Jeremy Paul the ex-Aussie hooker made an interesting comment after the NZ / Canada game namely that on the evidence of the Canada game NZ would not be able to win the RWC.

Weepu was not convincing on 10 neither was Slade. The rest of the NZ game was, in my, appreciation pretty good. They lost some form in the second half -which is understandable considering the scoreboard at that stage- but the big concern according to Jeremy Paul is the fact that the NZ halfbacks will have less time and space  (than against Canada) when playing against quality opposition.

Paul obviously has the NZ/Aus Brisbane game in mind where the Wallabies secured a win by cutting down the space of the NZ halfbacks. 

Putting the NZ halfbacks under pressure and winning (or at least squaring) the breakdown battle is the only way to beat NZ. Both SA and Aussie can do that with the likes of Poccock and Brussow in the respective teams.

Cowan had an average game against Canada as did Weepu and Slade. Aussies problem is that I don’t think their set piece is strong enough while they also struggle with some injuries in the back line which is their main strike force.

The NZ back three is lethal independent who play but their effectiveness depend too a large extend on the halfbacks having front foot ball and space.

Paul has a point, I think. The way to beat NZ in this RWC would be (now even more than before) to put the NZ halfbacks under pressure.

Dominating or being competitive against NZ in the set piece would be key to accomplish that and there is one team that can do that (competing against NZ at set piece and putting their half backs under sufficient pressure) and that is SA.

SA will however need to sort out their ineffectiveness/problems in controlling the ball at the rucks.

The backline also need to take a serious look at running angles like the Samoans did when running with the ball. The Samoans exposed Jaque Foure (or the umbrella defence which have Fourie rushing up) terribly by utilzing angled runners that cross-over. The Samoan try came from such a cross over with Samoa No12 running straight into Jean de Villiers after rceiving the ball from No10 angeling laterally. The Samoa No10 then  received the ball back from 12 who forced Jean de Villiers to commit to the tackle with his straight running. The No10 then slipped through a gap big enough for a ox-wagon because of Fourie that have rushed up in defence. The Springboks will have to adapt their defence because both Aussie and NZ would see what Samao did but also the ‘boks could use a similar strategy with off-loads –like against Fiji- before we go into contact to avoid losing the ball in contact.

SA’s tactical kicking and defence would be crucial but even more important would be our ability to hang onto the ball. If the Springboks can’t sort that (ability to hang on to the ball) we’ll not beat the AB because the box kicks will not work with the current NZ back three.

Forcing play into the corners and avoiding going to ground by using off-load as we hit contact as well as angled running in the backline is in my mind key to SA winning this RWC.

We have a sniff now with Carter injured but SA coaches have to take a serious look at how Samoa ran the ball at us (the angled runners with the outside players coming in against the traffic) and we need to work on our support coming from depth (as opposed being lateral) when we take the ball up so we can utilize off-loads at contact to create space and take Poccock and McCaw out of the game.

This is what Justin Marshall had to say about the impact of Carter’s injury on NZ’s changes to win the RWC:

It’s impossible to overstate the significance of the tournament-ending injury to Dan Carter.

The All Blacks to my mind are now possibly equal with the pack.

With Carter they had a world-class asset that made them odds-on to win the World Cup; now they’re still among the contenders but have suffered a favouritism setback.

He’s that important. With Carter the All Blacks would have comfortably implemented their game-plan, executed moves and kicked the big goals to win the tournament. In essence, we have lost an edge we once had because we have lost a weapon that’s irreplaceable.

If people don’t believe me, sit down and watch the French game again.

Israel Dagg was player of the match but for me Carter was the best player on the paddock. He created nearly everything the All Blacks did and that was because he reads the game so well.

When you talk about game management, it’s not just kicking and passing when you’re supposed to – it’s kicking at the right time and distance, and it’s passing to the right player. It’s picking those moments that he is the best in the world at.

Carter out may have a silver-lining for NZ. The rest of the AB team members now know they have to lift their game to compensate. It has been complacency and unexpected set-backs during games that might have been part of why NZ ‘choked’ in the previous three World Cups.

The positive for NZ in all this is that can now adjust and take remedial/corrective steps. They can rehearse certain options with the new No10 and make sure they have senior players around the new player and get everyone in the team on speed. It’s not ideal but far better than losing pivotal talisman during a match and trying to adjust under pressure.

In summary; I think the injury to Carter made NZ more vulnerable but it will still require a special team and monstrous effort to beat this NZ team.