A South African Rugby View

The failure of the Boks' backline defence

2010-08-23T19:44:00.004+02:00

Many have blamed Habana for shooting off his line in defence against the All Blacks at FNB Stadium and allowing the equalising try. The actual failure happened due to De Jongh tackling in. De Villiers then looped round and tried to frantically wave Habana to drift. It was De Jongh's error after sterling work over the whole match. It was an error caused by lack of an established partnership in the centres.

Don't underestimate the importance of understanding amongst backs on defence.

Years ago Western Province had Jaco Taute and Christian Scholtz as centres. They had played together since school and exhibited an uncanny feel for what the other would do. Neither were as much of a threat apart - on defence or attack.

Further, the defence takes alignment off an organizer in the backs - typically an outside back. Breyton Paulse was one of the best organisers of the rush. Jaques Fourie has played the role more recently, although the Boks have rushed less and organised the drift.

It's hard to blame the coaches for the centre partnership. They were robbed of choice by Jacques Fourie's suspension and Wynand Olivier's failure at stepping up. Fourie would have offered either the established Stormers' duo or the old firm together with De Villiers.

First mobile blog - Pre-kickoff australia vs south africa

2010-07-24T12:18:00.000+02:00

Right. Since I have no time anymore, I'm trying something new. Micro-blog snippets via mobile.

It's minutes to go before the third tri-nations test of 2010 against australia.

We've had to endure three weeks of hell. Two pathetic efforts against a much improved all blacks team.

All credit to the all blacks. They look a different team from last year. The soaring springboks seem to have inspired them to lift their intensity. It seems true that new zealand loves nothing more than a real challenge against the old enemy.

What a pity the boks failed to show the same spirit in attacking the number one irb spot. Instead they lacked intensity - nowhere more evident than their missed tackle stats.

But let's also highlight the form of some passengers: januarie, spies and smit are completely off.

De villiers only knows why januarie has sniffed a bok place. His service is atrocious and his tactical kicking worse.

Spies maybe the most over-rated bok in history. Yes his pace and athleticism are impressive. But he DOES disappear in tight games. And not only is his missed tackle count is alarming: he misses the crucial tackles.

Smit is still the best choice as captain. Although schalk must rate as up and coming based on the s14 stormers performance. But smit is overweight and missing tackles as a result.

Anyway, the game about to start. Key issue today is the crazy selection of kankowski on the flank. Why they dropped louw only the coaching staff know. Replacing spies would have been much better.

The other issue is the defensive alignment. It's been terrible. And more and more I believe muir's poor coaching performance is evident.

Let's hope the boks step up today.

My rugby dream

2010-07-03T21:58:00.001+02:00

If only...

The top Super format was the Super 10. Super rugby should be a short, intense, strength-verus-strength reward for the best teams from each of South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. I think a format of the best 3 from each country plus the winner of a playoff each year between the 4th best from each country would do wonders in destroying any complacency that might exist amongst the stragglers.

Imagine: on the results of last year's Currie Cup, the Bulls, Cheetahs and Stormers would respresent SA - the Sharks would have to play off against the 4th best from the New Zealnd NPC and the Ausssie - oh I forgot the Aussies don't have a domestic competition. Imagine the pressure in Australia to create a viable doemstic competition? Imagine the rewards for the Cheetahs for being third in the Currie Cup?

Less Super Rugby would also free up our overplayed top players. It would make 9 Super games all the more special. And imagine space in the South African TV calendar for a club competition along the lines of the revolutionary Varsity Cup.

What of space for the Southern Kings? I believe making the Super 14 more exclusive and fixing a tiered Currie Cup would be the answer. A plan must be made - leaving such a vast geographical part of our country out of rugby is crazy. While Griquas are amazing for their giant killing stature, players from that region could feed Free State. A franchise system that ensures development happens and feeding happens across our country is key.

While I might be right and the above might be the answer, the regional governance structures make realising this the equivilent of turkeys voting for Christmas.

The Stormers - tolerating mediocrity for far too long

2009-04-04T14:03:00.004+02:00

Today's match against the Waratahs might be the worst rugby match I have ever seen.

The Stormers did the equivalent of arriving at work at 09h00, playing minesweeper, taking lunch, going to the sick room for a lie down and leaving at 17h00.

These guys are supposed to be professionals. So treat them that way. Pack some on the plane home. Fire some and never consider them for colours again. Jeez, in business I'd withhold salary for their being absent.

The sad fact is that the Stormers have been in terminal decline for years. And the reason is clear to see. Tolerance of mediocrity.

I groaned when the Stormers had their second loss of the season and Jean de Villiers claimed the performance was pretty good but the result had just not gone their way. He asked the crowd to continue supporting the team. Today he smiled in the post match interview, claimed they were happy with the defensive performance, they could take heart from the defensive strength and that they had improved from last week. And he "joked" that the Waratah's turnovers may not have been legal.

Jean you're a nice guy but you deserved a punch. Fact is you have captained the team to 5 losses from 7 starts. Not once have you showed any regret or that losing any game is just not good enough. And when you're losing, it's best to keep your mouth shut about refs and other teams.

But Jean is just the idiot we have to endure during the post match speeches.

Naqelevuki is the incompetent clown who's laughing all the way to the bank on his expat salary earned for a stroll around the park. Januarie's money is clearly not making it to the bank - the pie shop on the corner must be raking in record profits.

Jake White was right. Schalk Brits might as well be playing for the other side in scrums and line outs. Did someone say, "But what a lovely goose step?" If the backs could actually rely on seeing their fellow backs inside and outside them, perhaps they'd look a bit more confident and make a few yards. Brits and Bekker's athleticism might be wonderful for men of their position's but let's measure our players on their primary responsibilities. I'll give Bekker a break because he's got a sore toe and not on the tour, but Brits should join him on the couch back home. His lineouts and scrumming are diabolical.

Watson is one of our best performers in the loose. And he looks like one of the few players who is playing 80 minutes and exerting himself. But jeez, Luke please try passing the ball when you're in the line.

The Stormers cry foul at the mention of their "light five" tag, but as they pull their heads out their arses - where the Waratah's shoved them - I'd like to hear them to cry contrary.

But let's not exonerate the backs. When last did you see a Stormer chase a kick? When did you see a back run onto the ball, straighten the line and draw his man rather than flip a gentle pass towards the wing along with 15 opposition players. Let's face it, the Stormers look as likely to score a try from phase and set play as Bafana are to win the world cup.

Rassie you're a nice guy too. You claimed the side lacked a little belief in your post match interview. Not good enough mate. You have two Springbok assistant coaches on your team. You have a Springbok-studded side. You talk about poor execution of tactics and positional kicking. Take responsibility. Hold players accountable.

Guys. You're not far off the time the Newlands crowd booed the team and Gert Smal off the park. Frankly you're lucky you're overseas.

Chickens come home to roost

2008-07-20T10:36:00.002+02:00

Jeez I'm disappointed.

The more things change the more they stay the same. One year ago I wrote about problems in Bok rugby. We've won a World Cup and had a change of coach since then. But the ruck and protection of possession problems are the same.

I wrote that Matfield was not even a captain's arse. Maybe that's changed. Maybe he is just a captain's arse. When Jake White took over he introduced Prozone and summarily sent Matfield home from Australia - apparently due to his refusal to get stuck in. After yesterday's match, our lineout supremo walked off the park and lamented the team's breakdown performance. I counted his attendance at about 3 rucks during the game.

If Pieter de Villiers favours players who read the game situation and adapt, how does our captain excuse understanding the problem and doing nothing about it?

In the various reviews and thoughts I've noted on this blog, I've typically lamented South African sides unwillingness to get stuck in in the loose. Under the ELVs, the need to secure quick multi-phase ball has been elevated further.

On this away leg, we have relied entirely on Schalk Burger and Bakkies Botha to secure any ball at the breakdown, with some assistance from Joe van Niekerk and Juan Smith.

Yesterday's shambles showed an exhausted Botha and an injured Burger. Juan Smith was our player of the day - he tried everything. And our captain alternated between first center and wing. The much vaunted Pierre Spies disappeared. Kankowski made an anonymous late appearance.

One Australian report counted 35 Aussie turnovers of Springbok ball!

The problem does not require rocket scientists to diagnose. The solution is more complex. Of course modern rugby requires a balance of players in the ruck on and in defense. Often a similar balance is required on attack to provide quick support to the second phase ball carrier. But to ascribe our pathetic breakdown performance to getting this balance wrong is to ignore that some players in our Bok ranks do not like putting in the hard yards in cleaning the fringes and protecting our fetchers and scrummies.

De Villiers has done a fantastic job of gaining player support. In the press, his team have talked at their pleasure at providing him a win in Dunedin after the hard time he had taken after Wellington. The hard task now begins. Can he maintain this support and enforce disciplines? Can he point out the deficiencies in the team video sessions? Can he make a hard call and drop Matfield and Butch if their performance does not improve?

I'm going to dispense with the player ratings this week. They're pretty obvious. I liked the way Jean de Villiers and Steyn changed channels on defense and attack similar to the way De Villiers and Bobo had done in the Super 14. I though Juan Smith had a never-say-die performance and together with Burger and Botha tried to carry the team at the breakdown.

Beyond that it was a terrible performance. The gains at scrum time made in Dunedin were reversed. Schalk Brits showed his wobbly line out fallibility. Butch needs to be given Currie Cup time to find his game. Jantjies regressed from Wellington. Januarie struggled with no protection and shocking ball. De Villiers bounced off a tackle that resulted in a try. It was miserable stuff.

I'm scared to think of what injuries to Burger and Botha will do to this side.

Wow

2008-07-13T15:36:00.004+02:00

I'm still drained. One and a half days later. What a performance.

At one stage of the match I imagined myself being interviewed as an old man - one of the last alive to have seen the Boks beat New Zealand in New Zealand. Forgive me for my doubts. Before Ricky Januarie's moment of brilliance, I thought we had been beaten again.

As South Africans we're never as stubborn as when we have our backs to the wall. Sometimes that backfires like at Twickenham in 2002. Perhaps that is when we give up on the thought of winning, but refuse to leave without hurting the opposition. Sometimes it works when we refuse to give an inch as we wait for a moment of weakness.

205 tackles to 89. Talk about not giving an inch. Januarie's try. Talk about maximum return on a moment of weakness. It was classic Springbok trench warfare. Repelling waves of All Black attacks in the second half. Talk about belief.

Reason to celebrate

Bryan Habana cried tears of joy at the end. Teammates erupted in joy when Januarie scored. South Africa rejoiced that not only had they built on their world champion status, they had done it in the best way possible. By beating the pretenders to their throne, at the venue where they have never won. If the All Blacks could have named an occasion to prove their claim that the Boks would have lost the World Cup to them had it not been for a poor call by a referee, it would have been a Tri-nations match in Dunedin.

But it was more significant than just that. As is so often the South African case, it was an occasion when many harboured doubts about South Africa's first non-white coach and after an acrimonious week of accusations and counters between the All Blacks and Boks after Wellington.

Reason for hope

Pieter de Villiers was magnanimous in victory yesterday. In the immediate post-match interview, it was easy to see the relief as the coach pleaded for patience from South African fans. He said we were not yet the best but that we would grow.

South Africa is again rated the best team in the world according to the rankings and the reigning world champions. It would be easy to claim greatness.

But stand in captain for the last eight minutes of the match, Jean de Villiers was equally humble.

For good reason. South Africa returned to the familiar recipe of playing off their opponents mistakes. It is a game that few other nations can succeed at. It demands sacrifice of bodies and pain, absorbing pressure and believing in your team mates. It took 22 tackles from Schalk Burger and the turnaround of a pack beaten into submission the week before.

We have some way to go before we create our own opportunities and before we start as favourites against an All Black team at full strength. But that is a journey that starts with winning matches away and building momentum.

Yesterday marked the beginning of that journey. It marked the move from Pieter de Villier's stated desire on beginning his job, to improve the team by 40% and introduce a new brand of attacking brand of rugby. At least he made these claims whilst chasing the core of the World Cup Bok team and returning players from Europe to create a platform for growth. Yesterday marked a return to this sensibility. Before we can seek to retain ball as the All Blacks did in the second half, and attack our opponents through multi-phase ball, we need to create the belief first based on our strengths.

Where to improve

We almost fell victim to the All Black second half surge yesterday. We played for most of the game without the ball. We kicked many balls straight back down the middle of the park. We committed limited numbers to the breakdown and won precious few turnovers. Our chase on our kicks was often poor and our support of the ball carrier not always optimal.

It asks a lot of a team to repel more than 10 phases, kick the ball downfield, and then have the ball run back and repel again. Often games like yesterday's are lost by fractions rather than won by similar amounts.

But the guts and bravery are the platform to change that. It is easier to improve a winning effort than a losing one. It creates the space for players like Butch who is struggling for form and who had another poor game yesterday. It creates the space to begin to target weak opposition rucks for turnovers. It creates the belief required for first phase set piece moves.

Having said that the improvement in last week's effort in Wellington was appreciable. Most notably in the scrums. Hats off to the South African forwards and the coaching staff. Matfield was certainly better and imperious in the lineouts. JP Pietersen's selection was a masterstroke. Bismark du Plessis was solid in the scrums and the loose. Thanks goodness his lineouts held up too.

Januarie deserved the man of the match based on a two week effort. I thought he was even better in the Wellington losing effort. But the moment of brilliance of this week won the game for the Boks, and his mongrel boosts the whole team.

Looking ahead

Robbie Deans represents a huge threat. His tactical appreciation combined with Australian skill levels pose a real challenge in Perth. Together with the loss of Bismark du Plessis to a banning and Butch's lack of form, the Boks will have their work cut out.

I believe the challenge will shift from a physical one to tactical nous. Our kicking game will have to be pinpoint. We have to force territorial dominance and from there look to create opportunities off lineouts and around the ruck and maul. Our support play will have to improve as will our chase of our kicks.

I believe the shift will require a commanding game from pivot. Given Butch's form, I'd want Grant on the bench and Steyn in the starting lineup. I think the World Cup final backline lineup matches the need. I'd use Steyn at first center and Monty to alternate kicking from the flyhalf channel. Of course this is a tough call on Adi Jacobs who I think has been outstanding. Grant covers Steyn at first center too though and gives extra options.

Bismark du Plessis' ban is a headache. I'd fly over Adriaan Strauss from the Free State which I see is also the Bok coaching staff choice.

My lineup for Perth:

15. Montgomery 14. Habana 13. De Villiers 12. Steyn 11. Pietersen 10. James 9. Januarie 8. Van Nierkerk 7. Smith 6. Burger 5. Matfield 4. Botha. 3. Van der Linde
2. Brits 1. Steenkamp

Reserves: Jantjies, Grant, Pienaar, Bekker, Watson, Strauss, Mujati

Player ratings from Dunedin:

Montgomery - 6: Added experience and calmness to the team and got the Boks off to a good start by goaling his kicks. Fielded the ball well with one or two exceptions.

Habana - 6: Hardly involved on attack. Solid in defence.

Jacobs - 7: Fantastic defence and marked two weeks of showing up his critics and repaying his coach's faith in him

De Villiers - 8: Another brilliant defensive performance and another leader on the field. Should be captain in Smit's absence.

Pietersen - 7: What a return. First try of the season after an awful Super 14. Brilliant selection by De Villiers.

James - 5: Really out of form. Some poor kicks, a missed tackle that led to the All Black try and regression in his defensive technique. Perhaps his form is contributing to his trying to make his mark on the game through being overly physical.

Januarie - 8: Just fantastic.I thought he was even better overall in Wellington. But his try was one of those moments to remember - it won us the match and repaid the hard defensive work put in by the whole team.

Van Niekerk - 7: Much happier behind a stronger pack. Played more of a linking game. Made some good tackles.

Smith - 7: Good defensive effort in the tackle and at the breakdown.

Burger - 8: Did the work of three men. The Boks were totally reliant on him in defence and at ruck and maul time. He needs support. If he were injured again, the Boks would be in serious trouble.

Matfield - 7: A much better performance. Has to be given credit as captain for the team effort. Was brilliant in the lineout. Still not a force at the breakdown leaving all the cleaning to Botha and Smith.

Botha - 8: Just incredible at the breakdown. Physically and psychologically hurt the opposition with his cleaning out and tackles.

Van Der Linde - 7: What a turnaround. Restored strength to the front row and removed the All Black dominance in the set piece.

Du Plessis - 6: Some great tackles and a solid lineout performance.

Steenkamp - 7: Did well at scum time and again made tackles all over the park - second only to Schalk.

Reserves:

Bekker - 7: Came on and got stuck in. Made his tackles and helped fill the immense role Bakkies had played prior to injury.

Watson - 4: It was strange to see him on. Again, not really his style of game and he did not look like he wanted to be there.

Steyn - 6: Slotted the winning conversion under pressure. Added another kicking option. Kicks downfield allowed the All Blacks to run the ball back, however may have been playing to a pattern.

Jantjies - 6: solid replacement.

Mujati, Pienaar: not on long enough for an assessment.

Coaching staff - 9: Real guts to turn it around from Wellington. Humility to acknowledge they got it wrong and change the pattern. Selection of Pietersen was inspired. Guts to return Monty for Jantjies despite the latter's really good performance last week.

A tale of two halves

2008-07-05T11:22:00.007+02:00

Jeez. Gutted. Another test in New Zealand test lost.

That first half was a vintage All Black Springbok clash. All the intensity, bravery, passion.The rucks were ferocious and the defence committed. Thrilling stuff and I definitely got the feeling I was watching the two best teams in the world.

It started with the Haka. As always, it seems like you can tell so much with the way New Zealand lines up for the challenge. The hunger was apparent. And it just looked like it was a team out to prove they were not completely dependent on Richie McCaw. The pre-match hype about "South Africa's best chance in New Zealand" and "Take them with McCaw out" must have inspired the All Blacks to play for Soialo.

I think the All Black side always hits you at a million miles an hour out of the shed. They were no different today. What made this vintage was the Bok counter. John Smit was every bit Captain Fantastic. He led the challenge at ruck time with Burger and Bakkies in fantastic support.

But it was clear even when we were playing so well that Matfield was a spectator. Maybe it was because the All Blacks managed to keep the pressure on and force our kicks and lineouts on their own throw. The first 7 lineouts were all All Black throw-ins and they won them all. Matfield was anonymous and deserved a rocket for his lack of presence at the breakdown. It has never been his strength and it has always been very clear he would rather play center than graft in the rucks. The exception was against the All Blacks at Newlands in August 2005. Somebody should play that match to the Boks before every All Black test. Matfield should have in on permanent repeat. It was the perfect Bok pack performance in 2005. It was nowhere near that today. It said everything that we had an extra player in the rucks when Monty came on.

Speaking of pack performances, the All Black front row is without peer in World rugby - because of their props. Somerville and Woodcock were unbelievable. If we had got the go-forward in the pack in the first half, this might have been a different game. Somerville and Woodcock made sure that didn't happen. Nothing against Steenkamp, Van Der Linde or Mujati - and especially Smit or Du Plessis. The counter was courageous but always on the back foot.

I thought our starting back row was inspirational. Burger, Van Niekerk and Smith were fantastic and it was questionable subbing Van Niekerk in the second half. Burger and Botha carried team at rucks and Botha deserves all the plaudits in the world for that. The two also showed an enormous work rate around the park making tackle after tackle. Those talking of Matfield being off the pace considering his recent play in the French second league should consider Burger has had 20 minutes since his knee ligament injury.

Backline - encouraging but not controlling

In the back, the back three proved to everyone they were safe under the high ball. Now and again Ndugane's positional play may have been questioned as Carter kicked into space behind his wing. Carter was every bit the world's best flyhalf today - on attack and defence.

Ndugane and Jacobs showed their critics up with solid defensive efforts. Jacobs showed good touches on attack too and was directly responsible for putting De Villiers into space to create Habana's try.

But the player of the day for the Boks was Januarie. He is back to his best form. He used to be the perfect player against Gregan because he managed to get up Georgie's nose. Today he was much more than that. He played the scrummie role to perfection. Quick service and getting the ball out without enough protection from clearing players at the ruck. He kicked from the base and controlled his aggression. It was mystery why he was subbed by Conradie.

Second half psychology

We lost the match when we came on psychologically behind in the second half. World Champions who had just scored going into the half time break 8-9 behind should have inspired the team to come back believing it was only a matter of time before we took the lead. Instead those first 15 minutes were all All Blacks as we looked devoid of tactics. Butch needed to seize control. He was strangely off today and coughed a lot. Maybe he was sick. If so, it needed a decisive substitution early in the second half.

Steyn was not the player to take control. While his 60m almost-drop was astonishing, the charge down of his kick from his line was all-too familiar. I would have brought Monty on at flyhalf early in the second half and brought Steyn on on Odwa's wing to add some spark. Monty would have added an experienced controlling head. Odwa was courageous but was bounced off in three tackles due to a high body position. If he starts next week he has to go lower and drive into the tackle.

Our substitution tactics showed the coaching team tried to change the team to play to the ball and catch up rugby. The need for Watson for Van Niekerk and Steyn at flyhalf at 60 minutes were the result of the wrong tactics at the beginning of the second half.

The other aspect of our play today that worried me greatly was lack of support for ball carriers at the back or out wide. We conceded a number of turnovers as the All Blacks committed numbers to the chase. Conversely we never committed numbers to the chase.

Dunedin challenge

I'm not sure what the injury situation is, but Bekker coming on for Bakkies must have been injury enforced. That leaves question marks over Smit, Bakkies, Van Der Linde and Butch. Which is a serious worry for Dunedin.

The pressure is now on De Villiers. He has lost his first test and the loss breaks the Bok 12-match winning run. We have to sort out the front row prior to Dunedin. Gold's work will be cut out for him. De Villiers must consider his substitution strategy too. He has to use the Bok World Cup Final experience better. By merely re-constituting that World Cup Final backline, he'd add confidence. He needn't start with it - Jantjies was brilliant today - but if he'd reorganised 5 minutes into the second half today, I think Jantjies, Steyn, Jacobs, De Villiers, Monty, Habana would have looked like he'd brought on the stars to close out the game.

We've never won in Dunedin. Decisiveness is required to change that next week.

Ratings

Jantjies - 8: A very good performance from South Africa's form fullback. Solid under the high ball and good on the counter.

Ndugane - 6: Solid generally, but bounced out of three tackles close to his line. Needs to drive into the tackle with lower body position.

Jacobs - 7: Under huge pressure to prove his coach right going into the match. Set up the Bok try. Solid in defence.

De Villiers - 6: Should have been made captain when Smit went off. Solid and committed in the tackle. Great run to put Habana away. Also drove forward in the tackle making valuable metres on attack.

Habana - 6: Covered well around the park and scored a good try. Seldom put into space but was not really the weather for his kind of rugby.

James - 5: Strangely off. Needed to control the game but never looked confident. Coughed a lot and looked sick.

Januarie - 9: Outstanding. Under pressure on our own ball, was always there to clear before conceding a turnover. Courageous tackling. Controlled aggression.

Van Niekerk - 7: Grafting role required in the weather which he played well. The scrum never dominated resulting in a lack of a platform for his usual pick ups from the back.

Smith - 6: Solid grafting role. Vintage blindside play in the first half where he was required to play the hard yards.

Burger - 7: Unbelievable to consider he has had 20 minutes of game time since knee ligament damage. Huge tackles and workrate. Cleared rucks and led the forward charge.

Matfield - 3: Very poor. Complete lack of commitment. Possibly because he denied a starriing role in the lineouts early on by All Black tactics. But you have to question him not getting into first gear given the importance of the match.

Botha - 8: Wow. Tireless work rate at the rucks, controlled aggression, got around the park in support. Fantastic.

Van Der Linde - 5: Suffered in the scrums. Left with an apparent injury. Things actually looked like they improved when Mujati came on.

Smit - 7: Hugely valuable as a captain, scrummager and in the tight loose. His loss to injury is extremely worrying and robbed the Boks of direction in the game.

Steenkamp - 6: Good workrate around the park and improved in the scrums as the game went on.

Substitutions

Montgomery - 6: Showed the experience in putting a kick for position into touch downfield when nothing else was on. We needed the tactical appreciation throughout the second half.

Mujati - 6: Did very well considering doubts over his ability to stand up to the All Black front row. Looked like he improved the scrum when Van Der Linde went off.

Steyn - 5: Almost pulled off a 60m drop. But the charge down of his kick from his line showed his mercurial nature. He has never looked as good as when he played inside center in the World Cup. It seemed this allowed him to play a role where less decision making pressure was required and he had the support of experience on his inside and outside. Given how Jacobs played, he needs to re-establish himself as a first choice in the squad - and the coaches need to agree his role is at 12.

Watson - 5: Not the game for Watson - weather and match position didn't suit his style.

Du Plessis - 6: Started very poorly and got in the way of good attack ball in the backs. Gradually improved.

Bekker, Conradie: Not enough game to comment.

Coaching staff - 5: Got the second half completely wrong. But disrupted by losing Smit.

Use clubs to kick-start transformation

2007-10-31T09:32:00.000+02:00

There have been a few headlines over the past few days about the changing role of clubs in South African rugby. But I wonder if clubs can play a far more fundamental role in the transformation of South African rugby.

When I was at school, soccer was not available - it was looked down upon. It was pretty much an unspoken rule at junior school that everyone had to play rugby in winter and cricket in summer. At high school, hockey was an alternative to rugby and waterpolo was an alternative to cricket. Those who wanted to play soccer typically joined a club like Rygersdal - who had age group sides.

I wonder if this is not the way to provide rapid access to rugby to township schools? Why couldn't clubs like Villagers and False Bay start junior sides and attract township talent? In my mind this would solve a number of problems:

Club rugby has faced declining fortunes with a drop in profile since the advent of professionalism

Good players at school level often don't make the step up to play rugby at club level - offering age group rugby would provide a feeder programme

Rugby has floundered in the townships due to lack of facilities and skilled coaches.

Of course there are a number of problems:

Transport from township schools to club facilities

Applicability to very young age groups (e.g. under 9s and 10s - should they be travelling to practices and matches at non-school premises?)

Availability of coaches during working hours

Ability of fields to support more play

Ability to find space in existing school schedules.

I am sure solutions could be found to each of these issues. For example, when I played club rugby a nearby school field (literally across the road) stood unused except for once every year when the annual sports day was held. I understand this was either due to lack of interest in sports from the kids or lack of staff to coach sport. Immediately this says to me that there is an opportunity to gain an extra field for the club and potential age group players from the school. With regard to coaches, I am sure varsity players schedules may allow them the flexibility to coach during working hours.

Maybe some clubs do offer age group rugby. Maybe they do see townships as a potential source of players. If you know of these examples, please comment.

My point is that I think that if we look for opportunities to take rugby to the masses there will be opportunities to strengthen the game. Club rugby is an option in doing this.

If we take a business minded approach to this and employ marketing minds, I am sure we could capitalise on the World Cup success.

Some months ago I watched a Carte Blanche insert on train surfing. I was astounded to hear from the kids that they mostly train surfed to gain the admiration of young girls. It made me think. Maybe we should be marketing sport to young township girl spectators. If they were enarmoured with the thought of big strong rugby-playing boys, I am sure we'd soon find young boys clamouring to play the game.

Finally, I am sure further lateral examples would show potential. What about schools who lack rugby playing numbers. Schools like SACS, Rondebosch, Bishops and Wynberg (to name a set from a very small area of South Africa) have from 5 o 8 teams per age group. Other schools battle to find the numbers to fill the positions for one team. Should we be precious about disallowing kids from other schools where rugby is not offered to join schools where it is, or see this as an opportunity? Of course I am not talking about creating open clubs at schools, but merely highlighting that there are some schools where rugby battles to survive because of lack of playing numbers and others with underutilised facilities. There must be an opportunity to put that right.

What do you think?

Soweto dropped from Boks ticker tape parade

2007-10-25T22:03:00.000+02:00

On the same day that that shining liberal, paragon of rationale and good sense JJ Harmse* saluted SARU for their role in helping the Boks win the World Cup, the geniuses in the Rugby administration dropped Soweto from the Johannesburg ticker tape parade. Instead, the parade will now focus on paying tribute to the sponsors with a trip past Vodaworld in Midrand, Sasol in Rosebank and ABSA in the city.

In the last two weeks we had well wishes from the ANC Youth League and Young Communists League prior to the final, President Mbeki at the final, Nelson Mandela visit Boktown and millions of black Bok supporters in the fan towns in the townships during the game. Then Cabinet had an entire cabinet meeting in Springbok regalia. And the sports ministry reversed its open antagonism to the Springbok colours, logo and coach.

And then SARU dropped Soweto from the ticker tape route. Maybe it's just me, but saying "We're going to have to drop Soweto from the route" out loud just sets off all sorts of alarm bells. Hell, if I say it in my head it sounds ridiculous.

What an opportunity missed. Imagine Bryan Habana holding the trophy aloft in Soweto. The symbolism and promotion opportunity just couldn't be beaten.

Funny, I thought ticker tape parades were about fans. Guess who pays the huge bank charges, high petrol prices and crazy cell phone rates that make the Bok sponsorship deals possible - the fans. If you wanted to thank the corporate staff, have a combined function.

Instead of having taken a trip via Vodaworld and stopped off at Sasol for lunch, logistics could have been eased by going directly via Sandton, the CBD and then on to Soweto ending up at Nasrec for a combined sponsors' function. As it is, the team is ending up at ABSA Boktown, Monte Casino.

