentioned ‘Marketing Agents’.

Rugby is a game of building pressure. Part of building pressure is to dominate set piece and the breakdowns and playing the game in the opponents half. So as a consequence I have no problem with tactical kicking and the occasional box kick but you can’t build pressure if you keep on kicking the ball away and if you can’t string phases together because you can’t hang onto the ball.  Never in all my years as a Western Province and Stormers supporter have I seen Cape rugby so poor at setting up phase ball and so inept in the backline. Add to that the poor scrummaging and you have to ask what are the coaching staff thinking and doing? The Stormers scrum showed no improvement from last week and the backline play was as sterile and clumsy as last week. The ball never moved beyond Jean de Villiers and counter attacks lacked structure, support and runners coming on at angles.

The Stormers have made absolutely no progress from last year, in fact they have regressed. They are totally predictable, having made no adjustments to their stoid game plan. They’ve now played two matches and have lost both. How many more do they need to lose with a defensive game plan, obsessive kicking and forwards pods – as their only attacking strategy – before Allister Coetzee tries something completely different. They were the worst attacking side in the competition in 2012 and still are in exactly the same mould. Elton Jantjies kicked more than 70 % of the possession away and they seemed pathologically unable to build pressure. How do you build pressure if you can’t string phases together and if you keep on needlessly kicking possession away or if you never move the ball beyond your inside centre or those pods sitting in channel 2?

The Bulls have rejected the forward pods because the opposition had worked out how to defend against them, hence the reason why these Stormers kept on losing the ball when the forward pods hit contact. If this is the best the Stormers can do, then Cape rugby is in serious trouble.

The Sharks got dragged into the Stormers kicking and defensive oriented game and played a game lacking their normal imagination, flair and fluency. The reason why The Sharks won, was because Patrick Lambie’s tactical kicking was marginally better, their scrum was more dominant and their structures and commitment at the tackle ball better. They were able to string phases together and build pressure occasionally, specifically in the second half when they needed points.

My expectation is not that South African sides should razzle=dazzle like the New Zealand sides. More variation on attack, specially in the backline, better ball control at the tackle ball, some starter moves off set piece and the back triangle functioning as combinations with structure, support and angled runners on the counter – would be a darn good start.

Bulls/Force

Credit to the Bulls they entered the game clearly determined not to get pulled into an arm wrestle with the Force. They tried something different and that culminated in a few very good tries. They moved the ball well down the backline; there was speed onto the ball and good variation when they took the ball wide. Their lineout and scrum was solid and they mixed backline attacks with some forward drives. They looked clinical -in the part that I saw- and they will get better as the season progress. I didn’t see the whole game but the bit that I did see showed a team willing to move beyond the arm wrestle. One thing they can probably improve is more use of softer and quicker hands in the backline like the Basson try that was disallowed. They are spreading the ball but still tend to try and run through/over the defenders; if they mix that with putting people into space -with quick passes- they will be harder to defend against and more unpredictable. The loostrio combo is also a bit too similar and not really linking with the backs. It was not a sterling performance but an improvement on the previous week and I liked the fact that they seem willing to evolve and are trying to play more heads-up rugby.

The first 10 minutes was not encouraging at all with the Kings hardly seeing the ball. On the brink of switching the TV off, the Kings scored -the first try of the match. Intrigued, I started to watch with more interest; what a delight it turned out to be. 

Superbru points in the back of my mind, I was not concerned about them losing. So I kept on watching, not because they were edging ahead and eventually winning, but because of the delightful rugby they dished-up. 

The defence was good, the set piece solid (mostly), the line-out better than the Stormers on the weekend and the ball handling in the backline refreshing and full of variation. There was some enchanting inter passing between forwards and backs, good hands, nice light touches and good decision making when they carried the ball and on defence. Some exciting new talent on display as well on the wing with Sergeal Petersen and Demetri Catrakilis had an impressive game on No10. Seems that we have a wing here that could be a Springbok in the making and Catrakilis impressed as a flyhalf that can dictate and play the running game.   

The commitment of the pack and their structures at the breakdown and set piece was promising considering that it’s a first outing. 

