Don’t you just hate it when the Springboks go into their infuriating defensive mode of play?
Truth is the Springboks were never really at risk of losing the game and it was almost like a big boy holding a little kid at arms length while the little guy punches himself to a stand still.
The last couple of days required extreme patience from South Africans here in New Zealand. It took quite some maturity to stay relaxed and calm in the face of the overbearing arrogance and confidence exhibited by the Samoan supporters here in New Zealand.
Listening to them you would have thought they are the world champions and a team who have beaten every other rugby nation/team on the continent (as oppossed to the Springboks who have actually done it) so assured where they that they were going to win the match. The pre-match gamesmanship like having a team talk before doing their Haka just an example of an overbearing cocksureness that really should be the privilage of competitors that have done the hard yards and who have the track record and ability to utilze such tactics too gain advantage. If primary school kids pulls such antics against high school kids it is out of place and utterly useless becuase it will make no difference whatsoever to the outcome of the match.
The Springboks with their defensive mode actually allowed Samoa to look far better than they really are.
The Springboks absolutely dominated set piece (scrums and lineouts) in the match but largely stopped playing after taking a 13-0 lead early in the first half. The fact that the Springboks scored no point in the second half is mostly the result of constantly kicking the ball away and never really trying to run with the ball.
The Springbok brains-trust clearly had a brain fart during halftime as they came out in the second half with the wrong game tactics. The leadership on the field was also lacking. The key to this game was to play off set piece and to control the ball. Starter moves off set piece and forcing play towards the corners was actually the way to go.
The high kicks clearly did not work, with Paul Williams brilliant under the high ball, so why persist with it?
The Springboks tried one starter move off set piece in the first half and it almost worked, with Habana just missing the catch. Why didn’t they try that more instead of keeping on kicking the ball away and losing the ball in the rucks as a result of static ‘podding’?
The positives of this match is undoubtedly Springbok set piece, their defence and the fact that they won but the Springboks were absolutely horrible on attack and their attitude towards the game (defensive and safety first as well as our one dimensional approach on attack) was disappointing.
The referee did not have a good game and Samoa was enterprising with the ball in hand but the Samoan try was not a try, with a clear knock-on just before the try was scored. The Samoans also utilized obstructive runners and blockers close to the set piece, allowing their No 10 to double around and creating space out wide. The referee did not pick that up and the John Smit yellow card was just another big blunder in my mind. The key to that incident was the fact that Smit had his palm facing skywards and his hand moving upwards and not downwards when he made contact with the ball. He was clearly going for the intercept and not deliberately trying to knock it down.
All and all I am relieved that the Springboks won but extremely disappointed with the way they played this game. I believe the Springboks had the set piece dominance and striking power to beat these jokers by at least 30 points. The fact that the Springboks were too scared to play positive rugby, was probably a result of a fear to lose.
What annoys me most is the fact that Samoa walks out of this match still with a chip on the shoulder and regarded by the media as the real winners because of their daring and enterprising display with ball in hand.
You go and ask any kid on the street who played the better rugby and they will say Samoa. This is exasperatingly irksome because the Springboks are capable of far better rugby than we saw in this match.
I understand the concepts that “defence wins rugby matches” and therefore the question as to why take risks if you can win without it, but bloody hell what about the idea of playing to your true potential?
Hi McLook just got a very quick view of the Smit ‘knock down’ so can’t really say if it deserved yellow or not but your analysis certainly does make one doubt the decision was correct, so for me its 50/50 about whether Smit was bad when he came on, BUT I saw not long after he came on he conceded a free kick for taking too long to throw into lineout when the Boks looked to be deep in Samoa half, that is just a silly basic mistake to make – not good enough for a professional player let alone one that experienced and who is looked up to as captain.
Can’t agree with you more. Well put Mac. Boks just seemed to want to get through this game as easily and safely as possible. They had no interest in moering the Samoans and couldn’t care how many tries they scored. As a result the Samoans looked better than they are and took the moral victory.
@ Bullscot:
I think that was just another of the many ridiculous refereeing decisions. Typical of a ref that has lost control of a match and tries to regain his authority by just lashing out and punishing anything he can.
3@ The_Young_Turk:
Yip Turk seems to have been an odd decision and so thats why maybe you can let John off for that but the point that I was trying to make was that is disappointing that he gave a free the kick at lineout so soon after coming on by making a stupid basic error, this is his profession him and the rest of the players get well paid for so if I was in charge of the purse strings I would dock him some of his match fee for that, unless someone can come up with extenuating circumstances as to why it took him so long to throw in. This particularly at a time when there is such a hot debate as to Smit’s value to the team as a captain.
Bulls and Turk,
I personally thought that Owens was a bit harsh with Smit about the throw in. Without timing him, he seemed to take the same amount of time as Bismarck. But compared to s some throw-ins of the Samoans, where the lineout was not properly formed, it may have seemed slow. Surely once a lineout has been called, and its being formed by the teams, one has to wait until its fully formed before throwing the ball in?
Smit had to come on as Matfield showed no leadership when the Boks were playing like headless chickens. The rot had already set in.The sending off was harsh.
A win is a win is a win. The NH refs are still going to cause a problem in this tournament, they clearly ref by a different set of rules. Owens was crap. The substitutions and forced changes put us out of our stride and because we were sitting back and waiting for time to pass the Samoans got a sniff. I agree with (someone said it here) you must play to your potential. SA should have gone for the kill right away in the 2nd half, get 3 scores clear and the wind would have gone out of the Samoan sails….they play on emotion….all of the Pacific island teams. I still think that McCaw is going to have a brain fart at a crucial moment.
@ The_Young_Turk@2:
Agree. The Samoans had nothing to lose and everything to gain by throwing the ball around with us in the exact opposite position.
They were down 13-0 on the scoreboard and was running out of time and went to despearte measures to try and get into the game including obstruction, blocking, holding and pulling players at the ruck while we had to show constraint and discipline.
@ Loosehead@6:
I was sorry to see Bismarck leaving the field because he and Brussow were the only ones able to pilfer the Samoan ball at the breakdown.
I was also hoping that Smit would show some leadership when he came on but he made not difference whatsoever in fact he made mistakes (lineout throw and the yellow card incident). I think the referee was harsh and wrong in both instances but that aside Smit did not bring calmness or change in game tacticts.
The penalizing for taking to long to throw the ball in at the lineout is like the foot-up or skew feed rule at the scrum. Referee’s are not consistent and don’t always consider circumstances like being in front of the main stand with lots of shouting (thrower can’t hear the lineout calls) or the scrum starting to turn when No9 feed the ball.
I absolute dispise both those those ruling. What about Samoa having a conference in the first half everytime they got a penalty. How is that different from taking your time to throw the ball into the lineout?
Users Online
Total 125 users including 0 member, 125 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,434,423 Page Impressions
_