They way they keeping shooting, I can't believe SARU have any feet left.

A suggestion SARU - announce tomorrow that you will be bringing the trophy to Soweto for a send off prior to the Wales/Barbarians tour.

*Every word is sarcasm - JJ Harmse should be writing on a blog called "The Blue Bulls are all that matter"

**Take a look at the fan response to the article on News24 - clearly the stupidity of the move is acknowledged by almost all rational South Africans.

Bokke bo!

2007-10-21T02:55:00.000+02:00

So this is a post high on drunken spirit and emotion.

The team hoists President Mbeki high with the Rugby World Cup - Picture: Reuters

It's 03h00 and the end to a fantastic week. The tension was phenomenal. Those who thought this was going to be another 36-0 whipping were always going to be wrong. Finals aren't like that. They draw out the best in people.

Let's start by giving England credit. They were magnificent. To recover from that loss to the Boks in the pool match and come back to make the final beating Australia and France along the way was special. If you doubt the strength and quality of the side, look at their statistics going into this match. The English forwards were immense. Not just at scrum time, but at the breakdown too.

Today was all the better performance by the Boks because the English went into this match with nothing to lose. The pressure was on the Boks. You could see it when they ran onto the field. Their pale faces and steely looks spoke of the unbelievable tension they must have faced going into this match.

Further, this match was not just about winning the World Cup for south Africa. South African life is never that simple. It was about playing for a coach who had a gun to his head. It was about playing for a game that was under pressure to put demographics before victory. It was about giving a nation relief from the assault on its psyche from crime and the difficulty of rebuilding the South African dream.

Hugh Bladen said that Percy Montgomery was too scared to go outside this week in case he got a cold. You could see the pressure of a nation's expectations in his eyes. Francois Steyn's pale face betrayed the pressure on a twenty year old expected to play a faultless game. And Victor Matfield's gaunt look spoke of the pressure on a man expected to win every lineout.

The English ran onto the field with a plan. The often recited criticisms of the Bok back three under the high ball were the bedrock of the English tactic. Together of course with the assault of their pack at scrum time and at ruck ball.

What a response. I said in my pre-match report that the Boks would not turn around a deficient scrum in one week. After looking fragile in the first scrum, weren't they magnificent thereafter? Did you count the wheels on English ball? Did you see the pressure on the English backs? And what of those high balls? Let's face it Monty does not often leap into the sky and claim the high ball in close competition. He was fantastic tonight. And those rucks. The clean out by Bakkies Botha on Phil Vickery in the first half was the stuff of legends.

This was never a match to do more than required to beat the English. If you expected waves of attack with ball to the wings you were always going to be disappointed. If you believe that the disallowed try to the English cost them the game, you failed to see the Boks measuring their effort. Cutting out mistakes was always the first priority. Playing for position the second. And staying ahead on the scoreboard the most important result. If that try had been allowed, I am sure the Boks would have responded.

Once Francois Steyn forgot the script and stepped past three English defenders to put the Boks close. Danie Roussouw finished inches short. It did not matter. Whenever the Boks got the opportunity to kick at poles, Monty never looked like missing. Together with a long range effort from Steyn, those kicks progressively played the English out of the game.

We never got to see the Boks play a set move in the English 22. Never got to see an Eddie Jones inspired strike. That was testimony to the English response. There was not a lot wrong with the Bok line kicking tonight. The competition were just that good.

We also never got to see a Jonny Wilkinson drop goal. We almost saw Matthew Tait score, but not quite. We never got to see Jason Robinson cut through our defenders. The Boks were just that good.

What a victory. What a moment. What country ever hoists their president on their shoulders in the moment of a sporting triumph? To overstate the importance of this win is difficult.

Once my friends and I had finished our catered game function, I took them to a West African Jo'burg club. Along the way, the streets resounded with hooting and people waved flags from their windows. The club is 99% black and a favourite of mine for the incredible vibe and its particular music. I proudly walked in my Springbok jumper. I was hugged three times and engaged in many enthusiastic conversations. There were a number of other Springbok jerseys. This was about OUR team winning the WORLD cup.

Celebrations in Cape Town as the team wins - Picture: Reuters

Naas Botha was right in his commentary at the end of the match. We didn't make enough of the win in the 1995 world cup. We need to take everything we can from this victory. Strike a blow to the political posturing of the sporting demagogues. This victory was not about Afrikaner superiority. It was about uniting a nation behind being the best in the world. Strike a blow against a farcical administration - constructed to preserve the seats of power of past presidents and no longer relevant to the professional game. Strike a blow against the pathetic pace of transformation and take this game to the townships, the platteland and the people. That South Africa needs more Bryan Habanas and JP Pietersens is in no doubt. Given that those particular players cam from perhaps less than 10% of the rugby playing population by race speaks of the opportunity in taking the game to the masses, where the opposite percentages apply, and unleashing our talent on the world.

Finally, strike a blow against the continued interruption of coaching continuity and keep Jake White - Eddie Jones too if we could. This could be the beginning. The glitter to our crown would be to bring home next year's Tri-Nations. We are now the target for everyone that believes we did less than we should have to win this world cup. Yes Jake was wrong and politically naive to threaten the administration in 2006. And yes he needed a mentor / confidant to relieve the pressure piled upon him by South Africa's unique circumstances. I was irritated by his manipulation before a 2006 test match. He was wrong. I was irritated by his spin and defensiveness after poor results. He was wrong. But keeping him was right - is right. I was wrong.

Well done Boks. This was a magnificent performance. There is no need for player ratings. You all scored 10 out of 10 tonight.

A fan celebrates the Bok victory in Pretoria - Picture: Reuters

Kicking out of hand will decide the World Cup

2007-10-19T21:57:00.000+02:00

36-0 will count for nothing tomorrow. At the beginning of the game the scoreboard will state 0-0.

Further, the English have turned their game around since their pool match against South Africa. The combination of their locks with their loosies at ruck time has been magnificent. They have recognised that the Tri-Nations teams commit fewer players to the rucks and have targeted the breakdown. Simon Shaw and Ben Kay have been magnificent at adding vigor to the cleaning. While the Boks have far better fetching skills than the English, this will mean little if support is slow to arrive on attacking ball. With Matfield's looser role, this could be slow poison for the potent South African backs and reduce our attacking advantage to parity.

To emphasise the English strength at the breakdown consider that the English have conceded 63 turnovers. The Boks have conceded 80. The English have won 305 rucks and lost just 19. The Boks have won 207 and lost 24.

South Africa's scrumming issues will not have been solved in a week. Poor quality ball against the wheel will mean the Bok line will be forced to kick more than they would like, or play crash ball. This will also open the game up for Gomarsall. The English scrummie has been sheer class since missing the pool game against the Boks, and Fourie du Preez will have his hands full tomorrow.

South Africa should have a far better time at the line out and this will form the Boks primary attacking platform. The South African's will be expecting to dominate this area and this will encourage the kicking game - traditional test rugby. Good lineout ball in good positions will allow the backs attacking options and this is where Eddie Jones' influence will be seen. The Boks have had limited opportunities to show some Aussie running lines thus far. When they have, they have looked sharp. Expect to see quick ball from the back of the lineout be spread quickly. The backs will make use of dummy runners with Habana and Pietersen coming in on the wrap around. Jaque Fourie revels in running ball on a tight line off his inside player's shoulder. He'll score or switch back on his inside. Francois Steyn must look to offload a fraction earlier if this is to work. As brilliant as Mike Catt has been for the English thus far, he'll be exposed in these plays. Attacking off 13 will put the defensive burden on the men in white's centers and away from the blanket that is Jonny Wilkinson. Simon Tait will be in for a torrid time tomorrow.

Lineout stats are fairly even between the the teams so far. The English have won 58 and lost 9. The Boks have also won 58 but lost only 6.

Final rugby is about minimising mistakes, and tomorrow will be no different. A quick score off turnover ball can suck the wind out of a team given the tight defenses of world cup finalists. There will be a lot of kicking for position. The English will not want Habana pouncing on a loose ball and running the length of the field. And while Tait might be a defensive weakness, he's got the pace to ask questions of South Africa. They will not want to give him any opportunities. Anything within range will be taken tomorrow. Kicking form will be crucial and Montgomery has the record over Wilkinson this tournament. Don't be surprised to see a return to form for the English pivot tomorrow though. He is BMT personified.

Given all of the above, I think tomorrow will be decided by kicking out of hand and handling. If the South African line kicks are poor, it will give the English opportunities to run the ball up and set up phases. If they respect possession and show patience, they will dominate the recycling points. If this happens, Cronje, Matifeld, Botha and Smith will have to turn in a performance like that of 2005 against the All Blacks at Newlands - almost the perfect game. If this happens it will go down to the wire. The English will not create much and it will come down to a few points. Kicking at poles will be paramount. Under that scenario I'd back the Boks to win - 21-18.

If the Boks are pinpoint with their positional kicking, this could be nasty for the English. Given time in the English 22 with good lineout ball, the Boks should run the English line ragged. Given that scenario, I'd favour a big score for a final - 28-9.

Good luck Bokke!!

2007-10-18T23:26:00.000+02:00

Let's start by saying nothing else matters for 80 minutes this Saturday. A team picked from a nation of 48 million, as their best, their most talented, their most revered, will arrive at Stade de France on Saturday. They will have traveled in nervous anticipation. Some will have listened to their iPod. Others would have sat in quiet contemplation. Some might have been moved to say a few words.

They will exit the bus to a relative cacophony of noise - even if the bus arrives at a secluded entry point. The adrenalin will start to rush. Nervous anticipation. It's like that moment when you're on the edge of a bungi jump platform and you know that the moment has arrived. There is a point where you just want to get on with it.

They'll walk to their change room and the various approaches to preparing will begin. They'll change into their practice kit and begin their warm up procedures.

At this time they'll be entering the zone. They'll walk down the tunnel and into the theatre of dreams. Stade de France is huge and the stands are bit further back from the pitch than grounds like Newlands. The stadium will still be largely empty, but even if it was full the players wouldn't see the faces - just the view in the manner you might see from car. The immediacy of the grass and the air will be closer to their minds. They might be thinking of the occasion. Mindful of the fact that this moment might be the pinnacle of their lives. There will be nervousness. Everyone deals with fear of failure. Their sports psychologist will have worked to ensure that it is not a gnawing fear that will cause paralysis or indecision at a crucial moment of the match.

Having stretched in the changed rooms, they'll be getting the muscles warm now. More stretching with team-mates will be followed with some warm up runs and some practice kicks. They'll be seeking to get that rhythm going now. What golfers call muscle memory. You can't think anymore. You have practiced and analyzed and now it is about doing it. The stadium will begin to fill and the players will return to the change-rooms.

Changing into the match jersey will be a special moment. It will be embroidered with "World Cup Final 2007 - South Africa versus England." It will be something the players will show their grandchildren one day. Right now it will make the dream very real. Nervous energy will begin to give rise to passionate talk by the coach and captain. Senior players might exhort the players to go out there and play like it is the only match that will matter for the rest of their lives. They will remind the team that there are little boys and girls and fathers and mothers and grandfathers and grandmothers waiting in front of their televisions and radios right now. There are people coming in from working in the fields of the Northern Cape. Miners coming home or going to the pub. People gathering in front of TV shop windows. They will remind them that this is not just a game. They will remind them that in 1995 the win united a nation. People black and white young and old celebrated in the streets as they shouted "We are the best in the world!"

The coach will endeavor to put the players into the first gear. Remind them that there is nothing they have not thought of or not prepared for. That this is their destiny as surely as the win is. That when the whistle blows they will know what to do. That the preparation started four years ago and their bodies and minds have never been more ready for anything.

In the huddle, players may or may not realize that this will be the last time they will be in this family. That once the final whistle blows and the celebrations and tears are over, men they regard as brothers will move on. This will be the last time they run out with the overwhelming goal in mind: win the 2007 world cup.

Bokke ja! Bokke ja! Bokke ja!

And then it will begin. They will leave the change room to meet their destiny. To deliver dreams. To be one of the heroes they once idolised. All it will take is 80 minutes of their lives. The time it might take to watch a movie. Maybe less time than a visit to the gym. It will be 80 minutes of moments. Moments of brilliance. Moments of doubt. Moments of despair. And maybe, hopefully, one of triumph.

Go boys.

Not very good

2007-10-07T17:16:00.000+02:00

First of all congratulations to Fiji. What an effort. Just like France and England showed the value of heart and passion, so did Fiji who threw everything at the Boks.

To the Boks, well done for refocusing and grinding out some forward dominated tries at crucial times.

But oh, why did the Fijians ever get the chances they did? Was all the talk this week about keeping it tight a bluff or did the Boks forget the script?

As good as Francois Steyn has been thus far (truly one of the finds of the tournament and likely to be a Bok great), his option taking exemplified some poor thinking by the Boks. Steyn held on a fraction too long at times and then fluffed passes in the tackle. At other times, going to ground, setting up clean ball and clearing for position would have been the better option. Given all the talk about the game plan, one would think this would have been automatic.

Instead we created opportunities for the Fijians in our half. Then we hopelessly messed up our defensive alignment. And then we fell off an alarming number of tackles. The result was a number of overlaps. If Fiji had focused on drawing their men and putting the ball through hands, they might well have run out winners.

The Boks must have benefited from watching yesterday's upsets. John Smit said as much in post-match interviews. Perhaps then another scrape will shape their execution as they head to the more difficult prospect of Argetina (surely?) and then England or France. Just as England benefited against Australia from having played for their lives to get there, perhaps South Africa will be better prepared as a result of the scares against Tonga and Fiji.

In the mean time, I take back every criticism I ever made of JP Pietersen. His try saving tackle was crucial today. If Fiji had gone up on the scoreboard, we might not have pulled it back. Well done.

Four more years

2007-10-07T00:50:00.000+02:00

Gregan's chant must be ringing in the All Blacks' ears right now. And ironically too, like a boomerang, back in the ears of Georgie.

What a day! If the Tri-Nations are the top three in world rugby, we've picked a funny way to show it. After all the self congratulatory commentary about the state of Northern hemisphere rugby during the World Cup pool games, Australia and New Zealand were reminded that rugby is a game between 30 mere mortals and with an oval shaped ball. Passion and bounce can upset the odds.

While both England and France played with passion and surely enjoyed the bounce of the ball, both set out with well laid out plans to beat their more fancied opponents. England targeted the Super 14 style three man rucks with committed numbers and counter rucking. France decided that playing in the opposition's half was half the battle.

England break down the Aussies

England were magnificent at the breakdown today. Shaw and Moody were ferocious. And it is about time. Of course committing numbers to the ruck opens up defensive holes in your own line. But in a modern game where turnover ball remains the most potent attacking threat, attacking key breakdowns unlocks ball and space. The Australians were shell shocked. They tried guile to win at scrum time, and after the English were initially penalised, Alain Rolland appeared to realise that Dunning is the Oscar winner we've all been pointing out. His collapsing of scrums is the Aussies' only way of gaining parity at the set piece. With the forwards that rattled, the backs were left with too much to do. Except for one moment of brilliance from new kid Berrick Barnes. His wrap around with Aussie dummy runners was vintage Eddie Jones and Barnes' Reds/Jones pedigree was easy to see. If the Aussies' had secured better ball, Tuqiri's try from the move would surely have been one of many. They didn't and the English passion, commitment and robust play paid off.

Despite having kicked the points, Johnny Wilkinson looks a shadow of his former self. Not even his kicking is a patch on what it was. He's showed patches of from thus far and one or two touches against the Tongans got the English into the quarters. But he's a player short of match practice. As bad as Catt was against South Africa, he was immense today. When Catt and Wilkinson click, the English are a different team. If they do next week, we could see England in the final.

All Blacks choke again

The French promised similar things. They attacked the first few breakdowns with similar freneticism. But the All Blacks pedigree is better than that of the Aussies, and they immediately committed more numbers. The French played for position as we knew they would. Jake White's scepticism at the game plan looked well-founded as the French looked innocuous and the All Blacks responded with some sublime McAlister brilliance. Twice he ran the French ragged, first almost putting Ali Williams over and finally went over himself to put the All Blacks well ahead.

But McAlister proved mercurial and from the highs the plunged to the low of being sent off for obstructive running early in the second half. The French took full advantage and Thierry Dusautoir was a deserved scorer as they pulled the game back.

The famous French counter attack allowed Jauzion to cancel out a So'oialo effort. As the Gallic spirit grew, they repelled 27 phases of largely pick-and-go attacks on their line before forcing an All Black knock on. It was typical of the French defence which saw them make 178 tackles to the All Blacks 36. Ultimately it won them the day.

The All Blacks were in it right until the end though. At 18 to 20 down, a drop goal would have done it and they had an ample chance 22m out on the 75th minute. Instead McAlister tried a 50m effort just before full time. It summed up World Cup history for the All Blacks. Should've, would've, could've.

Good for the game

Was this good for rugby? Any win that exemplifies spirit and passion is good for the game. We saw bloodied England players give it all. We saw one of the bravest players in the game, Serge Betson, in a brave but ultimately horrific moment put his body on the line to make a tackle. Luckily he looked OK if shaky when he left the field. Finally, we saw tactical nous win over reputation. So yes, a great day's rugby.

Something strange happened to the referees though. In both matches, the new ruck laws were hardly blown. The English flew into rucks and clearly went of their feet. There were moments when there were clearly boots on players. But the whistle wasn't blown. The officials also missed two clear forward passes (at least) in the French All Black game. While I loved the return to old style rucking and resultant competition rather than league style restarts, if we're going to have laws they have to be blown. Just as if we're going to have citing, then be consistent. Not knowing how the game is going to be controlled makes things lottery. And that is no good for a game looking to convert viewers already confused by strange rules and interpretations.

Of course every South African (especially me) wants to see the Springboks beat each of the top teams en route to winning a final, a la 1995. But we must play the hand we're dealt. That starts by being ruthless against Fiji tomorrow. While Fiji shouldn't have a chance, "should" played no role today.

What a huge investment in Pretorius

2007-09-22T16:54:00.001+02:00

Jake White tried to play Andre Pretorius into shape today. It almost cost the Boks a match.

Don't get me wrong, I think Jake and Eddie Jones are doing a great job at the world cup and the team have my 100% support. Almost all the decisions have paid off. But taking Andre Pretorius along after such a long lay off was a huge risk.

Pretorius is a mercurial player at the best of times and such players survive on confidence. When his kicks were missing the posts, you could sense the contagion spreading to the rest of his game. His line kicking was atrocious and his running lines were worse.

So what to do?

If Francois Steyn wasn't showing such form and potential at inside center I'd say it is fairly obvious that he should be Butch's backup and be given time in the position. That would have included moving him to flyhalf as a sub for Pretorius at half time.

Considering the first choice side, and not wanting to disrupt two positions, the other option is moving Ruan Pienaar in as Butch's understudy.

But as much talent as Pienaar has, I get scared thinking of him replacing Butch there in a World Cup final.

So I think I'd settle on Julies moving to inside center and Steyn to flyhalf. Even that makes me scared given the youngster's inexperience.

What this all betrays is the lack of form and depth beyond Butch. And a few months ago I didn't think I'd even be saying that. So well done Butchie.

The rest

The Tongans were far faster to and physical at the rucks than the English. While our low numbers to the rucks and slow ball worked in the English game given the focus on field position and kicking (under that game plan you commit fewer players to the ruck in order to chase and bolster the defensive lines), it does hint that we'll be under pressure against sides with stronger, faster packs like the All Blacks. With Bobby playing loose and Roussouw slow to the ball, Wickus was left with too much to do with only really Bakkies in support. Juan Smith made a real difference when he came on.

If Roussouw was to be replaced in the first choice line up (which might be moot given what looked like a serious neck injury - get well Daniesaurus), Wickus, Juan and Schalk (as 6, 7 and 8) might be the combination with Bobby on the bench.

Meisiekind looked out of form at outside center and Ashwin looked a shadow of his former self. His lack of pace when he made a clear break was startling and sad.

Januarie looked far better. Gary Botha played hard in the loose, but his throwing and scrumming was shown up when replaced by John Smit.

For the other replacements, Monty looked fairly ordinary when winning his record 90th cap (that fly kick...), Matfield looked brilliant in the line outs, Steyn, Smit and Habana looked good. Both Steyn and Habana looked unfairly done over with the yellow cards. I'm not sure how disciplinary records come into play into this world cup, but let's hope it never comes to that.

The USA

The purpose of this game was to give our replacements some game time and allow them to find form if they are needed as replacements later in the campaign.

We learnt a few things, but the form was sadly elusive.

So I think we have to carry this forward to the match against the USA. I know Jake has said he will play his first XV and allow them to build momentum for the semis. But I think the second forty will allow us to do that. That said, I think Jacque Fourie needs game time.

My team for the USA would be:

15. Ruan Pienaar 14. Akona Ndugane 13. Jacque Fourie 12. Wayne Julies 11. JP Pietersen 10. Francois Steyn 9. Ricky Januarie 8. Bobby Skinstad (capt) 7. Juan Smit 6. Wickus van Heerden 5. Johan Muller 4. Albert van der Berg 3. CJ van der Linde 2. Bismark du Plessis 1. Gurthro Steenkamp

Subs: Bakkies Botha, Victor Matfield, Schalk Botha, John Smit, BJ Botha, Percy Montgomery, Bryan Habana

Second half 15. Percy Montgomery 14. Akona Ndungane 13. Jacque Fourie 12. Wayne Julies 11. Bryan Habana 10. Francois Steyn 9. Ruan Pienaar 8. Schalk Burger 7. Juan Smit 6. Wickus van Heerden 5. Victor Matfield 4. Bakkies Botha 3. BJ Botha 2. John Smit (capt) 1. Gurthro Steenkamp

Ndungane gets a full game, the loose trio gets a test, Steyn gets a full run at flyhalf, Johan Muller (assuming fit), Bismark du Plessis and Julies get game time.

This leads to my team for the quarter finals:

15. Percy Montgomery 14. Bryan Habana 13. Jacque Fourie 12. Francois Steyn 11. JP Pietersen 10. Butch James 9. Fourie du Preez 8. Schalk Burger 7. Juan Smith 6. Wickus van Heerden 5. Victor Matfield 4. Bakkies Botha 3. BJ Botha 2. John Smit 1. Os du Randt

Subs: Wayne Julies, Ruan Pienaar, Bobby Skinstad, Johan Muller, CJ can der Linde, Bismark du Plessis and Gurthro Steenkamp

This allows Ruan Pienaar and Frans Steyn to be used as utility backs with Steyn possibly given the second half against Wales at flyhalf (Julies comes on at inside center). It also allows a full front row substitution if the match is won early. Johan Muller gives extra flexibility as a lock or loosie replacement.

The Bok problems are systemic

2007-06-24T17:32:00.000+02:00

This post is also being carried on Ou Grote and Ruggaworld

Schalk Burger makes yet another tackle during the match against the All Blacks - Photo: Getty Images

Let's get this straight - South African rugby is in a a better state on the playing field than it has been in many years. We currently have the best depth of talent of any rugby nation. Sadly, off the field and possibly at Bok level, things fall apart.

Coming back to win against the Aussies last week was a tick against the character of the Bok side. Whether it should have required two brilliant drop goals or have been settled through taking earlier penalties is a moot point.

However, let's also be blatantly honest about the last few weeks. We have not once hit our straps. Not even for a 20 minute period. By hitting our straps, I'm talking about putting it all together like the Bulls did against the Reds to win their place in a semi-final. Of course, those days don't happen very often. Not for a full 80 minutes. But consider one thing - watch yesterday's test against the All Blacks and marvel at them clicking for about ten minutes between about about the 27th and the 37th minutes. The interplay between backs and forwards was breathtaking, as was their retention, lack of mistakes, support play and running lines.

Now consider the overall pattern of Bok play. It is difficult to pick out a period where the Boks looked breathtaking. Could this be the beginning of the payoff of Graham Henry's conditioning program and the impact of some very hard rugby on the Boks? That's the excuse Jake made after the match. Besides the fact that the All Blacks might benefit from the conditioning program and that they might be beginning to find one another in a way that a side can only do through playing together, I'm not buying the "Boks are tired" excuse. Of course the injury to John Smit is proving to be massive. Of course the Boks are missing their world class finisher, Habana. And of course, Hougaard might have been a better bet to close out yesterday's game than Frans Steyn, but looking for excuses there misses the bigger problems.

Captaincy

Despite Heyneke Meyer's opinions to the contrary, Victor Matfield is not even a captain's arse. Sure a captain needs to have the players' respect and preferably be the best in his position. However, reading the game's state of play remains the elusive quality in South African captaincy ranks. There have been remarkably few captains in South Africa, at provincial or national level, that have been able to read the game and alter tactics. In recent times, Bobby Skinstad stands out and possibly Gary Teichman. There have been others who could get their teams to win through loyalty and bloody mindedness, but that approach takes its toll. In days gone by, Micheal du Plessis was one of the finest readers of the game I've ever seen. Naas was pretty good. Morne du Plessis was one of those thinkers and motivators. We really don't have too many players like that around at the moment.

Scrumming

For some reason we believe we have the birthright to dominate at scrum time. Let's just kill that idea once and for all. As powerful a player as Os still is. As world class as our locks are. As big as some of our loosies are. We have looked average in every match this season - England, Samoa, Australia and now New Zealand. Let's also give John Smit his due. His absence must have reddened a few faces in Pretoria and that of Stofile. The impact of Smit's loss at scrum time and in captaincy has been immense. If all it does is to shut up the maniacal Gary Botha / one eyed Bulls supporters who call into Super Rugby on a Monday and rant about Gary Botha's divine right to don the green and gold, then perhaps we're closer to getting real with ourselves.

Structure and options

Of late, many have criticised South African coaches for coaching creativity out of players. This may well be true. However, general principles do apply. Attacking off turnover ball, playing for position when up on the scoreboard, running lines, etc. David Campese made an observation after the Australia test. He said that he believes support players should be calling the running lines and attack, not the ball carrier - this prevents isolation. Whether he's right or wrong, it is the absence of these types of principles that often results in poor option taking and lack of structure on the field. Somewhere in the second quarter yesterday, the Boks won a fantastic turnover just inside their half. What happened? Butch kicked the ball.

At around the 65th minute yesterday, the Boks suddenly remembered the pick and go as a tactic. They tried about 5 of them before getting smashed and conceding the turnover. Making the right choices spontaneously comes from hours of practice and experience. Making the right choices according to the field position, ball quality and match situation comes from leadership, communication and planning.

Rucking

Those of you who know me, know that I believe this is the number one issue with South African rugby. Yesterday showed this up again. People can point to individuals all they like, but we have to acknowledge that our ruck-time patterns are just horribly wrong. In the nineties, rugby science began to question the optimal numbers committed to rucks and the impact on next-phase attacks or defence. Whatever the conclusions, the result has been that our rucks have lost their optimum patterns and some players do not commit at all.

Rucks need the right combinations of players to work. An attacking ruck needs good ball carriers, good supporting runners, cleaners and quick service. A defensive ruck needs good contesting (through the fetcher / opensider) and good pressure through committed counter rucking. Both defensive and offensive rusks need clearly aligned support for the next phase.

The offensive ruck provides the best opportunity for penetrating the stronger defences of today. While lineouts suck in the majority of forwards and allow the start of the maul, rucks allow teams multi-phase play with potential quick ball and allow the attacking team to more precisely control the position and timing of the attack. Quick ruck-time ball remains a deadly threat to even the best defensive teams. Depending on the field position and state of the opposition defensive lines, the attacking team may choose to pick-and-go, break and set up a maul, swing the ball wide, suck in players and kick for space, or set up another ruck. Further, ball carriers can choose the point of impact and use this to target players in the other team, committing them to the ruck on defence. Defending the ruck saps energy and opens up space. To make this work, playing patterns need to be precise. As much as we are moving towards the uniformly large, fast and strong rugby player, eighth-men and closed-siders tend to make better ball carriers, locks tend to make better cleaners and front rowers tend to provide better support in the later phases. Combinations need to work together on the optimal running lines to ensure the ball carrier is not isolated and that target point of attack is committed. The reason for the roles of each forward is often as simple as the fact that the first phase is often a scrum and those roles are determined by the break-up pattern of the forwards. But clearly their physical attributes play a role.

Back to Springbok rugby, and the commitment of the players to this pattern is limited. Yesterday's game clearly showed Matfield's liability at ruck time and Bakkies' lack of fitness (he was again fantastic for the first 30 minutes, Matfield was pretty much absent throughout). Consider the possession stats that saw the Boks with more than 60% up after 30 minutes and end on just above 40%. Look also at the loose forward combination. As big and strong as Schalk Burger is, and as awesome a ball carrier as Bobby Skinstad is, they're lost without the supporting pattern. The typical break from the base of the scrum was a good example of the disaster. Under pressure from the Boks' poor scrum, resultant wheel to the wrong side and opposition scrummie on his heels, Skinstad was always in a poor position to pick up and carry. While Schalk was immense and a good partner for Bobby, Roussouw seemed a little slow. From there things fell apart, with the backs more often than not committing to support in the absence of the locks. Pienaar often struggled to get clean second phase ball, and as a result the backline again looked devoid of any potency on attack.

It's easy to blame De Villiers for looking poor on the back of this, but in reality, few backs can create without any space and with slow ball.