The Force probably underestimated them and is certainly not the biggest challenge the Kings are going to face this year but it’s not the victory that had me sitting up while watching this bunch. It is the enchanting style of play; the variation on attack; the light touches; the way they attack space; the offload in the tackles; the general ball handling; the structures at the breakdowns; the organised and committed defence and that one pushover scrum on the attack that had me on the front of my seat. 

What a delight to see a SA team that did not bore us to the bone with a kickathon kick and charge alla Bulls or flap, flap recycle ad infinito alla Lions or stampkar smash it up and flat line defend for 80 minutes alla Stormers or leak tries while running around like headless chuck alla Cheetahs. 

Its early days but if these guys produce some more of this they’ll have my support that’s for sure.

The contrast to the Chiefs/Highlanders match however so stark that even the most ardent SA rugby supporter left the match -or walked away from his television set-with a poignant feeling of dissatisfaction.   

It was to put it straight a constipated push and gulp for air affair and only entertaining to those with a bit of a skewed psychological disposition. Only those who can find pleasure in watching someone else struggling with a turd that doesn’t want to pop, could have enjoyed it.

To be fair the match had its entertaining moments and its early season but what is really concerning is the quality of the South African backline play. For a country -and two teams- that pride itself in being masters of the set piece the line-outs (both teams) and the scrums (Stormers mostly) was a bloody disgrace; leaving the spectator with very little to enjoy. It was yet another South African forward arm wrestle which was so full off basic errors that even the traditionalist-set-piece-connoisseur had a hard time enjoying it.

I’ve read somewhere that Morné Steyn was ‘sublime’. Well his place kicking was back on par but his tactical play and ability to get his backline to entertain was far from sublime in my humble opinion. The playmaker in the Stormers side Elton Jantjies had a ‘shocker’. His place kicking cost his team the match and the Stormers backline showed considerable more flow, rhythm and penetration after Duvenhage slotted into the No10 berth.

Both teams showed a certain willingness to shift the ball wide and play a more expansive style but they looked like high school teams in comparison with what the Chiefs and Highlanders have dished up in the previous S15 match.

It is hard to pin point the exact reason why these teams was so ineffectual with regard to backline play but here are a couple of things I’ve noticed:

1. Poor ball control at the rucks due to insufficient and/or ineffectual starter moves from set piece;
2. The phase ball is coming back too slow and not in enough volume to allow the backline to get going;
3. The pivots (No10) in both teams were either sitting too deep in the pocket and/or were too slow off the mark;
4. Both backlines were too predictable; just moving the ball down the line to the wing or smashing it up in the midfield;
5. No starter moves or set moves that brought players like Habana, Aplon, Kirschner and so forth into play too create holes in the opposition’s defensive line.

Hopefully things will get better as the season progress. I have good hope that the set piece, at least, will improve but have my doubts whether anything significant is going to happen with regard to backline play in both these two franchises.

Heynecke Meyer was under extreme pressure last year to come-up with a different (more expansive) game plan. The problem seems to be bigger than rigid strategic approaches. I got the feeling that these two teams tried to play a more expansive game but that the players still lack the necessary know how -if not skill- to make it work.

I think it is unfair to place all the blame for poor or mediocre backline play on the shoulders of the No10. Our outside backs seems to lack the depth and timing perception as well as ability to see and exploit gaps with delayed passes and running angles.

A few years back South African supporters would have been happy with this enactment but S15 has given us a glimpse of what is possible and we are getting increasingly unfulfilled with the state and style of South African rugby.

Todd Blackadder came out this week saying that the Crusaders –after intensive self-analysis- have set them the goal to play a more entertaining brand of rugby this year. This is, remember, coming from a team renowned for its open expansive style of playing. The All Blacks did the same a few years back namely set themselves a goal to play the most exiting brand of rugby on the planet.

My question is: Have any of the South African teams, ever, set themselves a goal to play the most exiting/entertaining brand of rugby in SA, the S15 or internationally?

The point is that if you don’t consciously decide to try and play attractive and expansive rugby it is not going to happen by osmoses. It is interesting that when the scrums went uncontested in the Stormers/Bulls match -and the arm wrestle stopped- both teams actually started to play better rugby.