Lack of fluency

Having said that De Villiers has been the victim of poor quality ball is not to excuse him for his part in the paper tiger that is our Springbok backline. He looks nothing like the player once rated the most exciting inside centre in world rugby. Outside him, Jaques Fourie has looked undercooked. And of course, being a wing outside that lot means you're never going to score unless from broken play. For years now we've lamented the lack of involvement of our wings and cheered only when they've looked for work. We've decried the limited times that Monty has joined the line. Fix the basics and that will change.

Wayne Julies deserves to wear the Bok 12 right now. His superior distribution might just fire Jaque Fourie. Failing that, given Jake's apparent intention to rest his first choice team, Waylon Murray might be worth testing outside him on the away leg of the Tri-Nations.

However, without securing better quality of ball from scrums and rucks, without thought as to patterns and structures according to the state of the game, our backline will continue to look prosaic.

What works

There is no doubt we possess the best lineout in world rugby. Matfield and Botha are peerless as jumpers at 2, 3, 4 and 5. As with all things though, we tend to overplay our strength. Of course the lineout offers one of the best attacking platforms from five meters out. And of course being able to compete on the opposition's ball allows for fantastic attacking potential.

Jake's consistency is selection has benefits. His belief in Ashwin Willemse might just be rewarded. For a guy to have been out for so long to play with the hunger and workrate Willemse did yesterday is remarkable. Monty is in sublime form at the moment and provides the team with dependability, if not always under the high ball. Butch looked better yesterday than he has and provides a safe option at flyhalf. His distribution needs work though and he needs to run on to the ball more - he's currently a little flat footed.

The most important thing going for the Boks at the moment is the self-belief they seem to have post their good Super 14. Perhaps these losses will make use stronger in blunting possible arrogance. However, the problems we have have existed for a long time. It is asking a lot to overcome them suddenly prior to the world cup.

The Tri-Nations away leg

Jake's squad has been announced and his strategy is to rest his top players. The squad is:

Johan Ackermann, Eddie Andrews, Gary Botha, Deon Carstens, Tonderai Chavhanga, Michael Claassens, Bolla Conradie, Bismarck Du Plessis, Jannie Du Plessis, Bevin Fortuin, Peter Grant, Derick Hougaard, Wayne Julies, Hilton Lobberts, Johann Muller, Waylon Murray, Wynand Olivier, Breyton Paulse, Ruan Pienaar, JP Pietersen, Jaco Pretorius, Bob Skinstad, Albert van den Berg, Wikus van Heerden, AJ Venter, Cobus Visagie, Pedrie Wannenburg, Luke Watson.

As usual, some of White's choices are baffling. Chavanga's long absence does him no favours. How Claassens gets in ahead of the in form Heini Adams boggles the mind. Fortuin's fantastic 2006 season form was not carried into 2007. Breyton Paulse remains the best organiser of the Bok rush defence, but was woefully out of form in the Super 14, short on workrate and pace. Eddie Andrews' name will have many people tearing their hair out. Jaco Pretorius remains a curate's egg.

On the plus side, White has either been overruled or been prepared to reconsider Cobus Visagie and Luke Watson despite his previously stated views on both. The promising form of Peter Grant (apparently sublime for the Emerging Boks) has been recognised.

My match 22 for the away leg would be (regardless of the selected squad - but with resting, testing and giving existing players a chance to build continuity in mind):

Francois Steyn, JP Pietersen, Waylon Murray, Wayne Julies, Odwa Ndungane, Peter Grant, Ruan Pienaar, Bob Skinstad (captain), AJ Venter, Luke Watson, Ross Skeate, Johan Ackerman, Cobus Visagie, Bismark du Plessis, Deon Carstens. Substitutes: Derick Hougaard, Heini Adams, Pedrie Wannenberg, Hilton Lobberts, CJ van der Linde, Gary Botha, Gurthro Steenkamp.

Frankly, I believe that a test is a test and I hate the thought of losing due to resting first choice players en mass. I'd rather see rotation happening over the long term and in an organised fashion. However, we are where we are. The danger is that we might well provide the All Blacks with just the step up they require to regain the fluency in their game we caught only a glimpse of yesterday.

If current form is to be continued, I wonder if the following team should end up in the World Cup semis:

Percival Montgomery, JP Pietersen, Waylon Murray, Wayne Julies, Bryan Habana, Butch James, Fourie du Preez, Bob Skinstad (vice captain), AJ Venter, Schalk Burger, Victor Matfield, Bakkies Botha, Cobus Visagie, John Smit (captain), Deon Carstens. Substitutes: Francois Steyn, Ruan Pienaar, Pierre Spies, Danie Roussouw, CJ van der Linde, Bismark du Plessis, Gurthro Steenkamp.

Of course, I'd have Bakkies running up sand dunes first and tie a rope from Schalk to Matfield. That may be the only way to get him to join a ruck.

My player ratings versus the All Blacks:

Montgomery - 8

Rock solid when kicking at poles, made his tackles, chasing his kicks. Few opportunities on attack.

Willemse - 7

Looked for work, made tackles. Surprisingly good for somebody who has been out so long.

Fourie - 6

Made a memorable tackle, but received little good ball.

De Villiers - 4

Innocuous on attack.

Pietersen - 6

Not his best. A victim of a bad bounce and wrong footed once, his improved defence was made to look suspect.

James - 6

Solid. His flip passes must give his team mates nightmares. When they work they look great. If they don't they are easy points to the opposition. Defended well. Flat footed when receiving ball on attack.

Pienaar - 6

Had a difficult time behind a struggling scrum and ruck. Forced into box kicks on occasion. Had a role to play in Steyn's nightmare - should have taken the pressure himself and gone for the box kick then.

Skinstad - 6

Wasn't allowed to play due to poor scrum ball and absence of support at rucks. Worked hard.

Roussouw - 6

Worked hard but a little slow in support play. Didn't really see evidence of a pattern to match the potential power play of Os, Bakkies, Matfield and Daniesaurus together.

Burger - 9

Colossal. Workrate was incredible. Made tackle after tackle, hit tuck after ruck. Could have been man of the match on the losing side.

Bakkies Botha - 6

Made another huge start to the match but faded later. Does not look fully fit.

Matfield - 5

Awesome in the line outs but virtually anonymous beyond that. I challenge even Prozone to find him in the last 30 minutes. Did not impose himself on the game as captain.

BJ Botha - 5

Not up to his Super 14 standard. opposition tactics seem to be negating his effectiveness at scrum time.

Gary Botha - 5

Better in the lineouts than against the Aussies, but struggled in the scrums.

Du Randt - 6

Stayed on the park longer than I thought he would and made some trademark tackles in broken play. Could he find form before the world cup?

Wannenberg - 5

Unlucky to have copped it, 30 seconds after coming on, for his team's earlier indiscretions at the breakdown.

Steyn - 3

He needed to make sure of his line kicks and play the percentages when he came on. His dropped pass and confusion with Pienaar on his line were disasters. He's a real talent and will hopefuly get the support he needs after this. Should have gone on the away leg of the tour with a point to prove.

Other subs: Bismarck du Plessis, CJ van der Linde, Johann Muller, Michael Claassens, Wynand Olivier - no rating

No real impact on the game.

It's crap being a Stormers supporter, and a short story on rucking and running lines

2007-03-12T00:32:00.000+02:00

Every year we hear how good the Stormers look on paper. Every year we get excited about some prodigious new talent. And every year we end up being disappointed.

This in contrast to the Western Province golden age, winning the Currie Cup year-in and year-out. A time when Doc Craven was heard to say that when Maties rugby is strong, South African rugby is strong. Such was the influence of the region.

Things have changed. The Stormers may boast capped Springboks, but these players largely trade on reputation rather than contribution to the provincial or Super 14 level.

And this year, it seems that the prodigies are determined to disappoint as well.

The game against the Brumbies marked a return to this reality after the surprise win against the Hurricanes.

And it is an awful reality.

While I celebrated last weekend's win against the Hurricanes and congratulated the Stormers for showing guts and determination, I felt uneasy. The win relied on the old South African formula of gees (spirit) rather than a clinical, skilled approach.

And to be sure, you'll win more games through spirit without clinical play than you'll win with clinical play without spirit. But let's face it - you need both.

How to be clinical and play with spirit

If you want to see an example of the game played at that level, you don't have to go back to watch the Crusaders last season. Watch Ireland versus England at Croke Park. Possibly the most motivated team ever given the history of Croke Park, Ireland managed to channel the emotion and were ruthlessly clinical in beating the English team.

To see the unbelievable spirit, watch the anthems below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItPlLnnol4c

The Irish defensive organisation was absolutely superb. As was their communication. As was their organisation at ruck time.

The key is the ruck

It may seem like I'm seating a drum regarding ruck time organisation. But it is my view that ascendancy at rucks is 70% of the modern game. It is the basis of maintaining or gaining possession. Quick ruck ball disrupts the tight modern defences and sets up attacking opportunities.

The highlights package of the Irish / English game below shows some awesome ruck ball for the Irish. Watch the rucks at the following video times: 1:28, 3:10, 3:35 and 5:20 especially, 6:01 is perhaps the best illustration of all!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-b9srVaBoo

What the clip doesn't show is the Irish defensive ruck organisation. On defence, the Irish commit players to the breakdown and have a player standing close in on either side. Both players vocally nominate their positions and stand with one hand up indicating their defensive role. This is primarily to stop the pick-and-go from the back of the opposition ruck.

Defensive rucking is where the art is. Debate rages regarding the optimum numbers to commit to the ruck. Too many and you open up holes in the backline. Too few and you allow the opposition quick ball and opportunities for pick-and-goes.

This is of course where the fetcher comes into his own. His role in supporting the ball carrier on attack is really one shared by all team mates, but especially the rest of the loose trio.

But in defence, the fetcher sets the requirement for the remaining numbers required in the breakdown. If he does his job well, he slows the opposition ball down and eases the required number of ruck-time defenders.

In offensive defence, the fetcher supported by cleaners looks to turnover opposition ball. The key is picking opposition rucks where the player is isolated. The quicker and fitter your fetcher, the more cleaning support he has, the more turnover opportunities.

Of course the rest of the team play a crucial role. Any tackler can return to his feet and rip the ball - De Wet Barry is/was one of the best in the world at this. Supporting cleaners can be backs or forwards.

Physically, the tight forwards make the best cleaners.

To maximise effectiveness of ruck-time support play, the English world cup winning team pioneered the split-field organisation. The field was divided into left and right, and the tight forwards were evenly split and given accountability for a side of the field. This reduced the need to be at every ruck and run between every ruck - an impossible task.

If you're going to have a pattern of supporting players, you also need to ensure you don't run away from support. Running lines, communication and combinations all help to stop isolation on attack.

So what do we know?

High speed offensive rucking creates the space for more effective attack

Offensive rucking requires quick support to the ball carrier by cleaners and the scrummie

Highly organised defensive rucking is critical to slow opposition ball and reduce pick-and-go opportunities

The fetcher sets the required numbers of players required for the defensive ruck

Tight forwards are crucial for cleaning at ruck time - on defence on offence

Running lines and patterns decrease the chance of isolation and ease the need to cover massive areas for ruck support players

So why the ruck story in a commentary on the Stormers?

South African sides are pretty awful at getting quick ruck ball. The Sharks are probably the best. The Stormers are the worst.

We can do it - witness the Bok win over New Zealand at Newlands (was it 2005?). For once the Boks forwards worked as a unit and were ferocious at the breakdown.

Poor breakdown performance is one of the major reasons why the Boks struggle to create try-scoring opportunities. And despite some of the most exciting attacking backs in the Super 14, the Stormers mirror the problem.

It is also why I was cautious about getting too carried away with last week's Stormers victory over the Hurricanes. Intercepts were again a feature in the Stormers' scorecard. Of course there were other good features. And it was fantastic to win.

But the old deficiencies were brutally exposed against the Brumbies.

Jean de Villiers needs to get the message that he is a liability in the current team. Gio Aplon's positioning has been pathetic. He shows little of the promise displayed last season. Breyton Paulse looks disinterested and has an abominable work rate. We used to see him on the wrap-around from the blind side, cutting in at flyhalf. JP Joubert is the worst scrumhalf to play in the Super 14 thus far. His step on pass and generally slow service kills any chances of backline attacking success.

In the forwards, Bekker is awesome in the scrums and lineouts, but appears to believe he is even better than Matfield in the backline - hence his default positioning on the wing. He is perhaps the worst cleaner in the Super 14 - if he contributes it is by leaning on the ruck. Watson appears to have flyhalf ambitions and is no longer a feature on the ground in his primary fetching role. Schalk Brits needs to improve his lineout work. Jake White was right about that.

You may think I'm being harsh or exaggerating. So in order to prove the point, a new feature on A SA Rugby View - a video outtakes package. The following video shows the impact of the Stormers shocking cleaning and running lines on their game. Time and time again, players either run away from support or support is slow to arrive and commit. Contrast this with the Brumbies. Their ruck-time commitment is fantastic and note how they typically commit two players to contest opposition ball in tandem.

Part one:

Clip1: watch the pathetic ball protection given by the supporting players, leading to the contesting player spoiling and forcing the error

Clip 2: after doing brilliantly to win the ball at the kick-off, and getting fairly quick 2nd and 3rd phase ball, watch how the ball is then flung from standing player to standing player lying deep. Grant then takes the ball up making yards. Back to Brits who cuts away from support. Watch the Brumbies commit numbers and spoil, leading to Conradie scrambling the ball back. See forwards standing in the line watching. Forward to the 10th phase and the Stormers are penalised for holding on. They have gained zero meters. There are players that cannot be seen in any of the 10 breakdowns. Compare the tight forwards role to that of the Irish at Croke Park. And then compare the quality of attacking ball.

Clip3: Unbelievable. Watson in the line and makes meters. No support runners, and the Brumbies again commit players - backs! - who rip and force the penalty. The commentators make the point - again the Stormers have been penalised as the attacking team due to the player being forced to hold on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHVCgE6MGwE

Part two:

Clip1: The Brumbies win the ball from the kick-off and in 3 phases make 20 to 30 meters. Compare the numbers of players they commit to the rucks on attack, the speed of their ball and the holes around the ruck on the Stormers defence. Due to some shocking options and handling they are forced to kick for position.

Clip2: Again the Brumbies on attack and with high speed second phase ball. Again, the Stormers barely commit one contesting player and ultimately Watson is penalised as the only Stormers player contesting.

Clip3: From another skew Brits throw-in, the Stormers' cleaning is shocking. Another penalty against the Stormers on attack.

Clip4: How it should be done by the Brumbies. Multi-phase possession, numbers to the ball carrier, good cleaning. Try.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1OohpB-gJs

There is another big issue evident in these takes. It is one thing to lie deep - it is another to take the ball flat-footed and deep. Stormers ball is so static that the strategy appears to be pass to players lying deep with the opposition rushing up - and hope. The point of lying deep is to take the ball at pace when you hit the advantage line - the ball doesn't go 20m backwards!

Redeeming features

There were some redeeming features. Corne Uys' shadowing of Rathbone was outstanding. When Rathbone popped up on the left or on a cut in, Uys had shadowed him behind the line and brought him down. He missed a try-saving tackle on Adam Ashley-Cooper but this was due to a mix up with the defensively inept De Villiers.

The Stormers also outscrummed the Brumbies. The grunt provided by the Bekker/Britz lock combination is visible.

Peter Grant is a must in the backline with superior distribution and defensive capabilities. De Wet Barry is looking good.

If anything, this game proved the point: this is a team with all the potential and none of the performance. Coaching and captaincy appear to be sadly lacking. In 11th log position, there is limited downside to changing the coach and rebuilding the team with changes in personnel and positions.

I'd like to see a more active role for Mallet as Director (ala Woodward's during his England days) with supporting roles of coaching staff like Solomons. This would be very close to the previously winning Springbok combination. He might not be involved in skills coaching etc, merely strategy, performance management and leadership.

For the team, I'd like to see focus on the future with backup from experience:

15. Aplon
14. Seconds, Paulse
13. Russell
12. Grant, Barry
11. Uys, De Villiers
10. Olivier
9. Conradie
8. Burger, Melk
7. Van Niekerk, Gerrie Britz
6. Watson
5. Bekker
4. Skeate, Boome
3. Andrews, Harris
2. Schalk Brits
1. Moller

Of course Barry has been playing well. Of course De Villiers can be a game breaker when he plays with commitment. It's a squad and there should be rotation and experimentation. The first choices send a message about the type of rugby I'd like to see the team play and that reputation is no guarantee of selection.

PS: With JP Joubert as the number 2, it's difficult to believe WP let De Kock and Carse go.

Stormers an embarrasment

2007-02-24T08:22:00.000+02:00

I can't believe I got up to watch that rubbish.

Kobus van der Merwe might just (hopefully) be the first coach to be fired on tour.

Frankly, the Stormers could not have contrived to play more poorly if they tried. It is so difficult to believe their ineptness in every facet of play, lack of intensity and general disinterest that if it were cricket, there would be a match fixing investigation.

It's not even worth doing an analysis. You could cut and paste most of last week's review into this week's. Except everything was even worse. But some of my miserable memories include Brent Russell being the only man to attempt to clear the ruck after six phases of attack on the 30 minute mark. Just before half time, Tiaan Liebenberg stood in the scrumhalf position throwing his hands in the air at frustration at the slow ball. Uh, duh? Maybe you should have been cleaning you fat oaf.

I'll just direct you to last week's criticism of JP Joubert's step-before-pass deficiency. Because this week, let's add him taking the blind with Andries Bekker outside him, marked by a wing in about a 5m corridor. Great option. Or taking an up and under under pressure from the chase with feet flat on the ground.

But I didn't think much of JP Joubert anyway. It was more distressing to see players that we marveled over last season doing their best to impersonate schoolboy 5th team. Last year I heard Jannie Engelbrecht describe Gio Aplon as one of the finest talents he had ever seen. He was woeful today. He dropped passes, was nowhere in positional play and looked disinterested on attack.

We raved about Robbie Diack last year. His workrate was pathetic today.

Luke Watson played well enough last season to create a national outcry over his Springbok omission. He is anonymous this season. The left-right experiment with Schalk Burger is proving a dismal failure with Burger looking frustrated. At least Burger looks like he's trying though.

Brent Russell looks like a one-trick-pony since moving south. He jinks every time he takes a pass at flyhalf. In fact he seems so intent at drawing the extra man that he forgets to get the ball out efficiently. His shocker pass that resulted in an intercept try for the Highlanders was a result of not even glancing at the man on his outside.

I'm a bit worried about Bekker's performance on the wing (!). He scored a fantastic try, and out-chased backs for a grubber put through by Burger - but if he'd played things tighter and did his first job of cleaning in the loose, would there not have been more opportunities.

Maybe Bekker was playing a left-right split field combination. It can be the only explanation for the number of forwards standing out wide.

Talking of patterns, I'm not sure the mix-and-match approach of bringing Russell in at flyhalf on second phase ball is working. It seems to leave Grant out of play and the Stormers with no attacking pattern.

I'm not going to say anything about Jean de Villiers except to say that I motivated for him to be dropped two weeks ago. He should have been.

Make no mistake - this was the weakest Highlanders team we'll see for many years. This after the same could have been said of last week's Chiefs.

The fact is that the same can be said of the current Stormers team. And they're not even in the same league as their competitors (Chiefs win notwithstanding).

I'm conscious being incredibly negative. Well, kudos to the groundsman at Carisbrook. That was the best looking rugby pitch ever. It puts Newlands cricket ground to shame. And it was the best New Zealand weather I've ever seen.

Stormers guilty of the biggest problem in South African rugby

2007-02-16T23:37:00.000+02:00

Jean de Villiers pickpockets another intercept try Photo: Getty Images

South African rugby has many issues that need to be addressed. Among those issues, one can debate cause and effect. But the biggest single issue is the speed of second phase ball.

As I said one can debate cause and effect. For sure, slow ruck ball is often a result of poor commitment and cleaning out at the breakdown. It might also be caused by the set up of the ruck or maul - poor choice of field position for the ruck / maul engagement can also be the source of the problem. And most often it is likely due to poor protection of the ball allowing opponents to slow down recycling.

It is delightful that the Stormers carded a win on their third attempt of the Super 14 season. But in truth, the Chiefs were not the strongest competition.

Against better sides with stiff ruck and maul competition, the Stormers will again look like the side we saw over the last two weeks. Their backs will look innocuous and their flyhalf will look flatfooted.

So whether the Stormers improved showing was due to the wholesale changes in personnel or the quality of opposition is debatable.

That said, Peter Grant very good. He was more direct as Kobus van der Merwe promised. He started his kicking duties with aplomb before falling away later. After working well in the inside centre position with Naas Olivier on his inside, his delayed return to the side from injury was overdue. It is still my opinion that Grant offers more at inside centre than Jean de Villiers.

De Villiers was better tonight though. He held his line on defence and looked more of a factor on attack. He snaffled a trademark intercept to score a runaway try that ultimately took the game away from the Chiefs. If he can increase his levels of commitment, I'd like to see him outside Grant at 13.

Wholesale changes may have accounted for the 20 missed tackles from the Stormers. It must have been very difficult to organise and entirely new line on defence. However, the figure is unacceptable and the Stormers were lucky not to leak more tries than the one resulting from a missed Corne Uys effort.

Getting back to that slow ball, a further reason for it was the service of JP Joubert. He takes a step on every pass from the base. Placing the front foot down the line of the pass is fine. Stepping with your back foot before passing delays the pass substantially. It's a flaw in technique that should have been corrected at schoolboy level and was the subject of frustration when observed by Doc Craven. He apparently remarked that if the scrummie took a step, the delay worked its way through the line leaving outside backs no chance at all.

Lastly with regard to the backs, I thought Brent Russell looked innocuous at full back. He played in the flyhalf channel enough to allow for glimpses of form. There didn't seem to be much. Is he overrated or have years of benchtime blunted one of South Africa's deadliest attackers?

In the scrum, the Stormers looked poor. Proving that dominant scrumming is often due more to technique rather than weight, the Stormers often looked shaky on their own ball. Brock Harris looked good but JD Moller looked to struggle with his bind. Behind him, the tight five couldn't have been helped with three loosies waiting to break rather than contributing to the shove.

In the loose, Harris and Gerrie Brits were outstanding in their contribution to tackles and cleaning. Bekker looked a much better player too. Letting the side down was Tiaan Liebenberg whose line-out throwing was putrid.

Schalk Burger had a tough day at the office due to some shocking refereeing. He was first pinged for playing a player in the ruck while off his feet. Replays showed it was Brock Harris AND he was on his feet. It happened directly in front of the referee. It began Burger's vocal dissatisfaction. Burger's third offence was for bringing down a maul. Replays showed him knocked off his feet and the maul falling over him. His indignation at the yellow card almost resulted in a red. I hope Paul Marx is censured for an unacceptable level of refereeing. But Schalk Burger needs to keep his temper.

So a lot for the Stormers to work on. They'll be missing that offer of Frederico Mendez to help as a scrum coach. They should never have turned that down. They will also have to focus on ball protection and cleaning at ruck and maul time. They don't need any specialist coach for that.

More of the same?

2007-02-04T22:57:00.000+02:00

So we're off in the 2007 Super 14. We're all wondering whether the SA teams will finally compete again and praying that we'll have a team to cheer to a final win.

Do our teams have the same level of desire and ambition?

Well, with the exception of a fine effort from the Sharks pack, it could be more of the same.

I didn't see the Lions match on Friday. I'm told that despite another change in coach, Tim Lane's cry is still unanswered: the coach has still not received 15 guys who can tackle. Let's hope things change. Most people would like to see Loffie Eloff achieve some success.

Onto the local derbies. Much elation should accompany the Sharks win. They have possibly the best SA draw ever. Beating the Bulls is more than a home win - it shows they can gain ascendency in the tight phases and if one thing this weekend has proved for the umpteenth time that its very difficult to win if you can't mix it up with the big boys.

Sadly, the handling dished up by the Bulls and the Sharks was putrid. Let's be honest - rugby is a game often played in pouring rain and Durban humidity might be awful, but it's not a downpour. You'd be forgiven for having thought so when considering 39 unforced errors. That's got to change if either of these two teams are going to go all the way this year.

I must say, despite the claims of forthcoming "total rugby" from the Bulls, I battled to see the signs. It's looked like the same brand to me. And with that brand, the team seems clueless whenever their intimidatory, physical style fails to knock over their opponents.

I thought there was a lack of standout players on both sides, but kudos to the Sharks pack. They laid the platform well.

The opposite can be said for the Stormers light five. Yes, the jokes are well-placed. The Stormers lesson was most authoritatively given by Professor Ollie le Roux. I may not know much about front-row play, but even I could see the working over Ollie gave Eddie Andrews and Brock Harris. He played the ref well and had Andrews alternatively pinged for scrumming inwards and losing the bind. Camera work showed Ollie's role.

Despite the absence of Barend Pieterse, the Free State team looked good in the lineouts, and with the lack of go-forward, the much vaunted Stormers loose trio lacked any platform to build on. Clearly the backs were to suffer far more of the same, and Brent Russell would have suffered from the same static ball that Naas Olivier received. Both the Stormers and the Cheetahs should be applauded for their defence - it was resolute and attrition resulted in the Cheetahs points.

An exception is Jean de Villiers. He was awful in every aspect. He rushed off his line on defence, and generally walked around looking for an opportunity to score a runaway try. On one occasion he had the mark on Philip Burger and gave up immediately the flyer received the ball. Gio Aplon made the try-saving cover tackle.

The jury will be out on the "left-right" experiment with Luke Watson and Schalk Burger. I still have a suspicion that Schalk's true position is eighth man. I'd like to see Joe van Niekerk on the blind, Schalk at the back and Luke on the open side. I think you allow each to exploit the strengths to the full.

Of course I'm biased, but there must be some Cheetahs supporters who'd also like to knee-cap Philip Burger. His theatrics after a late brush from Schalk Burger ended abruptly on the award of a yellow card. We don't need soccer performances on a rugby field. He tends to milk the ref, the crowd and the opposition at every opportunity. He must have had some big friends at school...

Will the Cheetahs be able to beat the best? It will depend on whether they can play the total game. They have the ingredients - a strong tight-five, good defence, good tactics, under-sung loosies and a promising backline. Even Marius Joubert could come good for them. I wonder if they lack a dominating flyhalf? I'd prefer to see Meyer Bosman given an extended run there. We'll have to see.

A hollow victory?

2006-11-25T22:14:00.000+02:00

The Boks might say this was a game they could never win. Against an England team as poor as the current one, the Boks would get slated if they lost like last week (and rightly so), and be greeted with skepticism if they did not win by 50 points.

There are many reasons why today's victory deserves applause. This is a battered Bok team. They show little confidence. They also show a decided lack of skill, making elementary mistakes. Most worryingly, they seem to lack the ability to punish the opposition. They are missing some of their first choice players. They have a coach in the unprecedented position of being called home to answer to his bosses during the tour.

However, at least the Boks played with some heart today. At least they showed some determination to win.

More than that, this was a Bok team that presented a change in tactics from the stubborn past points of view of their coach - they employed a fetcher, they changed their defensive pattern to the drift. They tried set moves from their first attacking ball of the game.

This was a team that bounced back immediately from a try by England that clearly wasn't.
And this was a team that defended well despite long periods of possession held by the English.
There were some good individual performances too. Juan Smith played his best game since being injured during the Super 14. Kabamba Floors did not win the tonnes of ball we hoped he would, but he tackled manfully together with Danie Rossouw. In fact, Floors' tackling made an enormous difference today.

Enrico Januarie had a fantastic game on defense and stands out as a consistent performer on the tour. His distribution is slow however, and this puts pressure on his line.

CJ van der Linde's try was top draw handling from the big man. Pretorius must have had a heart attack when he saw a prop was the man that his torpedo pass almost missed.

Andre Pretorius had a shaky start but seemed to grow in confidence as the game went on, and began to control things as was required. Francois Steyn had a few moments of brilliance but showed a lack of fullback experience at others.

Habana had a terrible start to the match and never looked like he was on top of his game. Ndungane was hardly involved. For a front row that many pundits had requested, we did not dominate at scrum time (although we were much improved from the beginning of the season). We made elementary handling mistakes and failed to do simple things like nominate for fielding kicks.

England were far better than last week. The difference in their defensive alignment with Goode in for Hodgson was palpable.

So there was a lot to applaud. But one could see the Boks look to defend their lead for a while. At around the 60 minute mark, England had about 60% possession for the second half. Then the Boks came back and made a controlled and effective maul. They found field possession and nailed the advantage home with drop goals.

Depth way off the pace

We have to be honest though. This was the worst England team that the Boks have played against in many years. The Boks have not dominated all aspects of a game against any opposition in years, and again did not today. While the first team set no example of clearing out rucks and contesting loose ball, the second choices are a long way off the pace. Our locks have shown no desire to perform the job and our loose forwards are a long way from a combined unit (not surprisingly given the fact that there has been no consistency in their selection and they have lacked a fetcher).

Our lineouts were very poor today and only when we resorted to going long to Juan Smith did we start winning consistent ball.

For all that has been said about the attacking threat of some of our backs, we have looked impotent at most times. Despite Andre Pretorius creating havoc in the Currie Cup, he did not have quite the same effect today. Jean de Villiers was better on attack last week than this. Bryan Habana's poor start to today's match may well have been caused by continued finger pointing at his workrate and his resultant desire to get involved. His frustration is understandable when you consider that he and Ndungane hardly saw the ball.

The match tactics may well have been to play for position and make sure of the win. Or this is what they seemed to be after a few attacking set moves to start the match. This again seemed to ignore the game as it opened out in front of them - the English looked fragile out wide.

The honest truth is that if this Bok side had played any experimental All Black side today, we would have come a very distant second. Whether it important to you that that yardstick applies at the World Cup or at any time of any year, the unpleasant truth remains the same.

Jake White

Frankly, conclusions as to whether Jake White should continue to be our coach or not should have been made before today.

It is astonishing how Jake has changed his position leading into today's match, however. His change in point of view on Kabamba Floors, Cobus Visagie and the rush defense are remarkable given his stubbornness in the past.

Without being a fly on the wall in the back rooms on tour, we might never know what has been behind the change in heart. But the flexibility is welcome.

Well done

Well done Bokke. It must have been a difficult time over the past week. Well done to go back on the attack in the last 20 minutes today. Well done for showing some heart and pride.

Not good enough to win

2006-11-19T01:00:00.000+02:00

Did it matter that the Boks lost today's match against the English? For two such poor sides, I'm not sure a win or loss actually should mean a lot. It would have meant something to players and coaches who are desperate to avoid further censure from their miserable supporters. And for that reason, you could see the Bok tactics change in the second half. When Jake White sent on Andre Pretorius it was a clear message - "Protect the lead boys - let's get a win under the belt, we need it."

Of course we know that more often than not, rugby matches are lost when the leading side takes that attitude.

Watching the French versus the All Blacks tonight showed a different level. We can make excuses about our resting players. But in reality we have seldom, since the days of Mallet's reign, played with the intensity and continuity the All Blacks are now showing.

Joe Rococoko's try just before the close of the first half was leagues away from anything shown by the Boks in the last few years. All Blacks flew into rucks, close on one another's heels. Forwards and backs ran in close support and made passes the Boks dream of.

In contrast, the Boks looked prosaic against one of the worst backlines in world rugby. The English backs in general and Charlie Hodgson in particular look unable to open a can of sardines, let alone an international opposition. Similarly, their defense holds no terrors for all but the most inept attacks.

All of that said, the Boks looked better than last week.

Improvement

In the forwards, the pack looked better in the scrums. In the loose, Johan Ackerman showed a gratifying level of commitment reminiscent of his Super 14 form. Danie Roussouw tried hard and continued to make his tackles.

At the back, Enrico Januarie had another solid performance. He appears to be losing some of his excess weight. While his pass is delayed and he no longer makes the sniping breaks he once used to, he was certainly competent today.

Jean de Villiers looked good and his pass to Butch James was an absolute beaut. His lack of pass to a screaming Akona Ndungane on his inside cost his team a try though. It must be miserable to be a wing outside a centre pairing of De Villiers and Olivier. Given that, Ndungane's involvement was pleasing, none more so than his insertion into the line to attack Hodgson's channel. Only good cover from Lewsey cut him down. With all that has been said about Ndungane's pace (or lack thereof), he had no issue against the snail pace of the English backs tonight - or racing up on De Villiers' inside as the centre ran half the field only to be pulled down.

Butch James had his best match in a very long time tonight and if he had stayed on, the Boks may have sneaked a win. His grubber for Ndungane's try showed a subtlety not often associated with the Sharks flyhalf.

Francois Steyn had another very good performance. The guy is class and I am dying to see him at flyhalf for the Boks. Frankly, Jake could have called for Steyn to alternate with James if he had wanted to increase use of tactical kicks - it would have been less disruptive and given responsibility to two of the better Boks on the day.

Average

For the rest I thought their performance was average to poor. Our lineouts were abysmal. Our takes at the restarts were as poor as they have been all season. We looked unable to turnover the ball (the 17 phase attack of England on our line proving that) and unwilling to contest. Support play at rucks and in broken play was as absent as ever.

We know Jacques Cronje is not international level and today showed that again. Pierre Spies was anonymous without a dominant forward performance around him. Danie Roussouw works hard but does not look to have the pace for loose forward - either blind or open side flank. Johann Muller appears to attempt to make up for lack of pace to the ball with off-the-ball niggle.

It is hard to be critical of Wynand Olivier - his presence definitely improved our defense. But wings outside him might as well be press photographers - they'd see more of the ball that way.

Our rush defense seems to result in more lapses than not. I actually thought I spotted the Boks drift once or twice tonight. I am sure that is right approach. The drift defense should predominate and the rush should press on poor quality opposition ball.

Miles behind

To be sure, despite the improvement, this team is miles off the form of the top two teams in the world. Hugh Bladen made the comment that people who call for Jake White's head forget that this team beat the All Blacks and the Aussies a few months back. What Bladen and other fail to mention is that this is a team that fails to win the ones that count - those matches didn't. Throughout Jake White's tenure that has been the case. To be honest it is a problem that has been with us since readmission - even under Nick Mallet, winning streak aside.

We are a long way off the form of the All Blacks and the skills and flair of the French. Why is that? It sticks in my throat to admit we're just not good enough. It doesn't quite gel when all the facts are considered, such as our world beating form in the junior ranks.

Regardless of selections and coaching, winning starts by having a team who run on the field willing to die for their country, their coach and their teammates. Some argue that the description is misplaced - it is after all just a game. However, it is a game full of examples of players playing through pain, achieving beyond their apparent abilities and creating beauty where there is often brutality.

Jake White

I think this is where Jake White starts to go wrong. He is a coach who was an analyst. He is a coach who adds the contributions of 15 players and expects a mathematical answer. He believes that more height and pace and ambidexterity than the opposition equals a winning team. Perhaps that it the modern disease - we have heard Nick Mallet, a passionate former player, talk about his quest for a tall, pacey back three.

Kitch Christie seemed to be the opposite. He appeared to be someone who did what would get the best out of his players rather than what would win on the drawing board. The story of his switch in tactics just prior to the 1995 World Cup final is now legendary. He changed from a basketball-type game-plan to the traditional Bok game when Morne du Plessis suggested the players didn't believe in the new approach. Jake would do well to consider his team's current head-space.

I think Jake continues to go wrong by believing in the power of unanimity rather than that of diversity. He does not tolerate questions from his players.

Finally, I believe Jake is victim to his biggest weakness - he is proud. He does not admit to mistakes and has mentioned the systems in South Africa, the injuries to players (some echoing years back) and the pressure from other coaches to experiment (notably the panel of ex-coaches arranged to advise him).

Of course there are contributing factors. Lack of fetcher aside, there is a frightening lack of commitment to cleaning out rucks and supporting the ball carrier in South African rugby. There have been few games that have been marked by the required ferocity - one of the last being the Bok win against the All Blacks at Newlands last year. This is difficult to explain.

It was hard not to feel sorry for Jake White during the final minutes of today's match. He sat with his head in his hands and no doubt wondered what more to do. He took on a job in 2004 when the Boks were perhaps at the lowest of their once proud history and turned things around fairly quickly.

But even those who have worked closely with Jake have been vocal in their criticism of him this last week. Naas Botha, once Jake's manager for his world beating junior Boks, has appeared in television and press interviews calling things for the disaster that they are.

World Cup

We have to ask whether there is any hope that Jake can turn things around in time for the World Cup next year. Let's face it, next week's match against the English and the final match against the World XV will tell us nothing - just as the final home matches of the Tri-Nations did. We must go on the recent record of the Boks in the matches that have counted. Sadly that is not one that brings much confidence.

So if intervention is required, does it make sense to keep Jake involved or to sweep the slate clean? At the beginning of the year I argued for a mentor to be appointed to help Jake. Now I believe subtle measures are too late. On return from the tour I see no disadvantage to the appointment of a different coach to take the team to the World Cup. In fact I believe it is imperative based on the fact that we should never be in the position we are.

We have two open-side flankers rated as the best in the country by their Australian and New Zealand counterparts - one was Currie Cup player of the year. Neither Luke Watson nor Kabamba Floors have had a look-in under Jake White. We have a prop rated as one of the technical best by his Northern European competitors, yet Jake White has told Cobus Visagie he will never be picked.

We have had many chances to experiment. Experimentation is usually best tried incrementally, perhaps one positional switch at a time. Instead we have desperately tried to win games against the World XV and the Australians and New Zealanders when they meant nothing in terms of trophies. We then played a completely experimental side against the Irish at Lansdowne Road.

Matches prior to the World Cup next year will need winning. Experimentation and resultant losses could devastate the already broken psyche of the Boks leaving no time to heal.

It is difficult to imagine anybody successfully taking on such a challenge, but no more than it is to imagine Jake White overcoming his pride and beliefs over the same period.

It is sad that we ever ended up with our backs to wall in this fashion. South African rugby is not as poverty stricken as our games this year have been. Our approach, selections and attitude were apparent in that hand of fate.

Hulle was nie die Springbokken nie

2006-11-12T00:23:00.000+02:00

Wow. What kak was that?

The monster pack looked just as bad as the monster pack Jake selected for Sydney (was it last year?)

How many attacking balls did we lose when players went down without support and the Irish robbed them or forced the penalty?

Five lineout jumpers? Jake if you can't do the maths, I'll fly out and write it down for you. For the possible extra lineout that might win you (and we sure didn't win too many extra tonight), how much ball does it lose you because you don't have a fetcher?

While Spies looked like a world beater behind a dominant Bulls pack, he looked like a chump behind a beaten pack tonight.

And never mind the loosies, our locks shouldn't hold their places either. Ackerman was awesome in the Super 14. But he hasn't played since then due to injury and it showed. Albert van der Berg can't hold down a first choice place in the Sharks. And it showed.

The rush defence - farkin hell. The only player who makes it work is Breyton. The line takes their alignment off the wing in the rush, and with two rookies, our alignment was kak.

Jaco Pretorius looked like he met his teammates before the match. His defensive alignment was the worst of the bunch.

Habana on wing would not have done much better - he's been crap at marshalling the rush all season.

I'm one of the proponents of Habana at centre. After today I don't know what to think. There were so many holes, I can't judge his performance.

The scrum got drilled - Sephaka and BJ. That just tells me that our scrumming is still kak. Balie has done nothing for the technique. We keep blaming every player from Eddie Andrews to Deon Carstens to CJ van der Linde.

What we need is someone who is a master of technique - not strength. Visagie is our Mendez. Jake swallow your pride and call him. He's got a year of playing time left. Maybe he can teach our youngsters something before he retires.

Congratulations Francois Steyn. You looked class today. As for him on wing? I'd have rather seen him at flyhalf. We need a backup to Andre Pretorius. Tonight proved that.

What did today teach us? The commentators thought it was that we don't have much depth outside of the first choice match 22.

St Mich said something similar.

I don't think that's close to the mark. When Jake selected half the side out of position, I think he lost the opportunity to learn any lessons at all.

Pick a first and second choice side without a bias for size, without a bias for Potentially world beating stats (like the highest bench-press-to-time-for-the-60m ratio). Pick them based on their Super 14 and Currie Cup performance.

Stop feeding us the representivity bullshit - that side today looked bloody white to me.

This resting players stuff lacks credibility too. Paulse hardly played this season. And yet we went in with two guys on wing who don't play wing.

Swallow your pride and pick a fetcher.

Then we can start learning about how to tune the side to win the friggin World Cup.

Until then we're shooting in the dark.

What a game!

2006-10-15T00:36:00.000+02:00

Kabamba Floors goes in to score his try, capping a man-of-the-match performance for the Cheetahs Picture: Sunday Times

Yeah, drawing a final might be like kissing your sister - Morné du Plessis' analogy I think. But what a game. 100 minutes of thrilling Currie Cup rugby.

Games like today's are epics. Epics where the scale of bravery and commitment can make a legend of a man and a winning side. Men tell their children of moments they saw when the side they supported won the premier domestic competition.

And through 119 years of history, our Currie Cup (not just its finals) has provided many such moments. I have been told of Jannie Engelbrecht scoring a winning try with a broken collarbone - playing through the pain for the sake of his side. Of Gerrie Germishuys juggling the ball at his fingertips while going in to score. The occassion makes giants of mere men.

Today Barend Pieterse was a giant. A softly spoken man, the Free State lock towered over his competitors in the lineouts. His effort spoke volumes of the intentions of his team - to hold the Cup they had won last year for the first time in decades. Pieterse has played his heart out this season, and today was the climax of that effort.

Kabamba Floors is certainly no giant in terms of height. But it was another towering performance by the peroxided man who hails from Oudshoorn. Floors is a joy to watch. He gives everything and in the last two matches before today, he left the field with blood staining his orange bleached hair. Today was his best performance of the season. He was everywhere. While a fetcher's job might primarily be to compete for the ball in the loose, Kabamba showed he could carry the ball better than most too. His jinking runs into space created havoc for the Bulls and directly led to the Cheetahs best try of the day scored by Burger and another such run led to a try of his own.

The man who received the pass from Floors during that move and crucially did enough to draw Johan Roets and put Phillip Burger away was Richardt Strauss. Strauss played out of his socks today.

Micheal Claasens might also have played his best match for the Cheetahs today. It was a wonderful performance.

For the Bulls, Akona Ndungane made the pass of his life as he flicked the ball in the quickest of touches to JP Nel. It was a moment of brilliance that put the Bulls in the game.

Morne Steyn also played well when he came of the bench to replace an injured Derick Hougaard. The Loftus Liefling has played Steyn into his shadow in the latter half of the Currie Cup. But Steyn looked assured when he came on and set up Marius Delport's try with a deft chip.

Currie Cup finals should never be remembered as won or lost because of a mistake by a specific person. Willem de Waal was lucky that his pathetic attempt at a tackle on JP Nel, which led to a Bulls try, did not result in a Cheetahs' loss. Equally, Bevan Fortuin was lucky that the perfectly passed ball he dropped, while waiting to clear his side's half during extra time, did not result in points. Hendrik Meyer might also have been blamed for not diving on the Steyn's try-resulting chip. But blaming a single error for a loss would be unfair and thankfully no one was to suffer that fate.

There has been some bleating from some Bulls fans about Jonathan Kaplan's refereeing. Johan Roets certainly obstructed and was carded on Marius Jonker's instruction after three warnings for dangerous charges. Burger's gleeful grin at the result of his oscar performance left a sour taste in the mouth however. They also cannot complain about the yellow for a late Dries Scholtz charge on Willem de Waal.

Perhaps given the star performances of some of their players and the dominance the Cheetahs enjoyed interms of possession, the home side might feel they lost one they should have won. After playing for twenty minutes with 14 men, perhaps the Bulls will feel they did well to pull this one back.

But given the intensity of the battle, the passion of the home side's support, the Bulls fightback and the 100 minute duration, perhaps a draw was the fitting cap to a dramatic day.

The power of rugby

2006-10-13T11:19:00.000+02:00

This from the Volksblad:

Probably the most-touching support for the Cheetahs in their Currie Cup final has come from four fans at the Lettie Fouche school for extremely mentally disabled children in Bloemfontein. This is the message from Luan Ferreira, Christiaan Kock, Celine Lubbe and Talischa Valentin.

Everything I would have said about Jake and the world cup - but better said!

2006-08-17T00:32:00.000+02:00

Wow. The best article Mark Keohane has yet published.

There is no Bok World Cup plan

Wednesday 16 August 2006

Everything about the Springboks at the moment is hit and miss. It will be no different at next year’s World Cup.

Events in the last two months have shown up the lack of World Cup planning, starting with the warm-up match against the World XV, the debacle at Newlands against the French and the embarrassment overseas during the Vodacom Tri Nations.

Each time the Boks stumble, the management ducks in behind a World Cup excuse. There’s no crime in that if there was a World Cup excuse. If the Boks were losing and struggling because of World Cup preparation, you could still stomach recent events. But there has been nothing to suggest any sort of plan with any player.

Continued ...

Man management

2006-08-15T14:18:00.000+02:00

Last night's SuperRugby was fairly interesting. Jake White was studio guest. SuperRugby's dial-in audience are always interesting to those wishing to keep a finger on the pulse of the rugby watching public in the country.

Jake didn't say to many controversial things, except that it was clear he's not going to change his selection policies anytime soon. Errol Tobias pleaded with him to make form the overriding selection ciretia, and Jake made it clear that team building came first.

Callers were irate over John Smit and Percival Montgomery's form and demanded that the captain make the team on form first and then captaincy ability. Jake talked to how he handled form and it is clear he gives his players every chance to play their way back into shape. In a clear dig at Nick Mallet, he contrasted his style to how Gaffie du Toit and Dave von Hoesslin had been handled post the Bok defeat in Dunedin in 1999.

After Jake had left, Joost contrasted coaches' man mangement styles and talked of the brilliance of Kitch Christie in this regard. He gave the example of if Kitch had told him (Joost) he'd played terribly versus if he had said the same thing to Ruben Kruger. The criticism might have sparked Joost to play better, but Ruben Kruger would have showed him just how badly he could play! Kitch adapted his style to suit the player.

The thing about life is that between various points of view lies the truth and the ideal. The Boks got a rocket from Mallet in 1999 for their worst ever loss to the All Blacks - 28 - 0. After losing 49 - 0 to Australia this season, the Boks smiled ruefully as they shook the Aussies hands and Jake blamed the referee during his press conference.

A narrow Bok loss = shattered confidence

2006-08-05T20:10:00.000+02:00

A miserable Juan Smith after today's loss to the Aussies. The Australians beat the Boks 20 - 18 Picture from News24.com

Clear the rucks, clear the rucks, clear the rucks! Maybe that should be as much as I write, hoping Jake will read this and take one message away.

The Boks are criticized for many things. But mostly for lack of creativity and penetration on attack. So many South African faults stem from there. Today's kicking game certainly did. The overdone tactic marked the Boks inability to cross the gain line through multiple phases. It appeared that they went into the game believing that kicking for position was their only option in gaining ground. This is not to say the tactic did not work - the Boks shaded the Aussies in territory and possession going into the second half. But kicking for position is one thing. Kicking everything is another. It was a tactic born out of over a year of poor quality possession and resultant blunt attack.

That the Boks "kick-everything" tactic worked to the extent that it did was testament to the cluelessness of the Aussie counter. They seemed bewildered.

The kicking was clearly part of a plan, as was the shut-down of Larkham. I know this because the Bok coaching squad had told us before the match. Nevertheless, the Aussies looked rattled at the success of the Bok pressure. Kudos to the close-in defenders for that.

While the aerial ping-pong was part of the plan, Monty missing poles was not. His two misses (and a missed drop) were ultimately costly, but they are an accumulation of four poor matches. Monty is a confidence player, and the first place his lack of confidence shows up is in his kicking - something that has existed since his school days. It was not part of this script - if you're going to kick for possession, you need to come away with points every time you come within range.

Perhaps attempting to expose Monty under the high ball was the reason for the Aussies returning as many kicks as they did. After spilling the first catch, at least Monty caught the rest.

But back to the Boks attacking desperation. Poor quality ball from rucks (poor equals slow, possibly back-foot ball) results in each stage of attack looking more and more hopeless. The latest Bok remedy, when in position to launch an attack on the line, is the cross kick - hoping to outpace the defence and put a wing into space. It worked for Fourie du Preez and Breyton Paulse against the All Blacks, and Butch's first banana-kick would have done Carlos Spencer proud. The thing about surprises though, is that they generally work well when used sparingly and when the opposition are not expecting them. Mark Gerrard clearly was on guard and attacked Butch's second attempt, snaffling the ball and running in the Aussies' first try. Butch is an infinite improvement on Jaco van der Westhuizen at flyhalf, but his missed line kick (together with Du Preez') against the All Blacks and this cross kick were poor.

The second half saw less kicking but brutally exposed just how poor the Boks are at crossing the gain line. The Boks had a number of multi-phase plays but seldom looked capable of threatening the Aussie line. The root cause of this remains slow ball due to lack of quick clearing at rucks. One commentator's description of why this match continued to show up Tyibilika blamed him for lack of clearing. Wrong. Tyibilika played well today, and clearing is not the fetcher's job. The fetcher must contest the ball at opposition rucks and secure own ball by being first at the breakdown to assist his own players. Clearing is the job of the next wave - led by the blind-side loosie and eighth man, and then locks and front row.

While Matfield played well as a jumper, Smith and Cronje tackled and carried, and the front row scrummed, they remain culpable in being slow to the breakdown. While Luke Watson should replace Tyibilika, even he will struggle in the fetcher role with lack of support. Further, the Boks pick-and-goes and forwards running off ruck ball were poorly executed. The All Blacks are the best in the world at pick-and-goes, showing the ball carrier and support player breaking together from the base and quick clearing of the hit through either repeating the tactic or spinning the ball wide. The Aussies showed how to run off rucks in the latter part of the second half, passing to a player at pace in the close-in channels - they gained metres at each phase. Bok players typically pick up slow ball from the base and run it up independently, resulting in further contested slow ball and ultimately penalties and turnovers.

During his time, in order to ensure quality possession, Woodward divided the field in half to commit some forwards and backs to breakdowns on each side of the field. It was designed to preserve energy and ensure role clarity. One thing is for sure, the Boks have no clarity of their role at the rucks. The last truly commanding performance from the Boks at the breakdown was their win over the All Blacks at Newlands last year. The difference? Bakkies Botha and Victor Matfield played like men possessed and ignited the forward pack.

The Boks did however play with heart and their pressure in scrums and on defence was good. This allowed Du Preez to hack ahead a Gregan mistake and the chase from Ndungane and Jaque Fourie allowed a further hack ahead by the winger and the try to the outside center. It was a fitting partnership by two of South Africa's two best players on the day.

The Wallabies should have come right back, but for a knock-on in the gather by Gerrard as he went over. To say the Boks just lost this match is to forget that Australia should have scored. It was a poor mistake and marked a very poor Aussie effort.

Despite the lack of penetration, Monty's try followed ten phases and partially redeemed his two misses at posts. It was good to see him driven over by his two wings. It was good because it showed Habana looking for work across from his wing - something he seldom does these days. James was unable to convert the try from the touchline.

John Smit described the team's heartbreak at Matt Rogers' late try that drew the Wallabies level and allowed a Mortlock conversion to win. It is sad to see the Boks down and dispirited. While this year's losses have exposed faults in the Boks game, they have damaged the team's morale and belief.

Jake White blamed Butch James' missed touchline conversion for the Bok loss, but the reasons are deeper and more systemic than missed Montgomery penalties and James conversions. The Boks issues start with poor basics at ruck time, continue through to drawing of defending players on attack, running on and off the ball, have a base in lack of depth and extend to unbelievable ineptitude in administration and management.

There is a lot of work to do. It starts by rebuilding a shattered team confidence and morale. Administrators and politicians need to join in a commitment to putting the game first. It requires resting of players like Montgomery, Du Randt and Smit. It needs some adventure in moving Habana to outside centre and Jaque Fourie to inside centre. We need to build the confidence and depth in reserves by bringing in Bevan Fortuin and Odwa Ndungane. Jake needs to swallow some pride and select Luke Watson and possibly Tim Dlulane. There was brave talk of sacrificing Tri-Nations wins in the interest of building for the World Cup. The three home matches are possibly our last chance to make that a meaningful goal.

Player ratings

15. Montgomery - 5

Monty is a tired player. After carrying the Boks through the games against the Scots and unfairly baring blame for the loss against the French, his confidence is shot. He has now had four genuinely poor performances. He remains crucial to the World Cup effort and needs some time off.

14. Ndungane - 7

Looked for work, including a role in Fourie's try. Looked a working part of the defensive pattern.

13. Fourie - 7

Not enough chances but crucial part of the defensive lineup and made the most of Du Preez's hack ahead to score.

12. Olivier - 6

We have yet to see a match where the distribution skills of Olivier are tested. However, he has become very effective in the defensive pattern and ran a good angle on one occasion.

11. Habana - 5

Wasted skills and pace. Did not look for work and neglected as part of the game plan. South Africa need Habana involved and unleashed - outside centre gives him that opportunity.

10. James - 6

An incredible improvement over Jaco van der Westhuizen. Made good tackles including one massive hit - using his arms! Kicked well at poles. Overused the cross-kick resulting in Gerrard's try. As a result of the game plan and poor quality ball, didn't get the line away.

9. Du Preez - 5

Despite the game plan, overdid the box kick and was slow to clear. Can do better.

8. Cronje - 6

Worked hard but a loosies did not work as a unit. As a result was isolated on occasion.

7. Smith - 6

Looked better but still not the force he was at the beginning of the Super 14. Needed to be on Tyibilika's heels at the rucks.

6. Tyibilika - 7

Great workrate. Made a number of tackles (bounced off one), and contested the breakdown. While Luke Watson should be in the side, Jake White is right to question Tyibilika's lack of game time for the Sharks.

5. Matfield - 6

Fantastic in the lineouts, but his commitment to cleaning out rucks must be questioned.

4. Muller - 6

Added a lot to the Bok pack. The scrum looked more powerful as a result of his inclusion.

3. Van Der Linde - 6

A far better scrumming performance. Does not look fit though and needs to improve work rate.

2. Smit - 6

Made the right decision to change kicker at the right time. Not the player he was last year where he lead his players in the tight-loose.

1. Du Randt - 7

Scrummed powerfully. Made some good tackles as usual. Overdue for a rest.

Teams versus individuals

2006-07-24T00:52:00.000+02:00

"The secret to winning football games is working more as a team, less as individuals. I play not my 11 best, but my best 11." ->Knute Rockne

Jake White, maybe it's time you went

2006-07-22T19:36:00.000+02:00

Jake White - under pressure Photo: Rugby365

South African rugby is in trouble. As South africans our psychology is one that causes blind spots. Perhaps due to our isolation, we developed an arrogance that claimed we were the best and since readmission we have shown a hunger to be the best.

Some have said that maybe we aim too high and acknowledgement of our true capabilities is due. Some have said we should aim lower.

Perhaps because of our hunger, we have grudgingly claimed the world's number 2 position in rugby as a temporary step before we naturally claim the number one spot that is rightfully ours. Such an attitude has blinded us to the reality that is the state of our game in South Africa. We have some serious issues to overcome that are systemic in nature and not solved with sticky-tape and plaster.

Jake White did a magnificent job to haul the Boks back from where they were. Under Viljoen and Streauli it seemed that we believed that belief was enough - if we believed that we were the best, then the rest would follow. Jake White brought the sticky tape and plaster to help us improve the reality. He recognised that South African passion, defence and strong set-pieces were strengths to re-establish confidence and a base from which to build.

Arrogance is belief that ignores the facts. And just as Streauli and Viljoen showed arrogance with no apparent plan, Jake's arrogance appears to have been total belief in his plan.

The facts have shown that we have been less than a threat to the All Blacks. Yes, we more than others have competed against the Kiwis away from their home, but while coming close a few times, we have a terrible win-loss record away from our home turf. But beyond the mere facts of our away win-loss ratio that stands won 1 lost 9 against the major rugby powers under Jake White, it is the way we have played that tells another story.

The Jake White Plan was enough to get us to number two because of the reliance on passion and physicality - two attributes that allow us to beat most sides. But they would never be enough to establish us as number one. The Australians have worked for years on building high-skill attacking rugby. While their forward game has not allowed them the strength of possession to truly unleash this, the names of their backs over the last ten years shows some of the most skillful guys yet to play the game. The All Blacks do physical and passionate rugby well, but they have also had backs who have out-skilled and out-thought the Boks.

Jake White's arrogance was his failure to recognise this. He might point to injuries, transformation and his starting position as mitigating factors to his team's current fall from grace, but to do so ignores what could have been done and what has not.

When the Boks won the Tri-Nations in 2004, they had beaten the odds and raised the hopes of a nation. It was a magnificent effort. However it was not a dominating performance (a points victory) and it was done through Jake's rescue plan. It was at that time that South Africa needed to be building plan B. In business there is a concept developed by Richard Foster loosely known as the S-Curve stages of growth theory. Basically it refers to how each innovation results in increasing returns before others catch up and the returns decline. Should new innovations be spurned, the company is said to have fallen into a success trap as their innovation dies. This is shown below.

Richard Foster's S-Curve theory Picture: Emerald Insight

Gradually other teams have figured out ways to challenge the rush defence and the Boks have struggled to mount the same degree of passion required to execute the defensive game for every match. The Boks have failed to improve their attacking skills and failed to develop depth of skills and experience in each position. In short, it was difficult to see where the next stage of Bok success was going to come from.

In the meantime, massively passionate efforts against the All Blacks in Dunedin and at Newlands last year gave the Boks more belief in the ability of the plan to compete. A shocking performance against the Aussies away was quickly forgotten as the Boks beat the them at Ellis Park. The Springbok end-of-year tour proved to be a nightmare for the Boks, and frailties at fly-half were ignored.

This season, the prelude to the Boks Tri-Nations showed a very poor quality of rugby and a complete lack of acknowledgement of the Boks abysmal command of basics. Such was the ignorance of the facts, that Jake used the Boks placing in the world rankings to publicly request a contract extension. Not only had the Boks fallen into the success trap, but so had Jake White as he pointed to his record when others questioned glaring deficiencies.

White has turned around the procession of Springbok players that marked the Streauli reign. But the faith shown in his capped players has contributed to some baffling selections and some might say contributed to the lack of depth and experienced combinations.