He that is good with a hammer think everything is a nail, is an age-old truism. This seems to be the problem with South African rugby. South African teams are so obsessed with set piece and physicality that they can’t seem to move beyond the arm-wrestle.

Currie Cup-winning Transvaal captain in 1971 and 1972, former Springbok flanker Piet Greyling, was arguably one of the best, but certainly one of the toughest.

The picture below shows Piet Greyling with his Transvaal side who got a share of the Currie Cup for the first time in 19 years -having previously won it in 1952- when they shared the cup with Northern Transvaal in an epic final and controversial 14-14 draw at Ellis Park in 1971. The next year Greyling led his Transvaal side to a 25-19 win over Eastern Transvaal at Pam Brink Stadium in Springs to win the cup with the help of Gerald Bosch who dropped the winning points in the final minutes.  It was back in 1972, before the Currie Cup final against Eastern Transvaal in Springs that the former Bok captain uttered these famous words to his Transvaal team-mates: “Eighty minutes of agony for an eternity of pleasure.”

The team that shared the cup in 1971 ( From left to right). BACK: Theo Sauermann, Tommy Symons, Jannie van Aswegen, Kevin de Klerk, Simon Norwood, Anton Oberholzer, Gert Schutte and Johan van Wyngaardt. MIDDLE: Tobias du Toit, Martiens Louw, Mr Jannie le Roux (President of Transvaal rugby), Piet Greyling (Captain), Mickey Gerber (Coach), Jannie van Deventer and Robbie Barnard. FRONT: Piet Cronje and Jannie Barnard. 
 
Greyling was only 30 at the time, but after 25 Tests in the Springbok jersey, with the last ending in defeat in his only Test as skipper against England in Springs, losing 18-9, he called it a day. 

Piet Greyling first experience as captain of a Springbok team was against a provincial team in Orange Australia during the 1971 tour. Here he leads the team on the field.

The late Dr Danie Craven had this to say about Greyling: “Piet always had a smile on his face. During his playing days that smile proved his enjoyment of the battle and the fact that he never seemed to lose, it shows how much he enjoyed his rugby. His smile meant to me that Piet was full of confidence and that he was loving every minute of the action because he was playing well: that was patently obvious. Piet Greyling was and is destined to excel in whatever his endeavour. A wonderful flanker, he was always first to the loose ball and when he got there he always knew what to do with it.”

Piet Greyling is mostly remembered for this partnership with Jan Ellis. Ellis and Greyling become a partnership in1967 playing in the first test of that series against France. First test matches in a series are crucial but this one was of particular critical importance as the Springbok team was staggering against the ropes after having lost 8 out of their last 9 test matches since 1965. ‘This is arguably the most important test match in the history of Springbok rugby’, said Danie Craven before the match. The South Africa preparation and build-up for this series was therefore pretty intense and the team selection process unusually resolute. Losing the test match/series due to selection errors was not a mistake the wise men of South Africa wanted make after the black year of 1965. The dogged determination that sprang forth from the selector’s motivation to get it right almost robbed South African rugby from almost certainly the best flanker combination in its long history.

The problem was that Ellis –who made a name for himself on the 1965 tour to New Zealand – was struggling with an ankle injury and after having declined invitation to the first three trail matches was not even invited to the last trail match. Greyling on the other hand having made a name from himself during the domestic season in 1966 and 1967 had such a poor show during the first trial match due to a recurrent episode of Bilharzia that he was reportedly been written-off by the selectors.

The Maritzburg Collegians Club however invited Ellis to play in curtain-raiser to the final trails against Durban Collegians. It was this gesture of foresight that ensured the selection of Ellis for this test match as El Try Hombre (so called by the Beunos Aires newspapers when he scored 18 tries for the Gazelles touring through South America) scored a couple of tries for Maritzburg and did enough to satisfy the selectors that he was fit enough and over his ankle injury. Greyling also played well enough in the trails match to ensure selection and to see the birth of the formidable Ellis/Greyling flank forward combination.

It was in this first test of 1967 series that the idea of ‘fetcher’ and playmaker became part of the South African psyche. Ellis and Greyling writes Maxwell Price was glued together; always contrived to the ball with superb hunting and aggressive play at the tackle ball. Their sufficiency in linking, hunting and securing either turnover ball or protecting possession was instrumental in South Africa establishing a 23-3 lead after five minutes in the second half with Greyling scoring twice and Ellis once.

Piet Greyling shown here playing against the French of 1967.

Ellis injured his shoulder at the start of the 1969/70 EOYT to the UK and eventually played in only 4 of the first 17 matches. JBG Thomas writes that this injury to Ellis was a key contributing factor (as well as Visagie’s drop in form) to South Africa poor tour results. At the end Ellis made 10 appearances on tour scoring 8 tries but his injury was a major blow to the team as his partnership with Greyling was a big part of the team tactical approach.   Greyling walked away from the 69/70 tour as one of the three most consistent forwards (the others being Hannes Marais and Tommy Bedford) on the tour. JBG Thomas in his book ‘Springbok invasion’ writes the following about Greyling: One of the outstanding forwards of the party Piet Greyling was a tireless, experienced and intelligent flanker, who excelled in attack and defence. Tall, lean and strong, he possesses considerable speed and sure hands and good positioning sense. As one would expect from a test pair of several seasons, Greyling appeared to work better when Ellis was in harness with him, and when Bedford was directing the pack from the No. 8 position.   

Piet Greyling scoring against Ireland in 1969.

This picture shows Greyling running with the ball in a match against one of the club sides during the 69/70 tour. The heading above the picture said “Piet’s try’ suggesting that he is on his way to score. As far as I can determine Greyling didn’t score a try against any of the club teams during that tour.

This picture shows Greyling making a try saving tackle during the first test of the 1971 tour to Australia.

After making his debut in the French series of 1967 where he scored two tries in the opening international and played in all four Tests, he was injured in the first Test of the 1968 series against the British Lions.

 They were the only Tests he missed in his Test career, but it was Greyling’s robustness that impressed British Lions pivot Barry John in his autobiography.

“These two were talented flankers – Greyling and Ellis. Greyling was the destructive one causing chaos and Ellis was the constructive partner who set up moves and capitalised on the chaos that Greyling caused.”

In 1970 he was trampled by the All Blacks, suffering a cracked rib and was in severe pain. He had to receive medical treatment, but he never allowed the All Blacks to know how severely he was injured (see picture below).

This picture shows Piet Greyling waiting for treatment after being trampled in the loose by the All Blacks to the extent that one of his ribs fractured. He kept on playing.

In The Chosen: The 50 Greatest Springboks of all Time it quoted the biography of former All Black legend Colin Meads: “South Africa’s  Piet Greyling and Jan Ellis in 1970 exposed the myth that New Zealand loose forwards were still the quickest in the world to the loose ball. And when they got there these two, and Greyling especially, were constructive.”

In 1970 the All Blacks got beaten at the breakdown and consequently in the series due to the untiring and relentless work rate of the Ellis and Greyling in the tight loose. They so frustrated the All Blacks that Greyling and Ellis were given ‘special treatment’ at the breakdowns as can be seen in the pictures below.

These pictures taken in the second test of the 1970 series tells in essence the story of the series. A couple of things stand out, for me, in these photographic images of that series. Notice in the first instance that all three the Springbok loose forwards appear in all four pictures; Ellis and Greyling were glued together. Notice in the second instance the low body positions of the three South African loose forwards; they are low and driving through the ball while the New Zealand players are going backwards. Thirdly notice that it’s the New Zealand players who are playing the man while the South African loosies are more focused on playing the ball and going forward.

 In this picture Alan Sutherland has Ellis in a headlock while Ellis is driving through the ruck. Notice Greyling in the background joining the ruck eye on the ball but in a low body position. Notice also the low forward driving position of Albie Bates (No8) between Ellis and Greyling.

In this picture Alex Wylie (All Black No7) is stamping on Albie Bates lying on the ground. Jan Ellis is on the right of the picture in a low but head-up position. Piet Greyling can be seen just behind Ellis and Chris Laidlaw (All Black No9). Wylie is stamping on Bates because he arrived too late and to upright so all he can do is to stamp on players who arrived first and who has their hands on the ball.