There are so many excuses that have been offered for the Boks increasingly fragile looking state. Foremost of White's have been lack of cooperation from the Super 14 franchises and lack of power to make things happen. No South African coach has ever had more power than Jake White, and it is difficult to see how the franchises could be asked to do more than give up their star players in the manner enabled by SARU.

Growing skilled, thinking players takes time, and it would have been preferable to have been confronting the problem in 2004 than now. So what can be done now?

It would be very difficult for Jake White to maintain the level of arrogance he has after the past two months results. Perhaps this might result in a more contrite coach willing to try something different en-route to the World Cup. However, White's startling comments to the media have continued unabated.

Only the Springboks will know how much White's public grandstanding regarding his contract renewal affected the Boks. What is certain is that it could not have helped.

There has been debate as to whether, if White deserves to be replaced, there is time to do so before the World Cup. At this stage one has to question whether South Africa have a realistic chance of winning the title anyway.

If a coaching change is to happen, what way is best to accomplish it? Should it be outright, it will again be expensive and disruptive. Some have mentioned a lack of suitable candidates, but Mallet is an obvious choice despite his many critics. Du Plessis is another. But whether either would like to regrasp the poisoned chalice is another question - particularly should they see no chance of lifting the Cup. Ian Macintosh is a obvious caretaker candidate, but has shown a lack of appetite for the role in the past. Pieter de Villiers and Heyneke Meyer have been mentioned as a potential team and both have stated higher ambitions. One has to question their lack of top-level international experience given the short run-in to the tournament.

International candidates are another option but again notice is likely to be too short. The longer term benefit of attracting someone like Robbie Deans, should they even be prepared to consider the position, might outweigh the costs of the disruption.

Another option is to appoint a mentor to White. Formally promoting McIntosh to this role from selector might help give someone the power to question White's logic and provide more advice. McIntosh is the logical candidate due to White's willingness to work with him. Naas Botha is another. White is likely to refuse to work with Mallet or Alan Solomons, two other possible candidates. Du Plessis does not present himself as a likely mentor due to his amenable nature. But would McIntosh or Botha work as a mentor and would White accept the position thrust upon him given his comments regarding the possibility of a South African director of rugby being created? He would likely see the appointment of a mentor as being an admission of failure and we know White as a proud man. But given that he wanted Botha as his manager for the Tri-Nations away trip, perhaps he might. Appointing the candidate as a temporary manager is probably the best means to accomplish things anyway.

Appointing a mentor is my preferred option. I have a preference for Mallet because I believe the Boks and White need a rocket lit under them and Mallet is the most likely to give it. But Mallet and White don't talk much. Botha represents the likely candidate.

Of course there is the option to do nothing. Depending on White's attitude, this might be the best option. But I have not seen any sign of him admitting a need for a change of approach. He admitted the severity of the result versus the Australians, but such an admission was hardly a concession.

Not much can be accomplished before the remaining match on this Tri-Nations away trip, so it is likely we'll be kept guessing prior to the team's return.

We won't take the 35-17 loss thanks

2006-07-22T12:35:00.000+02:00

Try! Try in the first 15 seconds to Fourie du Preez after magnificent pressure on Daniel carter. It was more than what Boks fans could have hoped for but expressed the intentions of the Bok team for the day. It seemed as though the real Boks had showed up and were going to attempt to atone for last week's match.

The excitement crackled like static across the ocean as New Zealanders and South Africans hoped that a famous battle between the old foes might erupt.

And it was hard uncompromising stuff. The Boks defence was fantastic and the rush began to work again and put massive pressure on Carter and the All Blacks line. With the in-your-face rush, offsides was a distinct possibility and that was exactly what allowed the All Blacks their first converted penalty of the game

It was clear that the Boks were going to play back to their strengths and rebuild their shattered confidence from there. So competitive lineouts, strong scrumming and aggressive mauling was always likely. But the quality of each was surprising. Matfield and Smit began to renew their old partnership and after one such take, retained possession through 4 phases to end 5m from the All Blacks tryline. The penalty they gave away for holding on robbed them of any opportunities and was unfortunately typical of what was to come.

Meanwhile the All Blacks attempted the tactics that allowed them to beat the Boks rush in the past with sniping breaks from Weepu. Like at Newlands last year the Boks seemed prepared and the impact on Weepu was enormous. As early as the 13th minute he left the field for the first time clutching his shoulder. It was testimony to the Boks committed tackling.

In a physical defensive game the errors are always going to mount against the defending side. But the speed at which the errors were mounting against the Boks was a little frightening. When they're happening like that, the marginal ones go against you. And Jaque Fourie was unlikely to concede a converted penalty for a knee touching the ground as he fought for the ball. Van der Linde was equally unlucky to concede the next converted penalty for losing his bind in a Springbok scrum. Offensive scrums are seldom penalised. The same offence costs us against us the Aussies last week and it cost us again this week. The All Blacks led 9-7.

In a close game you have to kick your penalties, and Monty's first miss on the 25th minute was to herald and off day for the full back's boot.

Meanwhile Carter was withstanding pressure like the great he is and kicked another penalty for Bok offsides.

The Boks seemed to realise they needed to mount an attack. They were stopped just short of the All Blacks line, but the attempt betrayed the prosaic nature of the Boks' offence. Continually trying to bash the ball around the edge of the ruck (including the last unsuccessful attempt by Habana) from a ruck position 5m out in front of the poles shows a complete lack of confidence in their backline's attack.

Another attacking run saw the ball shoveled down the line to see four defenders cut down Habana against the touchline. It showed lack of basics on attack, with inside backs not even able to draw their opposing man.

Montgomery's nightmare with the boot continued and he missed another before an absolutely shocking missed line kick by Fourie du Preez (after full time in the half) saw the All Blacks run the ball back to score and convert. At 19-7 the Boks had lost momentum and faced a big lead.

Second half fight back

Continued errors from the Boks allowed Carter to punish them twice in the next ten minutes, then having kicked seven from seven.

Daniel Carter keeps the Springboks on defence Photo: Getty Images

Os had gone off the field for a blood bin and the Kiwi forwards murdered the scrum in his absence. It was worrying to see the impact of his loss - given his increasingly tired look.

The return of Os seemed to spark the Bok attack and good sustained pressure put the Boks into a position in the Kiwi 22 for Fourie du Preez to put in a pin-point cross kick for Paulse to run over. Monty converted that and at 25-14, the game looked more of a contest again.

Monty missed another penalty to have left 9 points on the field at the 61st minute. Had they been goaled, the Boks would've only been two points adrift.

The Boks were pressed into ten minutes of attack but looked innocuous - at one stage going through seven phases of attack before losing possession. Monty eventually got another shot at goal and converted to put the Springboks in with a sniff at 25-17. But a miserable day for the Bok fullback was capped as he let the ball bounce from the kick-off and very luckily managed to harry the Kiwis into knocking on with the line at their mercy.

Another penalty from Carter, who had kicked eight from eight by the 73rd minute, preceded brilliance from the pivot as he shipped over the defence before regathering and putting McCaw away. It capped a fantastic day for the best number ten in world rugby today.

Brave defence from the Boks kept the score to 35-17 until the end, but they will feel disappointed in another below par performance.

Better, but not good enough

It is easy to feel a little more happy given the Bok performance against the Aussies last week. But we should judge this game against the Boks talent, past and potential. And they will feel they could have done better.

The Boks were better in all basics than in any previous game this season. Their defence was back to very good - but not quite brilliant. It is apparent that Paulse has a very important role in organising the rush and this even helped Wynand Olivier find his role in the pattern. Their rucking was oodles better than the pathetic efforts of earlier this season, and it was heartening seeing the forwards committed to cleaning out. Tybilika gutsed it out and his speed to the breakdown made a real difference. Their mauling was close to outstanding and they made real yards on most efforts. Scrumming was very good against the heaviest All Black front row ever picked, but the impact of Os going off was a huge worry. Matfield and Smith were very good in the lineouts and competed well on the opposition throw.

While the basics were better, the Springboks cannot expect to compete by giving away the amount of penalties they did - especially when playing against a team with Carter in it.

As good as the improvement of the Boks backline defence was, their attack is looking worse and worse, and the status is now that of an emergency. Lack of attack pushes the Boks into overuse of their forwards and kicking for position. It also means that an off-day for Monty's boot becomes a crisis.

The Boks will be desperate for De Villiers to make his comeback. They must look to involve someone like Campese to improve their attacking skills.

The Boks loose trio needs work. Tybilika was a big improvement, but Watson's claims surely cannot be ignored any longer. Jacques Cronje probably had his best game of the season, but is not as impressive-a-ball-carrier as Joe van Niekerk on form. Juan Smith is not the same player that played havoc before getting injured in the Super 14. I believe that moving Dlulane to the Bok closed side is worth a try.

Albert van der Berg tried hard but the Boks desperately missed the aggression of Bakkies Botha as a foil to Matfield's skill.

Monty has had too off days after being the only Bok to hold his reputation against the World XV, Scotland and France. He'll be back.

Butch at flyhalf definitely made a difference, but his tackling remains a concern - he made two attempts today that were aggressive but allowed the attacker to bounce out. Greater use of the arms is the cure...

For the All Blacks, I thought Carter was unbelievable. His best match since the Lions. McCaw played his usual fantastic game and Ali Williams worked very hard. Nobody else had a bad game, although Howlett's drop was not his usual standard.

My player ratings

Percival Montgomery 4

Made some good tackles, joined the line early but was clearly shaken by his off-day with the boot. His missed kicks would have kept the Boks in touch.

Breyton Paulse 6

Organised the rush defence well, scored a good try from a great cross kick. But looks very disinterested on cover defence. Should have made two crucial cover tackles.

Jaque Fourie 8

Fantastic on defence. Made good tackles and contributed to turnovers. No real space on attack - but should also be drawing defence when passing.

Wynand Olivier 5

Much better. Made a good break early on by seeing a gap and dummying the pass. Made some good tackles. Conceded a stupid penalty by pushing John Smit off his feet over the ruck. But does not create anything for those outside him.

Bryan Habana 6

No real chances on attack. Gets shocking ball with loads of defenders. Poor decision to go round the edge of the ruck when clearing early on - should have passed. Made one or two good tackles. Tried to come off his wing to look for work in the second half, but generally needs to look for more opportunities to be involved.

Butch James 6

Massive improvement to the Bok line through straight running, hard defence and some good line kicks. Possibly didn't have the time with the side to work on creating space on attack.

Fourie du Preez 4

Big heart, very involved and a great cross kick. But two ambitious shocking line kicks that did not go out directly resulted in 14 points against the Boks. However his charge down try got the Boks off to a great start.

Jacques Cronje 6

Hardworking game and his best of the season. Carried the ball much more effectively with better protection. Made lots of tackles and worked hard in the loose. However too slow to link with the backline.

Juan Smith 5

Some good takes in the line out and good work rate. Slipped a few tackles though and was not his usual threat on attack.

Solly Tybilika 6

Good workrate and got to the rucks early and contested. Showed the value of a fetcher.

Victor Matfield 7

Great performance. Looked like he was committed and involved in leading the side. Contributed to Du Preez' charge down try and was immense in the line out.

Albert van der Berg 5

Involved but not a stand out player. Not the ball carrier he once was.

CJ van der Linde 5

Scrummed strongly on occassion but has to work out opposition tactics to disrupt his bind. It was a crucial penalty for the second week in a row. He also gave away a shocking penalty for going down over the ball in a ruck in front of the Boks poles.

John Smit 6

Best game in a long time with great lineout throwing. Should have thought of trying Butch at poles after the first half.

Os du Randt 7

Massive in the scrums and made some great tackles as usual. Looks tired though and needs better assistance and back-up.

WP surprise, Sharks win in a thrilling Currie Cup encounter

2006-07-01T17:21:00.000+02:00

When the Sharks started today's match, it looked as though predictions might come true. They played at pace, put huge pressure on the WP scrum and played an aggressive rush defence.

Dusty Noble had looked very good and constantly looked for work and was rewarded with a try to follow a Butch James penalty.

The Sharks were always going to be in trouble if the WP line got ball. That potential was increased when Egon Seconds was added to the line in place of Joe Pietersen. With Zahier Ryland not even making the bench, the observation that Province had pace to burn would be quite apt.

For the Province backs to get ball, the forwards were going to have to exceed expectations. And so they did. With Luke Watson and Schalk Brits leading the charge, the Province forwards responded to the Sharks try by increasing the pace and quality of ball to the WP backs. The backs did not disappoint, and bewildered the Sharks by mixing things up on attack. Grant often took the ball at flyhalf with Aplon joining the line. Add to this that Chumani Booi looked everywhere for work and the Sharks were often left clutching at shadows.

After an exciting period of attack, Corne Uys chipped over the rushing Sharks defence to score for Province.

The game continued to surprise with the Province forwards giving as good as they got. Robbie Diack was impressive and played an important part in the home side's supply of turnovers. The Sharks forwards began to get frustrated and Johan Muller was lucky not to get sent off for rucking all over Attie Winter far from the ball.

Aplon was rewarded for his constant efforts in joining the line by running in for a great try. It same from turnover ball spun wide by Watson through great hands from Booi to feed Aplon on the run.

It was a game of surprises and Bolla's return to form was as pleasing as it was surprising. He enjoyed good supply of possession and was also everywhere on defence.

After half time replacements began to come on and Brock Harris joined the WP effort to replace Attie Winter. He increased the strength of the home side at scrum time and in the loose and looks a good prospect.

Watson made another great steal and Olivier made a great tap on pass to put Aplon away for his second. At this stage the home side looked to have really spooked the visitors and were enjoying quick turnover ball.

Dusty Noble's work-rate was crucial in respect of gettiing the Sharks back into the game. It resulted in him coming off his wing to add the extra man in the Sharks line and Brett Hennesy going over for an important Sharks try. The score stood at 18-15 to the home side and the match was set up for an exciting finish. Butch added a penalty and it was set up for a thriller.

WP immediately struck back and scored from a maul that one would have expected from the Sharks. It was a great reward for the surprising WP pack. It was converted and Wp were full value for their 25-18 lead.

Then followed some replacements for the Sharks and an altogether more defensive effort from the home team. Mxoli, Bobo and Pienaar made a huge difference for the visitors. It was great for SA rugby to see two of our young prospects in Mxoli and Pienaar perform so well. Bobo showed good touches and made the Sharks look much more threatening on attack.

The home side seemed to begin to ride their lead and perhaps this feeling of comfort when Butch James was dispatched from the field for a punch. The setback seemed to fire up the Sharks even more and they begun to dominate. After a penalty putting the Sharks at 21-25, the WP defence began to look desperate. The home fans must have thought their team had done enough after repelling waves of attack on the Western Province line. The hooter sounded with the WP team defending fiercely only to concede a penalty. The sharks charged up and Danie Saayman broke off the side to give the Sharks the win before the conversion sealed the matter.

What a game! Supporters from either side would not be able to complain. It was an advert for Currie Cup rugby and it was a shame that so few supporters turned up at Newlands to watch. Ticket prices cannot be blamed and hopefully the brand of rugby played will attract more of the Newlands faithful back in future.

The match also asked questions of the size debate with Aplon looking good on attack and defence. For WP, the new backline combination looks promising with Olivier at flyhalf and Grant at inside centre. But they will doubtlessly be even more happy with the performance of Robbie Diack and Brock Harris as additions to their pack in absence of their Springboks.

The Sharks will be concerened with the number of turnovers they conceded but exceptionally pleased with the way they stayed in the game and came back to win. They will be pleased with the addition of Dusty Noble to back up Odwa Ndugane and his exceptional work-rate. With Bobo looking good again, they are building impressive depth. They might start with Ruan Pienaar in the future. Starting with him on the bench seemed to rob the Sharks of much needed sharpness.

Great match, a fantastic advert for strength-versus-strength, and a real start to the Currie Cup.

The Springbok side needs more black players

2006-06-29T20:11:00.000+02:00

The inclusion of Solly Tyibilika in the Springbok Tri-Nations squad has again unleashed a storm of debate.

Affirmative action is an emotive topic. It is a process designed to correct demographic misrepresentation, and is practiced all over the world. Commentary and justification is mixed:

For some, it is objectionable due to the interference with decisions based on pure merit, for others because they might suffer in its execution.

For some, all that counts is momentum - if the current team got us there, they'll take us forward.

For a few, affirmative action promises the benefits of diversity, lessening the danger of a crash caused through a team missing the signals of its own decline.

For some, affirmative action improves the perception of valuable constituencies.

And for some, affirmative action represents the right thing to do.

Of course you will realise that I am talking about affirmative action in its broad sense as it is thought of in a UK boardroom, on a Wall Street trading floor or in South Africa.

The South African justification of affirmative action is almost entirely based on the last reason I mentioned above - it is the right thing to do. Fearing that this might not be enough, affirmative action carries legislative backing in our country. This designed to correct past wrongs.

Working in Zimbabwe in 2000, I was struck by the merits of this rationale. Some parts of the economy remained almost colonial, and I was amazed that South Africa appeared to have made more progress in 6 years than they had in 20 years. Left to our own devices, I remain convinced that the change would not have been that great. Indeed, everything I have witnessed in life suggests that the power of inertia is so great that it mitigates change even when that change is beneficial to survival.

Should affirmative action be applied in this context to representative sports teams? That very phrase "representative sports teams" suggests it might. But for many it jars against the thought of such teams containing our best sportsmen and women.

And further indication that it might not belong in sports is supplied by sports such as athletics - a brutal meritocracy if ever there was one. One person against the clock.

The thing is, meritocracies seldom exist in their pure form. Discrimination is always present even if it is subliminal in the mind of those making selection / promotion decisions. Very few situations exist where a set of absolute comparisons such as 400 meter sprint times are available.

It is a fact that if you ask 100 different Springbok rugby supporters for their picks for a team, you will get many different answers.

Bias or discrimination will influence the result, but it goes beyond this. On a subjective assessment of worth and potential, different assessors will arrive at different answers.

And it is interesting when you specifically mention these two criteria - worth and potential. Because the minute you introduce the second, the subjectivity of the decision becomes enormous. Further, by its very nature it discriminates against a pure merit selection.

Stepping back from Springbok rugby, such discussion has interesting parallels in business. For if decisions were made purely on merit, would "stretch roles" ever exist and would young up-and-coming employees ever be given opportunities?

Such decisions as, "I know what Joe can do, and I'd like to give Steve a chance to experience things and show what he can do," speak to point three above. Many a business has crashed as entire elite teams move on or miss the signs of change.

And therefore in business it is entirely justifiable to safely blood new team members.

Is this true at the highest level? In the Springbok team?

Given South African society it is unlikely that the sports team that attracts the amount of money in sponsorship and supporter wealth as the Springboks do can remain a largely white and Afrikaans team. This is true for a few reasons. The first is that politicians are attracted by visibility. This is true around the globe. The second reason is that sponsors are no longer merely catering to the richest pockets and the richest pockets are also no longer totally white-owned. Rugby competes for sponsorship cash with other sports. So reasons 4 and 5 (5 being strongly pushed by politicians) dictate that there will be pressure to make the Springboks a team more representative of South African racial demographics.

But are there not other benefits too? Could reason 3 apply to rugby? Some might argue that should rugby tap into the vast potential in terms of numbers of possible black players, our rugby strength will increase. After all, look at the strength of nations with small populations such as New Zealand and Australia, and consider, if rugby ever takes off there, the fear of a dominant United States given their population and resources. Further, others might argue that there is natural athleticism of the like of Jongi Nokwe waiting to be discovered. Such are the benefits of diversity.

Many will counter this and state that the place for development is at lower levels and the Springboks is no place to establish a nursery.

Perhaps it is a case of push and pull and elements of both arguments have their merits. Few can argue with the pull of Makhaya Ntini on potential black cricket players. And few can argue the need for the development programmes that gave rise to his success.

All the above argument is worth considering and many of us that love rugby have thought and discussed just such rationale.

But when all things are considered, one fact remains. There has never been a country such as South Africa. A country once with legislated racial discrimination. And, when we consider that we once stood on the brink of civil war and that we are watching massive transformation and close to 6% growth today, that there has perhaps never been such a reversal of fortune as there has been in this country.

Given the nation that the Springboks represent, it is not an option for them to be a white team with two black wings.

I was once at a dinner party where a departing emigrant asked me how, if he stayed, he would one-day justify to his son that he had been excluded from a team on reasons other than merit. I shrugged and ignored his need for justification. Because there is no logic. We are South Africa and that comes with a set of circumstances.

It does not serve us to debate whether we need more black players in the Springbok team. It is of far better use to spend our energy figuring out how to find another potential Bryan Habana, Akona and Odwa Ndungane. And when we might have, that is when it time to say, "I think we should give this guy a chance."

It is a shame that our record with growing black players is so poor. It is a shame that players like Tyibilika should hear "supporters" debate the merits of their inclusion or clamour for the coach to clarify whether they are a quota or not. Play the ball and not the player. What possible good can come from ideological debate about a players inclusion. There is no good that can come from a coach admitting a player is a quota. There is no good that can come from asking a coach to justify their selection.

Instead we should be crying over opportunities gone abegging. We should ask why Tim Dlulane, Akona and Odwa Ndungane were not even included in the pre-season squad of 45. We should ask why provinces are not unearthing more black talent. We should ask why provinces bench Springbok black players. Because, the bottom line is, we need more black Springboks.

Things are looking shaky

2006-06-25T23:51:00.000+02:00

Our loss to the French has exposed deficiencies in the Springbok game that we have known about for some time. With this in mind, we should not be surprised by yesterday's loss. We should be looking for the lessons, or that those who count have heeded the warning.

Instead, Jake blamed injuries in his immediate post-match interview. He shrugged and pointed out that the match result bore out what he had been saying for the last 18 months. Players are playing too much rugby and lack conditioning. Uh-huh.

Then in the post match press conference, Jake blamed Monty's missed conversion of Brent Russell's try. Oh yes.

Is it worth mentioning that Jake blamed a lack of experience for not closing out the match after the Boks led? Probably not - we've heard the experience one before.

When Jake watches himself on TV, does he believe this crap?

Can Jake White do any better?

Jake White resurrected South African rugby after the disaster of World Cup 2003. He deserves all the credit due for that. But the question must be asked - is World number 2 the best he can do? He must ask himself honestly whether he could benefit from listening to some others outside his preferred advisors / mentors.

Jake has done what needed to be done to regain competitive strength - he refocused on traditional South African strengths of defence and first phase possession together with passion. There has been little evidence of progression beyond that. While the creaking was audible in the World XV and second Scottish test, yesterday's game exposed that brutally.

To add to the growing dissatisfaction with Jake's lack of ability to accept fault, accountability and consider alternative points of view, his publicising of the state of his contract negotiations prior to a test match smacks of political grandstanding. He has a record of such stunts.

Did White's politics affect yesterday's result? It's impossible to tell. But it's safe to say that it could not have helped.

Boks outplayed

Analysing the match reveals that the Boks were outplayed. Their frailties were exposed and more disturbingly, the strengths that have served them were weaknesses yesterday - the Boks missed tackles, looked shaky in the lineouts and were annihilated in the scrums.

We've talked about the Boks weaknesses. Their ruck-time clearing has been abysmal. Their running lines have been poor on attack - they fail to straighten the line and draw their men, they run away from support and support runners are generally lacking. When people drew attention to many of these failings after the World XV match, Jake responded that nobody had died. He has again failed to acknowledge these weaknesses and instead looked for excuses.

But the Boks were very poor in these basics again yesterday. The burden that Schalk Burger has carried was palpably evident in his absence. Pedrie Wannenberg, Juan Smith and Joe van Niekerk are great ball carriers but fetchers they are not. Jake argues the role doesn't exist, everybody must fetch. In Burger's absence nobody did.

The Boks might have coped with their continued weakness in the tight loose if they had dominated the scrums and lineouts. They did not. The entire front row - including Os - took a hammering. The Boks have alleged that Marconnet scrummed inwards - and this did look to be the case. But after proving vulnerable to the tactic at the hands of Cobus Visagie and Marconnet, The Boks need to find a counter. While the Boks might claim illegal tactics in the scrums, they can make no such claim of the lineouts - they did not look their dominant selves there either.

Roussouw tried hard but did not have things his way as in the last two weeks against the Scots. Matfield tried a beard disguise, but I still picked him out as Mr Anonymous on the field.

Off poor ball, the Bok backs were never going to have it their way. Nevertheless, they looked worse than they should have. Fourie du Preez had another off day after showing some hope in the first Scottish test. Jaco van der Westhuizen continued to lack authority and run skew.

But De Wet Barry! De Wet has always been called a limited player. When his tackling lets him down, well, there's not much left. Yesterday's match is likely to be the end of De Wet's career.

But if yesterday pointed to the end of De Wet's career, it showed that Gaffie du Toit's should never have been reborn. His missed attempt at a tackle resulted in Vincent Clerc and France's match winning try.

And what of Wynand Olivier? Again I'll reserve judgment. He didn't do a lot, but given the ball he was getting, it's difficult to be too critical.

Congratulations to Brent Russell for taking his chance with both hands. His try was fantastic - he made the most of the smallest chance to beat three players and score. He is a dynamo on attack and he looked for work around the park today. His defensive alignment did not look up to scratch though, and even though the rush defence requires the wing to "come up," he did so very early and gave the French opportunities.

I hope someone is giving Monty the praise he deserves. Because if he listened to Jake, he might be tempted to pack it in. He maintains high kicking percentages and his positional play has been spot on. He also put the Boks on the front foot when he took the flyhalf position with a pin-point tactical kick.

Well done France

The French were fantastic today. There tactics were well thought out and marked the predictability of the Boks defensive pattern. Their chips and grubbers exploited the weaknesses of the rush and the Boks will have to think of mixing things up with the drift on occasion in order to raise their defensive game. Damien Traille was magnificent and given his inexperience at pivot made nonsense of Jake White's excuses regarding the lack of experience in his backline. The French tight five were special and destroyed the Boks strength. Together with their loose trio they also feasted on the absence of the Boks in the tight-loose.

Prospects

I hope the Bok management are true to their word and use the Tri-Nations to introduce some youth into the Bok team. I can't help feel they've got the sequence the wrong way round however. Surely the place to try some new combinations was during the World XV and Scottish matches.

I must say that I've been left feeling very bleak regarding the Boks chances for the World Cup. Consider the impact of the return from injury (when compared to last year's Tri-Nations) and change of coach on the Australian side. They looked very special against the Irish. Consider also the months of experimentation applied by Graeme Henry to increase the depth of his All Black squad. The Boks have not yet even admitted their weaknesses.

One moment of hope. John Smit was the antithesis of his coach after the match. He made no excuses and admitted the Boks were outplayed and that the forwards needed to front up for the poor quality of ball to their backs. Hopefully his honesty and humility will rub off on his coach.

Pretty - pretty worrying

2006-06-17T16:54:00.000+02:00

It was difficult to know how to approach today's game. I wasn't happy that the Boks had made the most of their forward dominance last week and I was immensely disappointed with the Scots. So I guess it was always likely that the Scots were going to up their level of aggression and competitiveness and the Boks would search for the complete performance.

The first exchanges showed increased aggression in the forward exchanges. While the Boks attempts at pick and go phases were encouraging, I was disappointed that they remain poor in running support lines and looking for the support player. Twice just before the three minute mark, they turned over good attacking ball through poor cleaning out at ruck time. Both times this was due to support players hanging back instead of being on the shoulder of the ball carrier. Then when Juan Smith had Habana on his shoulder he went inside and scorned a good try scoring opportunity.

On the 7 minute mark, it was encouraging to see Monty jump for an up and under - he must have read my commentary from last week. Not only that, but he looked like metronome when kicking for poles. He also continued to looked for work, and on the 20th minute when Paulse shirked his duty under a cross kick, Monty fielded the ball and popped a one handed backflip that almost put Paulse away.

The Scots' first try was worrying - it was a gift and Paulse looked disinterested in defence. After his fantastic return last week, he looked a different player.

Sadly, after an attacking first ten minutes, the Scots opted to try and use the sun and kick onto the Boks for the next ten. This did show the Boks apparent hunger for counter attack, but also exhibited a lack of pace and guile from the home team. After a week where Jake White commented on the Ndungane brothers lack of pace, he hopefully again felt that choking feeling of both his feet in his mouth.

After 30 minutes, the Bok forwards had continued to look good generally (with the exception of quick ruck ball) and the backs had looked average with the exception of Montgomery and a slightly better looking Jaco van der Westhuizen. A nice break by Wynand Olivier and Montgomery in support almost put Habana away, but sadly hands let the side down again.

The Scots would have been pleased with their first half effort that almost included a try for left wing Simon Webster just before the siren. The kick through from Mike Blair exposed the Boks rush defence much like the All Blacks similar tactic did in last year's away Tri-Nations match. It must have raised the eyebrows of the Scots playmakers.

But the Boks lack of penetration and a clinical approach were worrying. If this line couldn't open up Scotland, what chance against Australia and New Zealand? Balie Swart's scrumming work was apparent. But perhaps this has increased the forwards impression that they have possible backline careers outside of the set-pieces. It is all very well to blame the backs for lack of penetration, but slow ruck ball or turnovers from contact make their task impossible.

I'm sure Hadden and White would have made the same observations and doubtless given the teams advice during the break. One would never have known by the rubbish we saw in the second half. I felt sorry for the Eastern Cape - if this is to be the rugby they pay to see every few years, they might as well miss out.