These next two pictures show Alex Wylie’s increasing frustration with the hard as nails Piet Greyling (who as far as I know never punched anyone in a test match). In the top picture Wylie’s got Greyling face in his one hand while preparing to punch him; notice Greyling is moving forwards. Shortly after that Wylie actually punched Greyling and the bottom picture shows Albie Bates seizing the arm of a surprised Greyling to prevent him from falling. Again both Ellis and Bates can be seen in close proximity to each other and to Greyling in these two pictures.   

 Piet exerted extreme pressure on halfback Chris Laidlaw during that 1970 series as the pictures below reveal. 

The first Springbok try in that series came about after Greyling kicked a ball through from a scrum. That incident is shown in this photo. 

This picture shows Piet tackling Laidlaw behind the scrum. 

Greyling only made it big when he was sent from his father’s tobacco farm in the-then Rhodesia to attend school in Bloemfontein at 14.

He attended Sentraal High School and made the Free State schools team but after matric he went to Potchefstroom Agriculture College to briefly study agriculture before returning to Mashonaland. 

In provincial rugby terms Piet is remembered as having been the captain of Transvaal  but he started his career playing for Rhodesia and Free State and then for Northern Transvaal before moving to Transvaal.

He went back to Bloemfontein in 1967 to work as a sales rep for a brewer and his chance came against the French. In all of his 25 Tests, he played only one without Jan Ellis on the other side. His test statistics can be seen by clicking on this link. 

Jan Ellis and Piet Greyling were the real deal and Piet probably never received the credit he deserved for the part he played towards that fabulous 1970 series victory over Brain Lochore’s outstanding All Black team.  

When I think of Springbok rugby I see Jan Ellis. Hard uncompromising, fast with a touch of artistic moodiness and flair but with relentless motivation to succeed based on a staunch work ethic and absolute conviction of what is right and wrong; that is Jan Ellis in a nutshell, for me. 

So I don’t see all that, I just, see pictures of Jan Ellis flashing through my mind (see the photo gallery I’ve created of Jan Ellis here).

The Springboks being Jan Ellis, for me, came along probably because I had so many pictures of Jan Ellis when I started with my sampling of rugby pictures in 1970.  I was born in Windhoek South West Africa (now Namibia) and Jan was SWA’s second springbok; the first being Sias Swart.

So Jan was bigger than life in SWA and could do nothing wrong in our eyes. In fact when he was dropped by the national selectors after 11 years and 38 consecutive test matches in 1976 my father stopped supporting the Springboks in the series against the All Blacks. “I hope they lose so that those damn selectors can put Jan Ellis back in the team” was his exact words.

Jan was not perfect he had some flaws like all of us. His biggest flaw probably his temper. ‘Vuilgat’ (dirty) Jan was so re-known for his short fuse that film-maker Jamie Uys even pulled a candid camera prank on Jan while Ellis was still living in Namibia in the early nineteen seventies. The camera crew mounted a car hooter against the pavement just a few paces from a traffic light which ‘Rooi’ Jan frequented daily on his way to work. Patiently they waited about 5 days for a red light to force Jan to stop long enough for a car to pull-up behind him. Three hoots had Jan looking annoyed and angrily over his shoulder at the innocent victim in the car behind. It took two more hoots to saw Jan storming out of his car, plucking the surprised little fellow out of his car and threaten him with a raised fist. Jan was on the brink of shoving his huge right paw down the little fellows’ throat when the filming crew intervened to safe the poor man who was pleading innocence at the top of his voice.

Jan didn’t thought it was funny and was not prepared to laugh about it -as most of us. Realising what transpired he turned around got in his car and drove off without saying a word.

There was also an incident during the 69/70 EOYT when Jan couldn’t take old Avril Malan’s insults and whinging (the team was struggling and Malan was giving it to them calling them gutless and what not) anymore. He packed his bags got into the train heading for the airport. It took some convincing and a promise by some senior players that they’ll keep Malan away from him to stop a fired up Jan Ellis to board a plane back to South Africa.

Jan was a reserved, quiet and fiercely private man who did not suffer fools lightly. In 1976 there was an attempt to use him for window dressing by having him captaining a multiracial South African XV team against New Zealand. Jan declined the invitation to captain a side consisting of 11 whites, two coloureds and two blacks on the bases that he had flue/influenza. However, a few hours after the match had been played the media honed in on a story that Jan had declined on racial reasons. A scoop on the story was keenly sought after so media men from every imaginable newspaper, magazine as well as radio and television station stared to ‘pester’ Ellis and his wife at home. Goaded, Rooi Jan exploded. He had, he said, nothing more to say. With him the situation was ‘finish and klaar’ and that was the end of it.

In a pure rugby sense Jan is remembered for the way he carried the ball in one hand as can be seen in the picture below which was taken when he played for Transvaal against the 1976 All Blacks.

Jan is also remembered for his partnership with Piet Greyling. Some scribes have argued over the years that the way he and Greyling dominated the breakdowns was one of the primary reasons why the boks won the 1970 series against the All Blacks.

Ellis is also remembered for his work ethic and his contrasting running styles when he chased and ran with the ball. Stories had been told of Jan’s training regime with rocks in the mountains and storm water ravines surrounding Windhoek. His fitness, agility, speed and his arm and leg strength alleged to be a consequence of running up and down the mountain slopes carrying sizable rocks during the heat of the day. During the 1965 tour the New Zealand rugby scribes were much impressed with his speed and commitment to training while admitting that he was still very much a newbie in process of getting the hang of tactical plays and demands of defensive play of loose forwards. Jan was a quick learner though and by the end of that tour he had cemented his place in the Springbok side and by 1970 he had learned enough to influence the outcome of that series with his defensive and tactical endeavours around the park.

Such was his natural strength though that when he got robbed and shot at age 58 he seized the gun bearer carried him something like 15 meters to the his garage office and held on to him while phoning the police and kept him down on the ground while bleeding profusely until the police arrived.

Ellis had a distinctive forward leaning running style (see picture below) when chasing and was deceptively fast on the chase with those long forward-leaning loping strides. 

When carrying the ball he was more upright and on his toes. This upright style and his natural speed of the mark provided him with a devastating sidestep that could send the South African fans into a frenzied overenthusiastic applause that baffled some of the international scribes on occasion. During the last match of the 69/70 EOYT tour Ellis used this sidestep with good effect against the Barbarians to score two brilliant tries. The picture below shows Ellis on his toes just before he started sidestepping his way through and past the ring defenders surrounding him in the photograph to score his second try in that match.  This try is described by Chris Greyvenstein as follows:

‘Twelve minutes to go and the ball rolls loose 40 metres from the Barbarian’s goal. Swooping down on it is Jan Ellis, the red haired flank from South West Africa. The ball is scooped up in one easy-flowing, almost casual, movement and then he is off in that loping, long striding run of his. Two defenders are brushed aside with a flip of the shoulder and a sway of the hips. Another one is beaten with an all but imperceptible change of pace. Now the ball is clutched in one big, freckled hand and running with perfect balance on the soft green turf, Ellis sidesteps free of the cover defence with only Mike Gibson, Ireland’s outstanding centre, between him and the try-line. A feint as if to pass and Gibson goes the wrong way as Ellis thunders past him to score one of the greatest tries in the history of international rugby without a finger being laid on him on his weaving 40 meter run.’

He didn’t shy away from the rough stuff and many a picture shows him with a bruised cheekbone if not a black eye (See picture below).

He was a prolific try scorer and one of the top try scorers in the team during the 1971 tour to Australia notching up seven tries. He notched-up 10 tries during the 1965 tour to Australia and New Zealand and 6 tries during the 69/70 EOYT to the United Kingdom. Jan Ellis scored 32 tries for the Springboks in 74 matches (7 tries in 38 tests). See his test career statistics here.

Jan could strum a lively piece on the piano and knock-out a lively tune on the mouth-organ.

Rest in Peace big fellah I will always remember you with fondness.