If there is any good to come of this match, it will be to highlight the laziness of our players in the tight-loose. It has been something apparent in even the matches we have looked better in. Today it showed as glaringly apparent.

Maybe the Bok tight five were tired after carrying 10kg sacks of stones on their backs during scrumming practice. Maybe they're unfit. While John Smit has seldom looked as strong a scrummager, he as also never looked as slow and overweight when running with ball in hand. The other forwards were absent in the loose. Schalk slowed ball down in the backs - were Juan Smith and Joe van Niekerk even on the field? Matfield watched the ball as he trundled around. Surprisingly, Danie Roussouw again looked the best outside the scrums.

The South African front row were magnificent in the scrums, however. Os, John and Eddie gave the Scots a torrid working over that did not let up when CJ van der Linde made a return to Springbok rugby.

For the backs, Fourie du Preez looked like a scrummie being harrassed at rucks - which he was. Jaco van der Westhuizen looked much improved given the quality of ball he recieved (shocking in handling that led to Donnie MacFadyen's try aside). It was almost impossible to rate Olivier and Snyman, so I am again unable to judge whether I am wrong about their credentials (or lack thereof). Paulse was poor - but at least looked for work in the middle period of the game. Habana didn't have many chances but his hands looked poor when he did. Monty was outstanding outside of two line kicks that didn't go out. He was my man of the match.

Looking ahead to France, I am a bit worried. The Boks looked anything but world beaters today. If Jake White is still using Pro-Zone, I think his forwards will be in trouble. Once upon a time, Jake White sent Matfield home from Australia for poor work rate and shirking his duties in the loose. Schalk was also once left out the team for similar reasons. Perhaps the time has come to send the same message again.

Credit to the Scots. They looked to up the pace of the game. They played the ball close to the ground. They defended well.

Boks too good for sad Scots

2006-06-12T21:33:00.000+02:00

My happiness with the Bok victory is tempered by disappointment. Disappointment that the game did not live up to its billing as a contest against Six Nations contenders. I am also disappointed at aspects of the Boks' game.

But let's start with the positives. This was the Boks' first test of the season. It was the first time to see the full strength side play together. It was a match for which only a win would suffice. It was a match that needed to be hard but from which we needed to minimise injuries. And coming away with a dominant performance and only Jean de Villiers' bruised ribs, one would have to say mission accomplished.

The Springbok pack was awesome. My apologies to Os. I believe he has a dodgy knee, but it did not show and he demolished the Scottish scrum. Eddie was indeed steady and the substitution of John Smit showed his power in the scrum. Danie Rossouw put his hand up - against my expectations. Victor Matfield did what he does - win lineouts and field kick-offs - but was lacking in the loose.

Speaking of loose, the loose trio looked very good and to me were the most positive aspect of the Bok performance. Schalk's workrate was fantastic and it seemed that he really enjoyed his return to the open-side. Joe van Niekerk is an awesome ball carrier. Juan Smith was steady.

At scrummie, Fourie du Preez made a welcome return to form. He looked very good behind a dominant pack.

And then the first luke warm performance - Jaco van der Westhuisen. It was better than against the world fifteen, but behind a storming pack, it was merely adequate. Mark my words, if Jaco does not pick up his game we are not going to be smiling against stronger packs. He has to be the general and stamp his mark on the game. At the moment, his mark is poor lines and pathetic kicking out of hand.

Given this, Jean de Villiers performances over the last two weeks have been encouraging. He has looked a different player to the shadow he was in the Super 14. I don't believe the quality of ball was good enough (slow and static down the line) to accurately judge Jaque Fourie.

Despite the slow possession, Snyman's touches did not do enough to change my view that he is an undeserving inclusion in the side.

Hats off to Jake for including Paulse though - he was assured and looked for work. So too did Monty, and it was encouraging that either the fullback has been encouraged to attack more, or he has decided to do so himself. Apart from missing two kicks, he is looking the real deal again. He must seek to dominate under the high ball though, by out-jumping competitors when contesting.

So why my unhappiness? As good as the Boks were at the set scrums, the Scots were poor. I don't believe the Boks will enjoy the same dominance against the All Blacks and Aussies. Given the dominance they enjoyed, I was looking for the boys in green to dictate terms more. Ultimately it is the patterns and structure of the game that will determine whether the Boks will win the close games.

Many will say that Jake can't win. When the guys play a pattern, he is accused of overcoaching the team. When they look to attack, he is accused of not coaching structure. There is a difference between patterns and gameplans. I do think our coaches overdo gameplans (and lack imagination in their design). But gameplans are made up of patterns. Whether they be "attack the fringes on second phase ball, wait for gaps to open up, spread it wide" or running lines that the backs look to execute. Stucture relates to how players break, looking for lines that allow their support to move with them, or how the team divides up the field and allocates styles of play.

The Boks have focused on structure in defence for a long time. And that was only right. Jake understands that confidence comes from winning. A winning record will allow his team to grow belief and dominate on attack. Regardless of how they got those wins. Perhaps that points to the next phase of the Springbok evolution. And as such, I believe the focus will shift to patterns and structures on attack. Hopefully the Boks will use the second test against the Scots to dictate terms and rehearse for the season ahead.

Well done on the victory Boks.

What a load of bollocks

2006-06-04T00:58:00.000+02:00

I was at the World XV vs. Springbok XV match. The problems started when the World XV set out determined to be the first such team to beat the Springboks. And the Springboks set out determined to defend an unbeaten home record. It made for dour uninspiring stuff. A level of ineptitude added to the occasion. And having paid R300 consigned it to the scrapheap of things I wish to forget.

Let me get this out of the way. Deon Carstens must never don a Springbok jersey again. There is no defence of his drilling at the hands of Cobus Visagie. 20 minutes into the second half, he required medical attention, such was his annihilation. Cobus Visagie was impressive. None more so than when his enormous effort set up the World XV's first try. To fail to recognise this is to ignore the sight of the entire World XV high fiving Visagie as he retreated from the scrum that set up the try. Hats off sir. Jake White's arrogant remarks on Boots & All were a shame and you showed that.

On the subject of those remarks, Jake should learn. I was taught that if one has nothing good to day, rather keep quiet. Jake, you should learn the lesson. Your pre-match commentary has attacked Bill Young, the Irish and the World XV. You appear to have the makings of a great coach. But keep your trap shut. I would have no compunction in telling that to your face. Why could you not merely have said, "I do not believe Cobus is one of our best props at this stage, but hey Cobus, prove me wrong." Instead you said, "I am right and you are wrong" in so many words when you said, "I will not be watching Cobus this Saturday, I'll be watching Deon." Sheer arrogance and pride. As the saying goes, "Pride cometh before a fall."

Enough about that rant. Let's move on.

As much as Carstens' drilling was complete, I must come to the defence of Eddie Andrews. Many have jumped into the fray to criticise his performance after this match. Many have named each black player. Shame on you. I sat on Eddie's side of the field during the second half. Tappe Henning paid complete attention to the other side of the scrum where Visagie continued his showing against Sephaka. Sephaka was an improvement on Carstens, but certainly also suffered. But on Eddie's side, Dave Hewett refused to bind, and all things considered, Eddie stood up well. Further, he was one of the few forwards committed to ruck time and cleared the ball very quickly twice in one move during the first twenty minutes. Given my passion for quick clearance at ruck time, that brought tears to my eyes.

Which brings me to Januarie. Jake betrays his teaching past by making selections based on history or favouritism (teachers pet?). Januarie is low on form and fitness. Further he was low on spark and one has to question his lack of attack around the fringes of a scrum against a team with limited time together and as such, suspect defensive patterns.

Jaco van der Westhuyzen looked similarly poor. His kick straight up the middle of the field towards the end of the first half brought back memories of his poor tactics against the Crusaders. He continues to blow hot and cold as he has done in the Springbok jersey. We cannot afford to alternate the jersey between Pretorius and Van der Westhuyzen just to motivate the guys. It is time to move beyond them.

On the subject of moving on. Players with records who continue to misbehave must be told they have no future in the game. AJ and Roussouw's truculent behaviour is tiresome and could have cost us the game. On a purely sporting note, anybody who strikes a blow from behind deserves to wear yellow for the rest of their playing career - not merely receive it as a card. What is with South African players - Burger Geldenhuys, Kobus Wiese, AJ and Danie Roussouw: I'd rather go down in a losing heap than lose my honour by taking a cheap shot. If you're cowards in a fight, you're probably lacking in values and effort in other areas of the game too.

Now, somewhere Jake was right. Jean de Villiers looked a different player today than in the Super 14. Granted it was a small step up, but the making his tackles and looking to be involved as captain was a pleasant change. He made one or two breaks but failed to set anything up due to the generally slow play from his half backs. Big Joe and Jaque Fourie made some good runs. Fourie suffered for the same reason De Villiers did, and Big Joe lacked support runners.

Big Joe makes a run for the Springbok XV Photo: Getty Images

Monty kicked well. Apparently he did not make a tackle on Nacewa to avoid giving a penalty. I'd have rather seen him give the penalty. Watching the tape, it was a piss-poor effort, and if he'd timed his tackle, there would have been no problem at all.

I cannot judge Gaffie or Snyman on the basis of today's performance. Given the style of the game, it was not possible to draw any conclusions. However, SA teams do not chase kicks, and fullbacks look silly when their wings do not drop back on the assist and chase a upfield kick. This can also be said of today's game. Nevertheless, I remain to be convinced that either Snyman or Gaffie deserve their place ahead of the Ndungane brothers.

Wannenberg made a big difference when he came on today, and between him and Van Niekerk, we have two fine runners with the ball in hand. However, loosies must hunt in packs and today we were shown up for failing to do what the Kiwis do so well - running support from pick-and-goes, rucks or scrums. This invariably results in turnovers or slow ball.

Shimange was average - his throwing in was good but it was difficult to assess his scrumming inside of Carstens. Van den Berg looked similarly average, and it boggles my mind that a player from the Sharks reserve bench was elevated to the starting line-up. Surely this was an opportunity to blood Johann Muller - who played ahead of him for the Sharks.

For the World XV, I was disappointed. I would have expected them to throw the ball around a bit more - in pursuit of a win but with less caution regarding a loss. It was truly a great team and I doubt we'll see another like it for a long time to come. I am looking forward to the match against Krige's WP XV next Friday - I believe we might see more of the festival rugby we missed today. All of that said, the World XV were good on defence and in rucks and mauls when considering they don't usually play together. Chabal was very impressive.

But there was one moment I jumped out of my seat in appreciation of skill and vision - Carlos' banana kick 26 minutes in. The man is sublime and I wish he'd finished his rugby in SA rather than the UK.

Carlos Spencer for the World XV Photo: Getty Images

Now onto what to take away from this match. Not a lot. The Boks will make a lot of changes. So would I. And more radical ones than Jake is likely to make. Monty has slowed up with age, but is wiser and the general the Boks need at flyhalf. Put him there.

Further the Boks look as creative as a white-painted wall. We need more tries. Put Habana in at outside center. Put Fourie inside him. Believe me it will work. It gives us crash ball at 12 and creativity at 13. Further, both Fourie and Habana run good lines.

It won't happen, but put Akona Ndungane at wing and if Jean de Villiers decides to play, him on the other. Otherwise Odwa Ndungane.

Bring Bevin Fortuin in at the back. Now that's a line that would run many sides ragged.

Since my previous selection, I've made a few changes based on form in the final few matches of the Super 14 - and some changes in thinking. We need more on attack. My team (free of injury):

First Choice	Second Choice
15. Bevin Fortuin	Brent Russell
14. Akona Ndungane	Giscard Pieters
13. Bryan Habana	Jean de Villiers
12. Jaque Fourie	De Wet Barry
11. Odwa Ndungane	JP Pietersen
10. Percival Montgomery	Jaco van der Westhuyzen
9. Ruan Pienaar	Fourie du Preez
8. Joe van Niekerk	Pedrie Wannenburg
7. Juan Smith	Tim Dlulane
6. Schalk Burger	Luke Watson
5. Victor Matfield	Ross Skeate
4. Bakkies Botha	Johann Muller
3. Cobus Visagie	Eddie Andrews
2. John Smit	Schalk Brits
1. JD Moller	Lawrence Sephaka

Beaten by the best in the world

2006-05-20T11:36:00.000+02:00

Was the Bulls plan to keep the ball in the forwards, thus naming just two back reserves on the bench?

Did the Crusaders fans believe their team would walk the match - and thus 10 000 tickets remained unsold?

They were questions that were evident before the match even began. In the most anticpated start to a match involving a South African side in some time, we were about to find out.

It was an ominous omen when the Bulls scrummie Fourie du Preez botched a take after letting the ball bounce. Besides one fantastic box kick that landed just outside the Crusaders 22, it was a sign of things to come for the Bulls half.

It was a further ominous sign when McCaw won three unbelievable turnovers within the first 5 minutes. On the eighth minute from a ruck 25 meters out from the Crusaders tryline, Jacques Cronje's poor ball carrying technique was again exposed as he was wrapped up and conceded the turnover.

By the 15 minute mark the Crusaders had won 5 turnovers to 1 by the Bulls. The Bulls had stayed in the game until that point through strong scrumming and their imperious lineouts.

After some frenetic kicking and chasing, the Crusaders were clearly having the better of the positional game. This seemed to rattle the Bulls and they promptly lost two of their own lineouts. The Crusaders looked stronger and stronger and the Bulls looked more hesitant on defence, standing back and allowing the Crusaders line to run at them. This led to good third phase ball allowing Laulala to put through a blind side grubber for Gear to score.

Danie Thiart watches Rico Gear get away Picture: Getty Images

With turnovers coming at will for the Crusaders the Bulls were looking increasingly out of it. A great hit on Laulala by Bakkies seemed to give an up-until-then frail looking Morne Steyn (his line kicking had been very ordinary) some life and he broke through the Crusaders line to gain ground and finally gain a penalty just in front.

The Crusaders came back immediately after pouncing on untidy Bulls ruck ball and swinging it wide to Gear who scored.

13-3 after 30 minutes and things not looking good for the Bulls. Despite things going against them they continued with their gameplan of kicking the ball onto the backs of the Crusaders. It hadn't worked until then and it continued not to.

Forwards don't like going backwards, and perhaps this was why the Bulls scrum were annihilated on their own scrum on the 35 minute mark. This allowed the red jerseys a good scrum position and allowed Carter the position for a drop goal.

Finally Matfield seemed to gather some urgency and opted to put a penalty into the corner. From the maul resulting from the lineout, Du Preez fired a low quick pass to put Habana into the corner. It was unconverted and the Crusaders led 16 - 8 going into the second half.

After I'd criticised the Bulls gameplan and lack of tactical appreciation last week, many Bulls supporters had been upset with me. I am sure they were groaning with me at the Bulls one dimensional performance in the first half. It is a South African disease that our players have an inability to change tactics when things are not going your way. It was the same criticism I had of the Stormers when they played like headless chickens against the Bulls. Surely Matfield could see that kicking deep infield was not yielding results for the Bulls? Surely a player of Jaco van der Westhuyzen's experience could have seen the need to vary the tactic? Joel Stransky had pointed out after the first Bulls-Crusader's match that it is very difficult for a full-back when his backs pursue the rush defence as he is isolated at the back and unable to launch a counter without support. That could not have been the excuse today as the Bulls did not rush.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for a big powerful pack of forwards to win primary phase ball and dominate the opposition upfront. I am all for crashing the ball up to suck players in before swinging the ball wide. Power up front is crucial to provide good possession. But it's what you do with it. It's the patterns you play. The Bulls (as is the case with most South African sides) lack tactical appreciation.

Meanwhile the Crusaders pick the plays to suit the field position and ball quality. And they do the basics well. Immediately after half time they put the ball through 17 phases of zero-error pick-and-go rugby before firing it out to Chris Jack to dive over.

The Bulls tried to change tactics and started recycling ball through rucks and then passing to one-off runners. After 14 phases, the Bulls had lost ground and finally lost possession. They had lost 22m and it was a contrast to the Crusaders having made 50m through their 17 phases moments earlier.

It started going downhill for the Bulls from there. They had lost Bakkies Botha and Habana and started making basic errors. The match was effectively over by the time Corey Flynn went over in the 64th minute.

Poor defence by Frikkie Welsh had led to Flynn's try, shocking defence by JP Nel led to Mauger's a short while later.

Pierre Spies got one back, but 35 - 15 was a fair reflection of the Crusader's dominance.

Bulls supporters accuse other SA supporters of "Bull hate." Heyneke Meyer remarked after the Stormers game that it felt as though the whole country was against them. Guys we cheered today. I got an early Friday night in anticipation of getting up early for a great game today. In South Africa's interest, we wanted a Bulls win today. So we all need to keep level heads and question what we can learn for South African rugby today.

What can we learn?

Coach option taking - not static gameplans
Improve ball protection and recycling - we concede too many turnovers
Run to support not away from it
Secure possession by committing sufficient numbers to the rucks
Don't believe your own press - our players need to improve skills, e.g. Olivier is a prospect but runs cross field and has a two-movement catch and pass
A kick gives away possession - make sure it gains enough ground to compensate.

Sorry Bulls. It was a great effort to get to the semi-finals and it's a great pity a South African side could not convert.

Well done Crusaders. You are the best provincial side in world rugby. There is not much you do badly and the Hurricanes will have to play out of their skins to beat you next week.

Flair versus strength

2006-05-19T11:21:00.000+02:00

It was semi-final rugby. Low-scoring, high pressure stuff.

The first ten minutes saw some fantastic strength in defence from the Hurricanes. Through multiple phases, the yellow shirts repelled the blues with the Hurricane center pairing of Umaga and Nonu being immense. Collins is something freakish and opposition must dread being tackled by him.

During the first ten, the Waratahs botched fielding of three kicks and this gave the 'Canes chances to get into their half. They goaled two penalties from this.

Then the 'Tahs backline sparked to life through Tiquiri and Rogers. There is something about Australian sides on attack. Their skill levels are fantastic and the key is their command of the basics, including, "Let the ball do the work."

Further, Whittaker is a scrummie who does brilliantly what I believe is the position's most critical function: he gets to rucks and clears quickly. As Murray Mexted said, "He clears from the ground without picking the ball up."

It was exactly such quick clearance that led to the Waratah's first try after a rampaging Tiquiri run. Watching the big guy's pace, power and skills, it is easy to see what Mallet is looking for in a big powerful winger.

Tiquiri - rampaging on attack Picture: Getty Images

This match exhibited many of the characteristics of a South African side against the Aussies. Big powerful defence and power on attack and defence ('Canes) against skills and creativity ('Tahs). Both have their place and with the right tactics can be winning games. This was shown by Fa’atau's try. The Hurricanes turned the ball over through a massive defensive scrum and from the resulting 'Canes scrum, worked a basic wraparound from the right winger taking the reverse pass from Umaga. It was the powerplay and it worked.

The Canes also use their powerful loose trio on attack and Collins also often takes slow-phase ball in the flyhalf channel, allowing other players to work off him. This almost led to a try 10 minutes into the second half as Collins drew the rather ordinary looking Daniel Halangahu and then offloaded to Chris Masoe who ran powerfully upfield breaking tackles and setting up a ruck ten meters out. They were unlucky not to score as the Waratah's turned the ball over.

Failing to score is what eventually cost the Hurricanes. The Waratahs made infrequent trips into the 'Canes half, but twice when they did they forced Hurricanes errors and goaled penalties to take the lead. They were the only scores to punctuate long periods of Hurricanes possession and territorial domination.

Gopperth immediately got the 'Canes back into the game with a long range penalty. This sparked 10 minutes of frenetic attack by the Hurricanes. Despite the attack, again the 'Canes could not score but were good enough to retain possession until the final whistle.

Hurricanes 16 - Waratahs 14. Well done guys. Hard semi-final rugby.

What can South African sides learn about power versus flair?

Given the debate about power versus flair in the South African environment, what could we learn from this game? One is the oldest lesson in rugby - power game or not, the game might not be won but it can certainly lost through lack of a competitive forward game. This is the basis of the Crusaders' game. They have both power and flair, but their forward power ensures they are never dominated. The second lesson is that a power game can carry journeyman players - the 'Canes have a virtually anonymous tight five. But through powerful scrumming and an exceptional loose trio, they play a game that keeps them competitive.

What is the impact of lack of flair? You have to say that the 'Canes should have scored more often from the quantity of possession and territory they enjoyed in the second half. I always felt that the Waratahs might easily have got back into the game against the run of play through their superior creativity. The 'Canes against the Crusaders? I'm not sure their forwards have the grunt. The Bulls versus the 'Canes? Well it depends on whether the Bulls forwards show up or not.

Good Reffing

Kaplan reffed a great game - he lets things flow and we saw extended periods of play free of the whistle. Mexted complimented him as one of the two best referees in the Super 14 together with Lyndon Bray. Kaplan allowed players to crash into rucks off their feet and while this led to greater continuity it meant the rucks were less of a contest but more prone to error. It is little wonder then that sides are turning to the maul as a means of controlled error free ball - and also a means of winning acres of field.

Rassie Erasmus: future Springbok coach

2006-05-16T23:20:00.000+02:00

There aren't many coaches in the Super 14 who have played in the professional era. There are fewer who have the potential to be the best in the coaching field. Rassie Erasmus has that potential.

I watched my recorded Boots & All from last week. There was a short interview with Rassie. Towards the end of the interview he summed up the season and got to what they'd learnt. The first thing he said was that he'd made some mistakes. He'd tried some things as coach that he thought would work and didn't. He didn't make excuses. He volunteered his learnings. Only then he talked about the players. All he said was that some have stepped up and some haven't. Then he finished by saying that for those players and coaches that didn't make it, they'd be pushed aside. The game was bigger than them.

Wow. No excuses. Nobody demanding his accountability. He volunteered it. What a difference.

It is difficult to believe that this is the man that Laurie Mains thought had psychological problems. It is far easier to reconcile the man we see today with the stories of the guy who spent every second focused on the game. Spending hours analysing his game, his teams game and the competitors on video.

To back all of that up, his team have held their heads high in this year's competition. And they hold the Currie Cup. On that day, Rassie stood smiling in the background.

What a refreshing difference in the South African coaching world.

Shocking Stormers

2006-05-13T20:01:00.000+02:00

Nick Mallet and the Stormers owe their fans an apology. After the debacle at Loftus last year, they said it would never happen again. Well they played like schoolboys against a Super 14 side tonight.

To say that they were bereft of any tactical nous is an understatement. Their gameplan appeared to be to swing the ball to every side of the field and tire out the Bulls forwards. When their passes typically went behind the backs of their players, or along the ground, the tactic was clearly not going to work.

Further, when their commitment of defence meant jumping out of the way of the oncoming player (Joubert and Pietersen), it meant they were in for a hiding.

When Jake White said he did not want to cheapen the Springbok jersey by handing out too many new caps, he should have thought of how he might cheapen it by giving it back to players not only out of form, but lacking guts and passion. Joubert is such a player. After a stunning hit on Wynand Olivier earlier in the evening (the first 30 minutes were actually fairly good rugby), the rest of Joubert's effort rightly saw him summarily subbed.

But it was not only Joubert. The most worrying thing about tonight's game was that the Bulls won because they were allowed to play brainless brawny rugby (Bryan Habana's fantastic finishing aside). The Stormers tried to win the game by playing touch rugby. Some people have said that South African sides are overcoached and don't have the freedom to play the game as they see it on the field. If this is true and the gameplans we see our sides come up with (usually a plan A consisting of one tactic) then we are in even worse trouble than I had ever feared.

Bryan Habana beats a dispairing Luke Watson for his first try Picture: Reuters

I don't believe that any coach puts together a gameplan that says, "In the 65th minute we'll do this." But surely the players and coaches drill to strengths and weaknesses based on basics. Everyone knows the Bulls are going to maul the ball up. Watching the Waratahs-Hurricanes match today would have given the Stormers a few clues. To counter the maul the only way to do it is to commit numbers early and get a counter shove on. The Stormers didn't do this and one Bulls maul advanced all of 40 metres. The Aussies apparently focus on drills like running support lines and picking channels to run on attack to prevent being isolated. That is something the Stormers have clearly never heard of.

A good leader looks at how things are going and if not in one's favour, tries to figure out little things to try and reverse the trend. That should have been to slow the all down a bit and play for field position when the Stormers were trying to run through the Bulls from their 22. It's not as complicated as some would make out. When you see your side getting punished and heads beginning to drop, it's a quick thought, "How can I get a small victory that will just get us on top again for a minute? Something to give us a chance? A kick for the corner? Attacking the flyhalf channel and keeping the ball for a few phases?"

Someone once said, "Big battles are won an inch at a time."

As a South African, I am delighted that we have a team in the semis. I never mind losing after having seen a side give their all. But contrasting the Stormers effort against the Crusaders to this just beggars belief.

I am also concerned that the Bulls have very limited chances of beating the Crusaders. The Crusaders' pack is getting back to its best and the Bulls will not have it all their own way. They have the best flyhalf in the world who will not just play one way but based on the changing conditions of the match. They also have backs who are drilled in the basics and will run good lines and ask many more questions of the Bulls on attack than the Stormers did (except for the one time they made a good pass and De Villiers ran a reverse angle to score).

During the first 25 minutes I enjoyed what looked to be a great contest with first the Bulls attacking the Stormers' line in waves and then the Stormers returning the favour in the Bulls half. Both sides defended well and the game was played at a furious pace.

Fourie du Preez looked like the Springbok incumbent and his box kicks sowed destruction amongst the Stormers. The Bulls tight five were immense on attack and defence but need to watch the niggle - they won't win against many sides the next time they are down to 14 men for 20 minutes.

It is contrasts like these that make me want to tear my hair out. Where is the consistency? Why do we see players like De Kock play like a champion against the Chiefs and the Crusaders and then like a chump against the Bulls? Why did De Wet Barry begin to look the part again and then look like a pensioner tonight? I believe that it because South Africans rely on one thing to win matches - gees (spirit/passion). And when every one of the fifteen don't show up willing to play out their socks, their lack of basics, skills and on-field intelligence gets shown up.

Good luck in the semis Bulls. Please show-up for the match like you did today and in your victory against the Sharks. Also, maybe think a little.

(One post script: well done to the Newlands crowd for being so sporting tonight. It was the knowledgeable Newlands of old. Maybe Robbie Fleck’s article made a difference. Although, maybe it was just because there seemed to be a couple of thousand Bulls supporters down south…)

Well done Sharks!

2006-05-12T21:25:00.000+02:00

It was a game that could never continue at the pace it started. The Sharks began like they had a plane to catch en-route to a semi final. Odwa Ndungane was everywhere with two great pieces of finishing. His workrate matches his brother and between them they are two of the hardest working wings in the country. Ndungane finished and Brent Russell created. Russell was magic tonight and his supporters will be once again claiming Springbok honours for this performance.

Jacques Botes scored a fantastic try from a set move working off the lineout. The Sharks did it twice - passing to a loosie from the top of the lineout who then broke through the lineout. It was clearly practiced and it worked.

The Sharks have made mauling their strength and their efforts contributed to their early dominance. They'll have to watch for truck-and-trailer though - their binding at the back is rather loose.

Scot Mathie played a fantastic game as scrumhalf tonight and looks a real prospect. His service was sharp and he has one of the best box kicks I've ever seen.

But things started to go against the Sharks when AJ Venter and Johan Ackerman went off. It was immediately evident how much the Sharks have benefitted from their form this season and suddenly the Sharks first phase possession began to dry up.

To add to this, a strange experiment by Dick Muir in moving John Smit to loosehead never looked like working and the Sharks took a pummelling in the scrums.

By the second half, it seemed to be a different game and the Sharks had to work very hard for their fourth try. Britz was rewarded for his hard work on the night with the score.

From then on, the Sharks looked anything but like semi-finalists. The Force came back strongly and the Sharks were made to defend for long periods. The home side were lucky not to get carded for continuous infringing in their defensive efforts, although the repeat offences gave the opportunity for one of the moments of the night when Paul Honiss asked John Smit to talk to his players - and added with a wink, "I'll let you know when I'm restarting play."

The Sharks early pace clearly tired them and perhaps this was partly responsible for their second half performance tonight. But what they can be assured of, is if they play like that in the semi-final, they will be home immediately afterwards.

Monty kicked fantastically, but needs to up his workrate on attack and defence. I'm not talking about his token efforts at ruck time - he has to improve defence of the channel around the loose and tight. He also has to look to join the line on attack and beat the opposing defence. He did make a fantastic pass to contribute to one of Ndungane's tries.

Butch looked rusty and unfit tonight and had one of his traditional poor efforts tonight on Digby Ioane after he scored.

One final point is that after all the talk about skills, I was appalled to see Andries Strauss having to reverse his hands to make a pass to his right. That's really piss-poor skills and passing both ways is something that should be honed at schoolboys level.

But on the whole, well done Sharks for a fantastic first half effort and making the semis. We'll all be holding thumbs that AJ and Johan Ackerman are fit for next week.

Lastly, the standard of callers into Engage on DSTV improved tonight with a call from Smuts Ngonyama, head of the presidency! And he made some very good points on the Sharks winning requirements for next week against the Crusaders.

A more adventurous Springbok selection

2006-05-07T16:37:00.000+02:00

Jake White's comments to the Rapport about things he would like to try made me very excited. He talked about trying Habana at centre. So I thought based on that and two more matches, I'd propose a slightly more adventurous Springbok selection than my last.

Photo: Sasol Springbok Images

Here's my second selection with second choices in brackets (bold indicating a new selection, bold italics indicating a positional switch from my inital selection).

First Choice	Second Choice
1. JD Moller - Stormers	[Lawrence Sephaka - Cats]
2. John Smit - Sharks	[Schalk Brits - Stormers]
3. BJ Botha - Sharks	[Eddie Andrews - Stormers]
4. Bakkies Botha - Bulls	[Johan Ackerman - Sharks]
5. Victor Matfield - Bulls	[Ross Skeate - Stormers]
6. Luke Watson - Stormers	[AJ Venter - Cats]
7. Schalk Burger - Stormers	[Juan Smith - Cheetahs]
8. Pedrie Wannenberg - Bulls	[Joe van Niekerk - Stormers]
9. Ruan Pienaar - Sharks	[Fourie du Preez - Bulls]
10. Jaco van der Westhuyzen - Bulls	[Meyer Bosman - Cheetahs]
11. JP Pietersen - Sharks	[Odwa Ndungane - Sharks]
12. *Jaque Fourie* - Cats	[*De Wet Barry* - Stormers]
13. *Bryan Habana* - Bulls	[JP Nel - Bulls]
14. *Akona Ndungane* - Bulls	[Giscard Pieters - Cheetahs]
15. Percival Montgomery - Sharks	[Bevin Fortuin - Cheetahs]

So this is based on an entirely different logic to my last selection which tried to mix Jake's policy of selecting the incumbent and then thinking of form.

My changes start with selecting Schalk Brits ahead of Gary Botha as backup to John Smit. This is a selction based on sheer excitement value - I agree with Jake that Brits needs to firm up on his basics, specifically his lineout throwing.

My next change brings AJ Venter in as a loose forward backup. My loose forward backups don't correspond directly to where I'd play them. I would clearly not play AJ on the open side, but with Luke Watson and Schalk Burger in the starting line up and both possible opensiders, a number of possible combinations are possible - including picking either of Luke or Schalk as the starting opensider with Juan Smith or AJ as the closed side flank.

After being delighted that Jake would consider Habana as a center, that has made selecting the rest of the backline a bit difficult. Habana is an outside centre, so finding him a partner means a rejig or dropping Jaque Fourie. The latter cannot happen, and something about Jaque Fourie at inside centre and Habana at outside centre is very exciting. Bringing Habana in at centre means we would need a new left wing. In the spirit of being adventurous, I think picking JP Pietersen has tonnes of potential and is a pick for the future. So I've picked him. There is a real problem as backup left wing - no one outside of Habana and Pietersen has shown international class. So I'll assume that Odwa Ndungane can handle the switch - as I did in my initial selection.

Moving Jaque Fourie inside, has meant that I've relegated De Wet Barry to the bench, dropping Wynand Olivier. I thought Olivier's performance against the Crusaders (crabbing across the field, etc) was worrying enough to warrant this anyway. I've kept JP Nel in the side giving him the benefit of the doubt.

In the spirit of adventure, I've dropped Breyton Paulse from my line up and promoted Akona Ndungane. I've brought in Giscard Pieters as the form right wing behind Ndungane.

I've continued to leave Jean de Villiers out based on his shocking defensive performance at 12 this season and his spoilt brat reaction at being moved to the wing.

Do I think Jake will select anything like this side? No. But it does show how difficult moving Habana into centre will be as a disruption. Exciting though.

Butch James - sorry you're back

2006-05-07T11:12:00.000+02:00

Butch James
Picture: scrum.com

I mentioned Butch's mountaineering incident on Luke Watson in my match analysis.

Watching my recording of the game, I was astounded by the number of incidents involving him. He was lucky the Stormers did not attack his channel from rucks more (mainly because they did not have many of their own rucks). Butch was in virtually every ruck on defense - 80% of the time with a Stormers player in a headlock.

In the loose or in any tackle he made, he looked to get some needle in.

There was also talk for a citing for Butch's punch on Watson.

If Butch concentrated on his game, he could be one of the best. He has proved over a number of years he cannot.

Who was responsible for Cats selection this season?

2006-05-06T20:43:00.000+02:00

It remains a mystery to me how the Cats backline containing Springboks from 9 to 14, have been mixed and matched all over the show this season.

Tonight they looked the business against the Blues, with Pretorius, Julies and Fourie setting the park alight.

Unfortunately, the backs looked as defensively frail as ever and as a Stormers supporter, I rejoice the day Earl Rose turned his back on the Stormers for bigger money.

Other players in the Cats look good, none more so than Ernst Joubert and Baywatch Grobbelaar. The new pick, Jano Vermaak, was a breath of fresh air.

With Alistair Coetzee, the Bok backline coach, coaching the Cats backs, it is a complete mystery why so many variations of the Bok backline have been tried before trying players in their default positions.

Sharks and Stormers play old-fashioned test rugby

2006-05-06T19:29:00.000+02:00

Peter Grant typifies crunching first half defense Picture: Getty Images

It wasn't a game for running rugby or pretty moves. A howling gale appeared to make things very difficult for both teams at Kings Park.

The first half was all Sharks and their ball protection was out of the top drawer. The Stormers hardly saw the ball and possession and territory were in the high numbers in their favour.

Equally, the Stormers' defense of their line was gutsy stuff. They repelled waves of attack during every one of the first 20 minutes and again later in the half.

The difference between the sides during the first half was committed numbers to the ball. The Sharks forwards played to their support runners and committed numbers to the mauls and rucks. Speaking of mauls, they had clearly practiced the tactic and the Stormers seemed almost powerless to defend against it. One such rolling maul advanced over a full twenty metres and the Sharks were unlucky do be denied a try after both the referee and TMO were unsighted of the grounding.

While the Sharks were just fantastic in their commitment of numbers to the breakdown, the Stormers played to Mallet's belief that overcommitting numbers to the breakdown opens up too much space out wide. As a result, Schalk Burger and Big Joe spent far to much time out wide and Luke Watson was consigned to play a lonely defense of the tryline with the tight five. I understand the theory regarding overcommitting numbers to the defense, but such was the Sharks' control of the ball, that the Stormers never looked like winning turnovers or forcing the Sharks' into mistakes.

Speaking of the tight fives, I had eagerly awaited the battle between the Stormers and Sharks in the tight phases all week. The Sharks emerged clear winners although the Stormers never gave up - even calling scrums at penalties in the last quarter when all they needed was a goal to draw even. One has to question that given the Stormers' prowess in the lineouts. But perhaps they weren't ready to back Edmonds' throw-ins as the third choice hooker after Brits' late withdrawal.

It was hard uncompromising stuff and not a game that will be remembered for creative play. Highlights were the Sharks' multi-phase attack of the Stormers' line throughout the first half, the Stormers' incredible defense (never better characterised than through Shimange's hit on AJ Venter), Murray's incredible effort to stay in and score in the corner, Montgomery's conversions in a howling gale, Ruan Pienaar showing he could play in dour test-match rugby, Chumani Booi's fantastic workrate in the second half when he came on for Joubert and tight, controlling rugby played by the Sharks' forwards.

I was disappointed by Schalk Burger and Joe van Niekerk's efforts - I felt their workrates were below par and left the rest of the pack too much to do. I was surprised by Butch James' return to Super Rugby, but sadly not by his boots-and-all effort all over Luke Watson's neck in the loose during the first quarter. In my book he remains a hot head with more promise than performance.

Well done Sharks. Stunning tight-loose performance.

The sad crossover from Super 14 to porn...

2006-05-06T12:59:00.000+02:00

In this exclusive exposé, we present evidence of a worrying trend: Super 14 rugby players moonlighting as porn stars.

Sad.

Rideke "Big Hair" Samo - 'nuff said
Picture: Getty Images

Caleb Ralph boasts a classic 70's 'tache
Picture: Getty Images

Rueben Thorne had the best moustache of all last night against the Bulls. Today, one of the Brumbies reserves also sported the most spectacular "mullet" seen since the seventies. Anybody with photographic evidence please paste the link as a comment.

Maak die Bulle almal Bokke?

2006-05-05T19:33:00.000+02:00

What was this? Did the Bulls leave their heads and their hearts at home?

Die Blou Bul eet nie van die vloer af nie? Dis omdat die Crusaders die vloer met hulle gevee het.

This game reminded me of the Boks at Twickenham in 2002 - clueless. Lack of possession and some positional nous from Daniel Carter made the Bulls look desperate after 10 minutes.

Daniel Carter attacked Morne Steyn's channel from the beginning, one such effort resulting in Mauger's try. Steyn's many punters might like to comment on his whereabouts - he was absent.

Daniel Carter's brilliance notwithstanding, the Pretoria side never looked in the game. They were in fact an embarrassment. The Force would have beaten them tonight and possibly even the Cats. Don't give me any rubbish about the Crusaders being a different side from the one that the Stormers beat last week. Of course Carter made a difference, but don't tell me he won this match and made the Bulls look like idiots. They managed to do that all by themselves.

So unbelievable was the difference between the Bulls first half performance against the Sharks to this week's effort, that I'd do some investigation for possible match fixing.

The Bulls protection of the ball was, to put it kindly, pathetic, and on multiple occassions the ball was merely taken from the attacking player's grasp. No time more vitally than by Daniel Carter from Jacques Cronje as he attacked the line. This occurred just after Matfield had turned down an option to kick at poles from close to in-front.

This match did some of the Bulls players' reputations no good at all. I'd picked the Bulls centre pairing as my back-up Bok combination. No more. The crabbing across the field and pedestrian passing meant they lost ground every time the ball went down the line. I believe JP Nel dodged out of a tackle in the first half.

Frikkie Welsh clearly knows nothing about marking and forcing his opposite man outside - this led directly to the Crusaders' first try.

Bakkies Botha and Victor Matfield jogged around the field and watched rucks form and their players lose the ball.

The Bulls running of support lines was so bad that not one but two passes went into touch.

Further, the men in blue squandered no less than five takes against the line-out throw, either kicking the ball away or running across the field.

It was fitting that basics and Daniel Carter cost the Bulls what would have been a spectacular length of the field try in the last two minutes of the game. If the guy on the inside of Danie Rossouw had drawn Carter, he would have put Rossouw over.

When it's not your night, nothing goes your way. The Crusaders should have had two yellow cards against them for blatant fouls - one by Caleb Ralph and one by Corey Flynn. But frankly it would not have made a difference.

Why can't SA Super Rugby teams play every weekend like the last?

2006-05-03T23:39:00.000+02:00

It's one of the great imponderables.

But suffice to say, SA teams have the most fragile psyches in the world. The Bulls can't win on the road, the Stormers can't play for 80 minutes, the Sharks can't win at Loftus or Newlands and the Cats can't win - hey, each has their problem.

It does seem to be a South African disease. We generally can't stand arrogance in others - we hate the Aussies for their arrogance and whinging. Yet we have a pretty good record of shooting our mouths off and less evidence than we'd like to support our contention as being one of the best (in either rugby or cricket).

What we seem to be missing is the quiet self-belief that comes from a winning culture.

I went to school at SACS - producer of Ross Skeate, Ismael Dollie, Paul Delport, Percival Montgomery, Peter Kirsten amongst others. But my time there sadly did not coincide with winning results and we typically got thumped by Paul Roos, Paarl Gym, Bishops and had patchy performances against Rondebosch and Wynberg.

Later, playing club rugby at Villagers, it was an eye-opener watching guys from SACS and other underperforming schools suddenly start playing with belief. They were playing next to guys who'd run over them at school and in one of the top clubs in the Cape. Suddenly they were favourites.

You see belief is 70% of the game. When you run onto that field believing the game is yours to lose two things happen. Firstly, you expect a high standard of your team-mates and yourself. You have a record and reputation to lose. But secondly and far more importantly, you enjoy the game. I tell you what, winning feels great. Anybody who has kids: don't tell them that losing doesn't matter and it's the experience that counts. Yeah sympathise with a loss, but encourage a win.

Now put yourself in the shoes of our teams with some of the above expectations - Bulls, you will lose on the road. Cats, you've got the worst record in Super Rugby. Stormers, well you'll produce an occasional moment of brilliance or even game (remember the Blues in Auckland, 2004?), but you'll never sustain it. Sharks, well you just don't have enough greats anymore.

That's a psychology that needs to be broken. Which is very difficult to do from the inside. It is easier for Laurie Mains to coach the Cats and say they have the beating of a New Zealand team and generate the belief. It is easier for Tony Brown to get Ruan Pienaar to believe he's the next great South African scrumhalf.

The difference between self-belief and arrogance is reality. And the reality is that this last weekend showed our capability and potential. But the reality is also that we have by far the worst share of the spoils against our traditional Antipodean competitors.

In order for South African teams to move to the top of the log, either an outside influence must be wrought to change the psychology (the radical, quicker option) or self belief and acceptance of reality must be built.

The latter is the more likely course. Good leaders typically have an innate understanding of how to accomplish this. Psychologists have methodologies. Common to both is a realistic and frank, dispassionate assessment of the facts. Then a plan is built with a moderate goal and the method for achieving it. And then things are typically taken one day at a time, one match at a time within the plan.

We have had some good leaders who have achieved this. Francois Pienaar, Kitch Christie, Gary Teichman and Jake White. If you have the chance (if you have not seen it) watch a tape of SA's 1995 World Cup journey. The most remarkable excerpt was Joel Stransky's commentary on the preparation for the final against the All Blacks. He recounts that during the video session they watched Jonah Lomu run over everyone. At the end there was a hush. Kitch Christie stood up after a while and remarked in an off-hand manner, "We can take them," and walked out of the room. Joel remembers, "Well if Kitch thinks we can take them, then of course we can."

Battles are won an inch at a time. To regularly relive weekends like this last one, South African teams need to do the following:

We are starting at the bottom of the pile - 4 wins out of 11 matches for the Stormers - those are the facts.

X and Y has been responsible for our performance - our teams have all the stats in the world to help them accomplish this task - ask Gary Gold. X might be possession, Y might be missed tackles.

Our moderate goal for next season is to finish in the top 6, achieve a tackle success rate of 80% and achieve an aggregate of 60% possession per match.

In order to meet our moderate goal, we need to beat the following teams: ......

Nobody is saying you don't go out there to win every game (remember the outcry when Alan Solomons rested his key players for a match on the road in New Zealand?).

But a the above attitude allows you to go into a match like the one against the Crusaders thinking, "You know, winning this match is a bonus to our plan. Let's go out there and have some fun trying to pull that off." And it is amazing how the decreased pressure, realism and enjoyment lead to better than expected results. (By the way, nobody has fun missing tackles - whether against a team targeted for a win or not - you get the idea?)

Of course it's difficult to play the above back to supporters who expect wins in every match. SA Cricket tried in a summarised fashion, talking of "Brave Cricket." I think the summarised description is necessary.

SA teams have a mountain to climb in changing the recent Super Rugby losing culture. They better have a good plan that addresses the psychology of that if they wish to relive weekends like the last more regularly.

So who should be in the Bok squad?

2006-04-29T21:54:00.000+02:00

We're getting close to that time of the season again. And Bok "selectors" everywhere are getting tense about who deserves the green and gold.

Photo: Sasol Springbok Images

Here's my early selection with second choices in brackets.

First Choice	Second Choice
1. JD Moller - Stormers	[Lawrence Sephaka - Cats]
2. John Smit - Sharks	[Gary Botha - Bulls]
3. BJ Botha - Sharks	[Eddie Andrews - Stormers]
4. Bakkies Botha - Bulls	[Johan Ackerman - Sharks]
5. Victor Matfield - Bulls	[Ross Skeate - Stormers]
6. Luke Watson - Stormers	[Wikus van Heerden - Cats]
7. Schalk Burger - Stormers	[Juan Smith - Cheetahs]
8. Pedrie Wannenberg - Bulls	[Joe van Niekerk - Stormers]
9. Ruan Pienaar - Sharks	[Fourie du Preez - Bulls]
10. Jaco van der Westhuyzen - Bulls	[Meyer Bosman - Cheetahs]
11. Bryan Habana - Bulls	[Odwa Ndungane - Sharks]
12. De Wet Barry - Stormers	[Wynand Olivier - Bulls]
13. Jaque Fourie - Cats	[JP Nel - Bulls]
14. Breyton Paulse - Clermont	[Akona Ndungane - Bulls]
15. Percival Montgomery - Sharks	[Bevin Fortuin - Cheetahs]

I've tried to follow Jake White's logic of considering the incumbent and the impact of their team and Super 14 positional selections on their performance. I have also condsidered the incumbent in Joe van Niekerk's case - he has played to little rugby to be included purely on form - although he is beginning to look good.

At front row I think I'll be caned by some for leaving out OS, but I believe JD Moller has won aclaim from opposing sides. BJ Botha is the popular new cap on the other side of the scrum. Many will feel Sephaka and Andrews are quota selections as reserves, but I have been impressed with their recent form. I also believe Sephaka has not had enough starting game time. He looked particularly good against the Force.

Ross Skeate is selected out of position (5 instead of 4) as cover for Victor Matfield - but that is because I see them as similar players - modern athletic locks.

Johan Ackerman is a great backup for Bakkies - imagine playing 60 minutes against Bakkies and the Ackerman comes on - there's some "enforcer" for you!

Combinations are important. Besides this, I think that starting combination of Luke Watson and Schalk Burger are deserved in their own right. Both have played with 80 minute commitment every match. Pedrie Wannenberg breaks the provincial combination as starting eigth man - he has been immense for the Bulls.

Ruan Pienaar makes my starting scrumhalf spot - he is a huge talent. Fourie du Preez makes reserve as an incumbent.

Flyhalf is tough because we have not seen Jaco van der Westhuysen play there domestically. But his touches look good from fullback, and Jake picked him from Japan as flyhalf previously. It is a tough call for reserve flyhalf, but Andre Pretorius has played in a losing side and Meyer Bosman is the incumbent "future" player.

Centres - what a headache! No one has set the world alight this season. Barry has started playing again since being dropped from 13 and then returning at 12. He gets the spot as incumbent and with a glimmer of hope. Jacques Foruie gets 13 - without us seeing him there for the Cats. You know what they say about class and form - hopefully it's true. The Bulls pairing get the reserve spots. One has to worry about creativity here though. If only Habana had some game time at centre. There is no place for De Villiers based on his utterly inept defensive performance this Super 14. Joubert might have class, but his form is so long gone that he cannot make this squad. I somehow think Jake White will go with the incumbents though.

I would take a pasting on the Keo boards for my wings, but I think they're deserved. Habana picks himself. Paulse's experience in France could be huge factor for the world cup. I have no idea how well he has played for Clermont though. He makes the spot as incumbent. Akona Ndungane has showed hunger and commitment with flair on attack for the Bulls. Odwa Ndungane makes my reserve spot together with him showing similar hunger and flair to that of his twin brother.

Monty has had a quiet Super 14. He hasn't exactly done anything wrong, but he needs to look to join the line more on attack for the Boks. Fortuin is another new cap as reserve - he's tried hard for the Cheetahs and looked good.

Where did the intensity come from?

2006-04-29T20:07:00.000+02:00

Picture: thestormers.com

Wow!

If the Bulls and Stormers had played each match with the intensity they started today's games, they'd be one and two on the log. If they'd finished with today's intensity of the Sharks and the Cheetahs second halves, they'd be unbeatable.

Perhaps most pleasing is that the Boks are beginning to put their hands up and the young stars are pushing them hard.

Where was this level of commitment and belief earlier in the season. It seems that South African teams approach the Super 14 with the dread of the coming overseas tour. Then they hate the tour, and then they play to restore pride when they come back.

But equally, the players did the basics right today. It is amazing how commitment translates into good basics. It is also amazing how commitment rubs off. Rayno Benjamin has shown poor performances this season - today he worked hard

Bakkies Botha and Victor Matfield piled into rucks with Pedrie Wannenberg today. Tim Dlulane struggled for the ball in the trenches. The Stormers committed numbers to the rucks today. De Wet Barry was his abrasive best. Defensive patterns worked and players attacked the gain line. Schalk Burger and Luke Watson bristled with aggression and were immense today - probably the best loose performance of the season. Big Joe was fantastic on defence and with some attacking play could be back to his best. Ross Skeate looked tomorrow's Victor Matfield. Peter Grant showed the promise he hinted at at the beginning of the season. Neil de Kock played his best all round game this season, and given his performance against the Chiefs, could challenge for the Boks - together with Fourie du Preez and Ruan Pienaar.

Coming back from deficit positions, although not quite, John Smit took it to the Bulls forwards with support from the young impressive Keegan Daniels and the old heads of Ackerman and later Albert van der Berg. For the Cheetahs, Bevan Fortuin and Giscard Pieters tried hard as they have the whole season - their role in sweeping line movements that brought their final try almost won their match for them.

Both the Bulls and the Stormers showed they could lead for 80 minutes. The defensive effort shown by the Stormers during the second half against the best provincial side in the world was particularly pleasing.

But most pleasing was 15 man performances.

These are pleasing signs. Why do they come in the dying moments of South Africa's Super Rugby seasons?

Second nature to the All Blacks - unknown to SA

2006-04-26T11:38:00.000+02:00

I've been harping about SA sides' (and particularly the Stormers) pathetic kicking away of possession.

This is a question put to Dan Carter during a Cape Times interview:

The Stormers' back three have looked very shaky under the high ball. Is that something you'll be looking to exploit?

I haven't watched the games, but cheers, I'll keep that in mind! (Laughs) They are obviously pretty skilful players. We like to test players, but the kick is only as good as the chase. Hopefully if we launch up-and-unders the chasers keep a good line. The pressure that you put on is what makes it a good kick.

I hope the idiots who kick away our possession were reading.

Is this the most inept Stormers team ever?

2006-04-21T12:32:00.000+02:00

Last year the fans booed Gert Smal after a dismal Super 12.

If there was any fairness, this year the fans would lynch the players.

Jean de Villiers played as though his mind was somewhere else today. After last weeks pathetic defensive effort, today's was shocking.

The Stormers wings have not got a clue about putting in a hit - and shy away from contact. The Stormers rush defense is worthless when the opposing team knows they merely have to break inside the opposing, rushing wing. He will not tackle and there is a better than even chance of slipping De Villiers' shoulder-high effort.

The wings also need to look for work - they must have the worst work-rate in the super 14. Nokwe will not join a ruck, even if he is the second man.

Having sid all of that, Benjamin looks far better chasing a man down from behind.

Chavanga tried hard and does make some good tackles. But crucial errors liking taking the ball over the 22 before kicking out are unacceptable at this level.

Joe van Niekerk seems to think he is above putting in the hard yards and threw two shocking passes. His second half performance was altogether different. If he can improve his backfoot game to be as good as his frontfoot one, he will be an awesome player.

Naas Olivier is a great prospect, but his line kicking tonight was shocking.

Speaking of kick, the Stormers think it is a four letter word. They have no idea how to receive them and their pathetic use of them gifts opponent's possession. All that was needed to be said, was said here.

De Wet Barry is a different player at 12 and looked much like his old self. Besides putting in a massive defensive effort, his distribution looked slick tonight.

For once Kobus van der Merwe's substitutions were spot on. At the 50 minute mark, the injection of Pietersen and Grant made all the difference and some slick passes by both got the Stormers going.

The new attack raised the defence to, and the Stormers did well to hold out the Reds in the final 20 minutes.

If there is any mitigating factor, then it is that it is very difficult to reverse momentum. When you're under the whip, everything seems to go wrong. Hopefully this victory will give them some forward momentum.

Not a lot to cheer about. This was a pathetic Reds team. All that can be hoped is that the Stormers will use the momentum.

What can South African sides learn from the Waratahs vs Brumbies?

2006-04-16T13:26:00.000+02:00

Man, what a match! Skill, passion, the works.

I think the biggest impression the match left with me was the patience and confidence shown by the Waratahs. After the start made by the Brumbies, and the incredible defence that shut down every move the Waratahs made, it would have been easy for this one to have got away from the Tahs.

But pin-point kicking for position got the NSW side back into it. What a difference from the desperate aimless stuff that characterises SA sides kicking.

The other thing that looked different from SA sides was the workrate of both sides' players. Man, are SA sides fit enough? George Smith and Phil Waugh were at the top of their game. Sailor and Tiquiri looked for work everywhere. Most impressive was the cleaning out at ruck time. What a difference quick ball makes. It is dependent on forwards getting to the point of breakdown quickly, and both the Tahs and Brumbies forwards did that. It also means running good support lines and running into areas where you team can support you.

There were mistakes, more-so for the Brumbies after Bernie Larkham went off, but generally the handling was in a different league to that of SA teams.

Larkham's injury certainly impacted the Brumbies. But SA sides can learn from the Waratah's performance.

Sadly confidence breeds this kind of success and SA sides are woefully short of that.

Stormers torture their fans again

2006-04-15T11:12:00.000+02:00

Watching South African Super 14 rugby is a bit like going to the dentist because you like the laughing gas. There might be a high, but there's a whole lot of pain too.

Man, what an average Chiefs side. Watching this from the stands you'd have to say they're eminently beatable - and with bonus points too.

But frankly, the Stormers couldn't put away a game against a barefoot primary school side.

When things are in downward spiral, you lose confidence. But not only do the Stormers lack confidence, they're bereft of ideas. You can guarantee that if they have the edge in possession, they'll kick it away after the fifth phase.

And then desperation starts to set in and they start to make basic mistakes.

Irritated as I am, I think the following areas would be worth concentrating on if you believed this team had a hope.

Rush defense - you have to be fully committed

De Villiers and Joubert were woeful on the rush defense today. If you're going to employ this defense you have to ensure the opposition receive man and ball at the same time. Hesitant efforts ensured that the Chiefs were able to offload inside passes and put runners away.

Midfield - you've got to tackle first time

The rush defense is tough to pull off. But there is no excuse for feeble attempts at a tackle. Marius Joubert- how many times will you be pinged for high tackles and how many times will you be bumped or handed off before you finally start going low?

Jean de Villiers - were you actually marking somebody or looking for the intercept?

Back three - they've got to understand their positions

With Chavanga, Benjamin and Nokwe, you'd expect the Stormers to be running most sides ragged. I guess that might have been the plan. But sadly, the back three were exposed for lack of positional nous today. Wings, you've got to know when to lie deep and cover your touchline on defense.

You've also got to commit to the high ball, whether it's been kicked onto you or whether you're chasing it. You have to get off the ground and contest it in the air. If you are caught too deep, get down on your haunches, keep your eye on the ball and collect it safely by scooping it up your forearms.

And friggin hell, if you're going to put that pace back there, back it and run the ball hard. Why do we persist in kicking everything straight down the middle?

Line kicks - they've got to go out

On the subject of kicking, man, make sure of your touchfinders! Naas Olivier looked good on individual attack tonight, but he bombed his touchfinders. The disease caught, and De Villiers and Burger gifted possession away that ultimately resulted in tries.

Up and unders - if you kick, contest

Personally I think they should be a fineable offence, but if done well (and used sparingly) they have their place. Critical to an up an under, is:

They need to come down with snow on them

They need to go a chaseable distance

They need to be chased by a number of players

The player who kicked must chase and then contest the ball in the air

The supporting players must be there when the kicker comes down.

They attacked badly too

Attack - run straight

It is the most basic lesson of attack: if you do not straighten the line, there will be no room for the guys out wide, and no chance of creating space for runners joining the line. If there is a disease in South Africa's backline play (besides the "chip and chase"), it is abysmal running lines on attack. Which is sad considering the pace we have.

If you crab across the field, defending sides don't have to worry about complicated defensive patterns - the drift defense copes easily.

Mauls - a new form of attack

New to South Africa that is. Mauls are dangerous if they get stopped - the ball goes to the opposing side. However, considering how rucks are being contested, and the fact that a maul can gain ground if executed well, it is a valuable option. South African sides appear to be using it more and better.

The commentators credited Nick Mallet for introducing a French-style cork-screwing style to the Stormers maul. It was giddying to watch, but very effective.

Rucks - commit and get quick ball

Speaking of rucks, I understand the danger of overcommitting on defense. But some supporting players would help. South African ruck ball is static and we concede far too many turnovers. There are some lazy players out there. Jake White's pro-zone would expose the. But you can spot them walking along on a few TV shots too. New Zealand sides kill us there.

Supporting play

Our supporting play must be the poorest in world rugby. Clive Woodward developed an entire gameplan to ensure team-based support play (split field accountability shared between backs and forwards). Even if not specifically addressed in your game plan, the principles are taught in schoolboy rugby - if you're not up in support, you're never going to score any tries, and you're going to concede possession.

Neil de Kock - if only everyone had his heart

Man, Neil de Kock gives everything. Perhaps he overdoes the box kick, but given the slow ruck ball, that is not surprising.

The number of cover tackles (sure and low) made by De Kock tonight was staggering. Where others looked scared on defense, De Kock made first time tackles around the ankles on players three times his size.

Summary

Sadly it is again a tale of basics letting a South African side down. Every man needs to front up for this. For all Schalk Britz' bravado in his response to Jake White's criticism of his line out throwing, he looked poor in this basic. It improved during the game, but the first five had to be cleaned up at the back after he missed his jumpers. Every player has something basic to work on, and that means there is a lot to do before we start seeing South African sides contesting the top four spots.

Time for radical change

2006-04-14T12:06:00.000+02:00

It is time for radical change. South African rugby is in danger of losing appeal. No one likes watching a losing team. And if results speak for themselves, then we have to be brutally honest and say that is what our teams have become - losers.

It may be unkind to refer to our Boks this way, given their global ranking and their Tri-Nations results, but. Let's keep this to the facts - they lost games they should have won last year, and it takes a brave man to bet on consistent winning performances against all comers.

But the Super Rugby is where our house of cards is creaking. Administrators have ignored results for years, protecting their interests on the back of loyal paying support and TV revenues. As angry supporters turn their backs on struggling teams, and advertisers ponder the wisdom of spending their millions of sponsorship rands, one of two outcomes is likely - rugby becomes / remains a minority sport or a radical change is sparked.

Before we consider how such a change might be sparked, let's diagnose the problem. There is a lot of diagnosing going on.

Dan Retief believes our club rugby needs an overhaul.

Joel Stransky and Naas Botha believe our coaching needs a new structure.

Nico le Roux, a South African ex-pat who has been living in New Zealand for the past five years where he has been involved as a skills coach and technical advisor to Waikato and North Harbour (NPC), the Chiefs (Super 12), the Junior All Blacks and All Blacks, believes that our players skills and reading of the game are below par, and our gameplans have been slow to evolve.

Kandas believes that our competition structure needs to change.

PissAnt believes that the answer lies in commercialising the unions and better player pay management.

Rasputin believes our players need to be stronger and better conditioned.

Gavin Rich believes our players need to think a little harder and Dan Retief wondered if our players had the brains to do that.

And there are a vitriolic bunch of forum commentators such as Tackler that scream quotas in their bitter voices.

Our rugby has many other issues, such as violence and poor facilities, but if we have only limited resources and need to pull some big levers to change things, which ones should we choose?

Competition structure

I believe we're stuck with the bloated Super 14. I think the way of dealing with this might be indirect. Let's limit the Currie Cup A-section to 6 teams playing one another on a round robin basis, with a final and semi-finals, bringing in the Spears. The top 5 teams go through to the Super 14 the following year. This would ensure that there are no protracted arguments about promotion relegation as the promoted team and relegated team would have played one another during the round-robin.

The B-section is a bit of a headache and is where the scope for radical action lies. Can we afford a B-section provincial set-up and to strengthen our club rugby? I doubt it. Of course, not having a B-team for the A-section teams makes succession planning and talent spotting difficult.

Perhaps the way to go is to have the provincial B teams playing in a localised club competition during the Super 14. This allows the exposure of clubs to senior level rugby and should see the provincial B team emerge as the winner. But the kicker is that the winner goes into a national championships taking place during the Currie Cup and held as curtain raisers to the big 6. This does offer a carrot to clubs to perform.

Perhaps the top two B-teams / clubs could represent us in a global competition.

I am not sure we can afford a major intercontinental club championships. I also think our clubs need to bridge a divide between age-group rugby and provincial rugby - not themselves be elevated to super status.

I think the solution to this one is complex, but I do believe it involves holding our Super 14 teams accountable for performance (through relegation), making our Currie Cup more focused and raising the visibility of our clubs.

Restructure the pay pool

Again difficult to do, because unions will argue that how they structure their pay pool is up to them. SA Rugby might argue that they deserve a say due to the allocations they dole out.

I think the essence of a solution is to treat the pay pool on a portfolio basis. A portion should be allocated to contracted Springboks, a portion to contracted provincial players, a portion for promising players, and a portion for performance.

That last portion is the big deal. Making it meaningful means impacting the other portions. There are only two ways of doing this - reduce the number of contracted players or reduce the amount you pay them. I would argue for the former. We have to make contracts lucrative to keep our players in South Africa. Now imagine if a player can become wealthy through being contracted and competition winnings. More to play for for everyone.

I understand SA Rugby operates on a similar basis to this at the moment, but I doubt the performance based portion is big enough. And, vice versa, I think too many players are too secure in their contracts.

A sidenote to this is that I think a portion of the Springbok budget must include money to buy Springboks out of Super 14 and provincial games. This together with the right to do so, would give our coach more say about the amount of rugby our players play.

Situate a national academy at the promoted Super 14 province

This should be for the entire year (Super 14 and Currie Cup) and players in the national academy should be available to the promoted team in both competitions.

Other unions should be required to name a squad of a certain size for their season and players outside of this should be eligible to train with the academy (I believe our Super 12 teams operate like this - hence the use of Grant Esterhuisen and Willem Stolz by the Stormers).

Should a more sophisticated draft system be used, I believe it might target 1 top player from each province. Targeting development players will not work - it removes the incentive for a province to invest in development - a complaint we are already hearing.

Jake White should direct the academy (perhaps not being available full time).

Coaching

Jake White does not want a director of rugby for South Africa. Given his success, he has perhaps earned the right to call some shots.

Clearly though, SA skills and perhaps coaching are not up to scratch. Perhaps something can be done to make provincial coaches accountable to White for players skill levels and fitness. The most practical way to doe this is to give White a say on their pay review meetings. If coaches were aware that White had a say in their bonus, they might be more cooperative.

This cannot be one way traffic. White must be required to give coaches monthly feedback and scoring during the year.

Governance

The most difficult yet crucial issue of all.

What we have does not work. It is biased to the interests of the majority by number and mitigates against the success of the best outcomes.

I believe a modified corporate board structure might work. Rather than partisan regional representatives, perhaps members can be elected representing constituencies. Those that spring to mind are: the players, the sponsors, the coaches and the referees. It is difficult to see how fans / supporters can elect a representative, but perhaps someone, somewhere is aware of somewhere, perhaps in soccer, that this is done. But sponsors should have supporter's interests in mind.

What is clear is that our regional representation does not work and results in sub-optimal decisions.

Conclusion

There are many issues in SA Rugby. Radicalism must be managed with caution. But this may be the last season the watching fans and sponsors maintain their support.

The chance of radical change is limited given South Africa's rugby governance system. The chances of a criminal voting for the death penalty are slight.

Will SA Rugby see the potential of an implosion made of deserting fans and sponsors? I am sure it is coming.

Are South Africans chokers?

2006-03-13T14:17:00.000+02:00

Picture: media24

How were those Proteas!!! Truly the most amazing one-day cricket match in history.

But what a paradox. Compare this to their failure to drive it home in the third and fourth matches - where they lost their 2-0 advantage to go into the fifth and final match 2-2. Given the final, I'm sure at least one person muttered something about the box-office convenience...

And compare it to the diabolical Stormers, who have squandered commanding positions in three matches to lose. I was still bruised from Saturday night's disaster (final minute Stormers loss to the Hurricanes) when I endured the Australian batting innings in Sunday's match. Well, actually I got some chores done 'cause I couldn't bare to watch. Luckily I thought, I'll just watch the beginning of the SA innings...

When I was at school, we had a British cricket pro who assisted all the coaches with specialist instruction. I remember his departure speech, as he left to return to the UK, "South Africa seems to have unbelievable talent - just a lack of killer instinct."

It was amazing leaving school and playing club rugby. Guys who had been in opposing teams that had whipped us were suddenly team-mates. Combined with the fact that we were the strongest club in the Western Cape, this had an amazing effect on my self belief. First you realise that these guys who seemed invincible were just human. Secondly, you run onto the field with the expectation of winning - losing would be unacceptable, never mind unexpected.

The Sharks have imported Tony Brown. What would the effect of someone like Chris Latham (rated the world's best fullback, but in one of the bottom-placed teams on the Super 14 log) be on a South African team with ability but apparently lacking self-belief - like the Stormers? (Never mind the cringing thought of those Latham post-try celebrations for the moment).

Today newspapers are comparing the Cats under Laurie Mains - Super 12 semi-finalists - to the Cats under anyone else - nowhere men.

Oh what a difference De Villiers makes!

2006-03-11T20:45:00.000+02:00

My word. The first 30 minutes of today's Stormers vs. Hurricanes match were some of the best SA SuperRugby I have seen. The second phase ball was quick, the handling was silky, the home team respected possession - wonderful!

Within that first 30 minutes, the Stormers had spread the ball wide 8 times to the 2 of the Hurricanes. Players combined for the first time this season as wings cut round to join the line, forwards supported the backs, all in all wonderful.

As the Hurricanes came back, the Stormers defended as though they finally had a pattern and you could see the impact of players understanding their role. It enabled De Wet Barry to come into his own as he made some bone shattering hits. The confidence told as Schalk Brits and Ross Skeate combined to copy Friday's Waratahs' move - Brits getting a return from the top of the line out to charge down the touchline and score in the corner - it was wonderful.

The second half was predictably tighter. The Stormers cut down on the flair and the Hurricanes swung the very little ball they had down the line - always looking dangerous. The Stormers defensive scrambles resulted in a huge number of lineouts to the Hurricanes - who fluffed more than they won. If it were not for this, the amount of possession going to the Hurricanes would have been enormous.

As it was, the Hurricanes retained ball well when they had it, but more importantly, made good ground in each phase.

The Stormers defense began to look all the more frail. It took a magnificent effort from De Villiers to chase down Nonu from behind, but eventually the Stormers could not hold out the Hurricanes in the corner.

Leading by a point with five minutes to go, you would have bet on the Stormers to take it after dominating most of the match. But when the Stormers have played defensive rugby this season they have looked poor. They did again, missing four tackles to allow the Hurricanes in again. 23 - 19. Not wonderful.

Where did it go wrong? Some unconverted opportunities in the first half where the Stormers should have scored at least one and possibly two tries. They were blown a number of times for slowing the ball on the ground. They conceded huge amounts of ground to rolling malls. And they showed their usual inability to close out the tight match. And kicking away possession - Werner's chips were anticipated. And Grant's line kicking needs to punish the opposition. Bolla's kicks over the top for touch were inadequate.

Massive amounts to be positive about, but the Stormers need some harde-gat attitude to take them to the next level. Some increased match fitness for De Villiers and Joubert will also help. But time is ticking before they begin the mission impossible - the Australasian road trip.

Can South African sides turn it around?

2006-03-11T14:49:00.000+02:00

Picture: Supersport

Oh man. It is demoralising being a South African during SuperRugby season.

This is my first post in a while. Frankly, there has not been a lot to write about.

I was at two of the Stormers' early matches of the season. I watched the first at Ellis Park and flew to Cape Town to watch the third.

I feel I have every right to be angry as a Stormers' supporter.

But I wonder if that is part of the problem with SA supporters and coaches. It is interesting to contrast someone like Rassie Erasmus with Nick Mallet. See the effect on Gaffie du Toit. It is a well known fact that Nick Mallet thinks that Gaffie is the most limited rugby player on the SA scene. Getting away from Nick has done Gaffie the world of good, and he is looking rejuvenated again.

But that doesn't explain all of it, because Gaffie got more than a fair share of support from Carel du Plessis and he was pretty kak then.

On the subject of Carel, I wish he was somehow involved with WP/Stormers rugby. Kobus van der Merwe and Gary Gold appear to be doing wonders with the forwards, but the backs are looking the worst they have in many years. I felt that Carel often got a raw deal when involved with the Boks (especially) and WP (although I think Gert Smal deserves a fair share of the blame there).

The Stormers backs look worse than an average school side. It must be said that injuries to Marius Joubert and Jean de Villiers have been the major contributor - although, given Marius' form last year, maybe that is just the De Villiers' injury.

However, the point is that the Stormers line has looked absolutely woeful, and the locus of the problem rests squarely around Gus Theron. It is absolutely shocking that a player can have a record like his and still be backup in a Super 14 side. His defensive running has put the whole Stormers line out of alignment. His fumbles have caught on and now seem part of the Stormers game. How can the Stormers excuse this. Not only does his selection mean that there is no better player in the Western Cape, but given the draft system, no better player elsewhere in the country. I just don't believe that. I remember Grant Esterhuizen being used through the draft two years ago and being the stand out player in the Stormers line. If that doesn't present a solution, then why has Werner Greef not been moved to outside centre and a replacement fullback found?

On the subject of Werner, these return chip kicks are now so well known (they were well known three years ago) that it is now a opposition tactic to kick downfield, chase hard, and collect Werner's return chip. Not only that but the disease has caught - De Wet's chip resulted in the beginning of the end for the Stormers last week - it resulted in a 70m opposition try.

While the improvement in the Stormers forwards has been pleasing, I don't think that the experiment of Schalk Burger at blind-side flank is working. Certainly Luke Watson is enjoying his run at open-side. I still believe Schalk's best position might be eighth man. He has many qualities that remind me of Tiaan Strauss. And frankly, Adri Badenhorst has looked below his best there this season. Even when Big Joe returns, I'd like to see him at blind-side and Schalk behind the scrum.

Apparently Nick Mallet conducted a video session (in Kobus van der Merwe's absence - where the hell was he?) with the Stormers on Monday after the Highlanders' match. He pinpointed a first tackle miss rate of close to 50%. He also pointed out that the Stormers were overcommitting to the rucks.

I can't argue with the missed tackles - the Stormers have been woeful on defense this season. I'm not sure whether to be upset or delighted with the forwards in the rucks though. I believe that South Africa's biggest issue on attack is slow second phase ball.

The Sharks' loss against the Brumbies today showed exactly this. Our attack looks prosaic. By the time the ball is cleared to the backs, opposition teams are lined up and pick off our attacking runners. It was delightful to watch Tony Brown and Ruan Pienaar combining on the loop around to put Ndungane away - and the stunning pickup by Adi Jacobs to score. It was without doubt the best bit of attack from a South African side this season. Sadly, the Sharks slow ball killed other chances of attacking success.

I must say, that despite the Sharks strong defensive showing, I think Adi Jacobs and Henno Mentz are frail in defense and opened things up for the Brumbies.

But the best thing about today was the difference in attitude from the Sharks coaching staff to the pathetic comment from Kobus van der Merwe. Dick Muir called a win against the Brumbies this week. And the way the Sharks started, you could see the players believed it. Van der Merwe phoned the Boots and All studio to call their criticism of the Stromers' performances unfair - after all, "the Stormers are building a young side." Naas Botha correctly challenged this and said the place to do that was in the Currie Cup, not the Super 14.

Rassie Erasmus is another coach who could turn things around - he's not looking for any excuses for the Cheetahs in their first season of Super 14.

Sadly in the post match commentary, AJ Venter was happy, praising his young inexperienced side's performance. Contrast this to the comment from Brendan Cannon - part of the Western Force in their first season of SuperRugby - "Ah, mate - every week there's something positive - but that's not good enough, we need to be winning."

By all means, let's keep it constructive and build the confidence of our young layers, but let's see some acocuntability for poor performances too. If these were businessmen, they'd be out of jobs. In South Africa, we've seen the big unions close ranks against the new relegation format. Personally, I'd have loved to see relegation. Sure it would be sad to see Ellis Park not hosting Super 14, but is it good to see their non-committed abject performances there instead? Let's see some consequence for poor performance rather than gifting players like Jorrie Muller a salary for weekly shockers.

Miles behind the All Blacks

2005-11-27T11:55:00.000+02:00

Photo: www.sarugby.com / Touchline

The signs were there in the Argentinean match. They were still there in the Welsh match. The signs that the Boks were below par and would struggle against the French were proved true in last night's match.

Jake White has mentioned the performance of his backs after each match. He should examine that of his forwards more closely.

I often talk about how loosies should be tied together with an invisible piece of string. Loosies hunt in packs. The French pairing of Nyanga and Remy Martin showed the Boks how it is done last night. Schalk tried hard. Our man of the previous two games, Juan Smith, was strangely quiet. And Jacques Cronje was his usual failure at international level.

South Africa is desperately missing Joe van Niekerk. Wikus van Heerden would have been a better option in the loose trio. That would have meant that Juan Smith would have had to move to eighth man. Or Solly Tsibilyka, meaning Schalk Burger would have had to move to eighth man. Frankly, both of those options would have been better, and, I must say, pretty exciting.

But just as loosies hunt in packs, so tight fives need to work as a unit. Someone on the Keo site commented that he hoped the Bok tight five would be covered by "die spreekwoordlike kombers, maar teen die Walise het dit gelyk asof Percy dit gedra het toe hy by die kant van die veld gewag het" (the metaphorical blanket, but against the Welsh, it looked as though Percy was wearing it while he waited at the side of the field). Last night it looked as though the blanket had got completely lost. The tight five were abysmal as a unit. They struggled to keep momentum going in the scrums, they were pathetically absent in getting stuck in at the rucks and mauls and they failed to consolidate line out ball. All this resulted in massive pressure on their half backs, and shocking ball for the backs. When you get the ball on the back foot, you usually have to bash it up or kick for position. Our inexperienced half backs chose to put up the high ball - with the help from Montgomery.

While Matfield and Botha are the best lineout combination in the world, they are piss-poor in the tight-loose. Jake White once sent Matfield home from Australia due to his patchy contribution. Maybe it is time he had another one of those talks.

Os is an injured man. He talked about the management of his crocked knee in the SA Rugby magazine. He is not managing it. Watch him between scrums and you will see a noticeable limp. The bullocking runs of yesteryear are distant history, and SA should look elsewhere for the 2007 world cup.

John Smit looks tired and it is influencing his ability to contribute and marshal his troops on the field. I believe Schalk or Monty should be given greater vice captain responsibilities. It would allow Smit to be rested or substituted. After the Tri-Nations we know Smit is our best, but the pressure has taken its toll.

Our half backs were a disaster. I am a big fan of bringing in Bosman as a bet on the future. But Michael Claasens is not international class. Add to the woes the dismal efforts of the forwards in protecting him and the guy didn't have a chance. I cannot see how Jake White could talk of making space for Claasens due the benefit of keeping his Free State combination together. Hardly a combination - Bosman has hardly played with the first fifteen. The writing was on the wall early on, and Jake White's shocking record of poor use of substitutions continued - Bolla should have come on.

I was so happy to see Monty's driving tackle on Thomas Castaignède early on. Monty's defence has been robust over these last two matches. But it was to a false sign of things to come. Monty's kicking out of hand and at posts was poor. He was not as abysmal as some have made out and hardly worth the mention Jake White gave his lack of practice leading up to this match. Look elsewhere, Jake. But all the same, not the performance we needed from the senior pro. Towards the end of the match, Monty started to take the ball at flyhalf, and the line looked instantly better. It would have been good to see more of this throughout the match. In fact, when Monty put up his hand after Pretorius' injury, he should have been given the flyhalf job. It would have been good for a player looking to contribute more, and perhaps the better option than giving Bosman almost 160 minutes.

It is difficult to comment on the outside backs, other than to say De Villiers defended well and Fourie's try was well executed. Other than that they did not see much of the ball.

The French were good. Not brilliant, but certainly better on the day. Yannick Nyanga and Jean-Baptiste Elissalde were something special and are stars of the future. Frédéric Michalak is quite a general for someone so young. But other than the fact that the French have their traditional flair and punish on the counter attack, the Boks have more star potential.

And that is why this loss is more galling. If the Boks are to challenge the All Blacks for number one, they can only lose to the brilliant performance of an opposition rather than their own sub-standard play. The All Blacks have become clinical. When they play a sub-standard opposition they play the same rugby they dish up against the best. By comparison, it is difficult to know which Bok team will turn up for a match.

An unconvincing start to the tour

2005-11-06T00:29:00.000+02:00

The first match of an away tour is critical. It sets the pace for the remainder of the games and lets the team get a feel for playing with one another again.

The Argentinean match will have left the Boks with more questions than answers.

Jake White was wrong to start with an all new back row today. Combinations make teams look good, and the loose forwards should be tied together with an invisible piece of string.

Having said that, White did not have much choice after the injuries to Big Joe and Pedrie Wannenburg. But I would have started Schalk today. Perhaps the way to bring in Solly Tyibilika (a good player who deserves some game time) would have been to start Schalk as eighth man with Solly and Juan Smith as flanks. Or to have started with Juan Smith, Schalk Burger and Jacques Cronje and bringing on Solly in the second half.

But one of South Africa's most established combinations looked jaded and in Bakkies Botha's case, invisible. Victor Matfield began to show some class in the second half.

John Smit also looked a shadow of the player who silenced his critics in the Tri-Nations. He missed a tackle on Contempomi that resulted in a crucial Argentinean try. It was a shocking attempt.

When the forwards look poor it is difficult for backs to look good. Bolla will be disappointed with his return to the Boks with an up and down performance. It showed why Neil de Kock was the preferred choice for Western Province during the Currie Cup.

Andre Pretorius' injury is nightmare stuff for Jake White. Nightmares because Brent Russell did not show the tactical nous required to step up to the plate. White might be forced into selecting Monty at flyhalf rather than blooding Bosman for the Wales match. He needs a cool head and strong boot at flyhalf and Monty is one of his few options.

The Boks talked of using today's match as a true test of their forwards' strength and a good chance to prove their backs could attack through phased play. Yes our front row and set scrum looked good. But that's where it stopped. If the backs were going to create, they need the forwards to show some patience in setting up the phases. They needed to use their wings the way the Aussies use Taquiri and the All Blacks use Rokocoko by bringing them off the blind side and into the line on attack. When Habana joined the line in the flyhalf channel, he kicked the ball.

Today was not a disaster because the Boks were pushed by an Argentinean side that has beat the French and pushed the All Blacks close. It was a match that is cause for grave concern because it was a match that the Boks needed to get things right in, against a strong side. They needed to get things right in order to know themselves better. So that they could perfect things against Wales. So they are prepared for the French.

Two quick things...

2005-10-01T18:55:00.000+02:00

Grant Esterhuizen is one of the most underrated centres in SA rugby. Sad. He is the ultimate trier - gives 110% every time. I'll never forget his season for the Stormers through the draft - he made a real difference.

I imagine it must be difficult being a player like Esterhuizen. Good enough to compete at the top, but not quite good enough to be first choice. Tough on one's psyche and finances I'm sure.

Juan Smith is THE man - his support running is outstanding - as seen in his pickup of a ball that bounced off Kabamba Floors back!

Good game. Bulls number one side in SA, Free State number two - despite this loss.

Have Province got a hope of winning the Currie Cup?

2005-10-01T16:50:00.000+02:00

It is fairly well known that there is bad blood between the sea-side cousins from Western Province and Natal. Apparently, things culminated in the signing of a Natal boy (Bob Skinstad) and the "theft" he inspired of the Natal black for the Stormers’ jersey.

These bad tempers and Frederico Mendez's shocking line out throws conspired to make the first 40 minutes of today's Province Natal match some of the worst I've seen at this level.

It is difficult to blame Tappe Henning for the poor flow of the game - most agree that the best a referee can do is blow the game. It is amazing, however, that SOuth Africa's most pedantic ref attracts these error filled games.

Bringing Shimange on after 30 minutes must represent a lifeline to the Bok reserve hooker. His first line out was solid, but his scrumming was instantly shown as inferior to both Mendez and his opposite number on the day, his Springbok captain and opposition for the Bok jersey, John Smit.

Mendez has been a revelation in the way he has transformed the Province scrum. His low packing has resulted in opposition struggling for power. Just as the Argentinean "Bajada" was inspired by their German coach, let's hope Mendez can impart the technique to Shimange.

But today's match is concerning. Concerning because of the gulf between the number one side in the country, the Bulls and the apparent number two, Western Province. The gulf exists because of a number of factors:

Poor tackling (example: Seconds' poor position on Reese allowing the big Natal centre to drag him 15 meters over the goal line).

Abysmal support play (exemplified by the loss of a possible two tries due to lack of support at the breakdown - once in the 28th minute as Gus Theron sped to within 20 meters and no one had run up in support to protect and recycle the ball, and again in the 35th minute as a Province ruck within 10 meters was turned over)

Poor phase play (WP have potent backs, but their lack of successful penetration off primary phase ball is because it is off primary phase ball - their success is almost always from counter attack)

50/50 play (as demonstrated by Schalk Burger's poor pass to De Villiers that resulted in a Sharks' try).

The Egon Seconds show in the second half aside, this match left as many question marks as the WP win over Natal at Newlands. In addition to some good grubbers, Grant and De Kock played well for position. But the quality of the game was hardly much better.

If Province make these mistakes against the Bulls in the loose - like they did last week - they are going to get hammered should they play them in the final.

All that aside, I do feel sorry for Neil de Kock. Scrum and fly halves typically look as good as the quality of ball they receive. Neil de Kock played exactly that well today, as he struggled to fight off marauding Natal players at the loose. Frankly maybe he played a bit better.

For Natal, there is not much to be said. I worry about the enigma that is Monty, however. He had two vintagely shocking moments under the high ball today, and then an equally vintage moment 15 minutes into the second half, as he backed himself and ran through the Province line. Come on Mont, get your head together. With your growing maturity and solid kicking, South Africa needs more of your sniping runs - and some guts and presence under the high ball.

The whole Russell debate was given some resolution today. It seemed that De Wet had been given the task of marking him. Twice Barry expertly took him around the ankles – despite the difference in pace between the two. I wonder if South African rugby can provide the play that creates opportunities for game breakers. Witness the marking of Monty after his match in Edinburgh. It poses some questions for how we use De Villiers and Habana going forward. But I believe that Russell’s brilliance and lack of ideas as to how to put him into space have resulted in the end of his international aspirations.

Today's game also asks some real questions about whether South Africa can field five competitive sides for the Super 14. It remains my opinion that a Super 10 was the best format for the competition - less rugby for our tiring players and higher quality.

Well done Bully Boys

2005-09-17T19:50:00.000+02:00

Zhahier Ryland tackles Akona Ndungane
Photo: Rugby365.com

As a Western Province and Stormers supporter, I am glad I didn't go to Loftus tonight. My wounds from the 75 - 14 thrashing dished out in April are still healing, and witnessing tonight's mauling first hand (and amidst 45 000 howling mad Bulls fans) would have been too much.

The Bulls were close to perfect tonight. Their handling of the first 20 minutes appeared to leave the Province boys confused and awestruck. The Bulls were content to let WP play the ball and then kill them in the rucks and mauls. It was a strategy akin to the Boks' play in the Tri Nations. Except that this time, the Bulls had the dinosaur pack like the one Jake White tried in Sydney - and they worked. They were immense. Danie Roussouw, Victor Matfield, Kees Lensing, Pedrie Wannenberg and Anton Leonard knocked the Province forwards out of their socks in rucks and mauls. Their ferocity was such that it looked like a game of men versus boys. It was here that WP lost the game. They never looked like scoring or retaining multi-phase possession. In desperation they resorted to kicking for position, but inevitably lost ground against the Bulls from resulting lineouts and defensive play.

An additional factor that worked for the Bulls was Derick Hougaard. He started tentively and De Wet Barry looked to pressurise him - but only really succeeded with one hit. Hougaard grew more slef assured as the match wore on and started succeeding with his familiar raking kicks.

In contrast to the rucks and mauls, WP dominated the Bulls pack at scrum time. Frederico Mendez is immense and has clearly taught the WP pack that technique wins over size. Central to this appears to be a low hit and body position. Inevitably this results in the opposing front row dropping their shoulders below their waists and either losing power or collapsing the scrum. Jonathan Kaplan's reading of this was excellent. The WP forwards also contested well in the lineouts, even stealing some of the Bulls ball. But scrums and lineouts are where it ended for Province.

Psychologically, it seems that after being hit back every time they touched the ball in the first 20 minutes, the WP boys gave up. Certainly, after conceding two tries before half time, they were up against it and didn't look like they believed they could win.

As good as the Bulls forwards were, so was the performance by Werner Greeff, Gus Theron, Bolla Conradie and Gaffie du Toit bad. Werner Greeff had clearly not recovered from his sternum injury and should not have played. His lasting contribution to this match will be his truculent flinging away of the ball in touch, that led to a penalty and ultimately the second try for the Bulls. It was the turning point of the match and it was typical of the "brain explosions" that he and De Wet suffer from. De Wet was restrained however and did not respond to constant Bulls niggling. Greeff could have learnt from him.

Gus Theron's contribution was an early hit that saw the Bulls get a penalty 10 metres from the Province line, a ridiculous scoop of the ball from the bottom of a ruck (in front of the touch judge) and a poor handling mistake right at the beginning of the match. There is no ways that Theron deserves another starting place in the WP team. He has been seen as a stand-in for all the years he has played in the team and has never put up his hand to prove this otherwise.

Gaffie looked as though he would rather not be on the park - probably dreading doing anything to deserve another Mallet tongue-lashing in the change room. It is unlikely that Mallet possesses the self-restraint or motivational skills to build up a player who is falling apart. He is in fact renowned for the opposite. This said, Carel du Plessis is precisely the coach to build a player, and he could not succeed with Du Toit. Someone else deserves a chance as the WP challenger for the number 15 jersey.

Conradie responded to the Bulls niggle by trying to take on the Bulls pack himself. He wasn't going to contribute anything to the game that way and the contrast from De Kock's performance signalled a WP side that had given up. Conradie must now be allowed to play some club rugby prior to his Free State move and give up his bench position for Paul Delport. Thought might also be given to Tertius Carse - someone who I believe remains one of the most underrated scrumhalves around. His pace to the ball is fantastic and service is great.

Shimange looks like a player short of game time - his throwing in was woeful. If he cannot be guaranteed a start, he must get more time on the park in some club games.

The WP backs hardly saw the ball. The only noteworthy performance was by Peter Grant. His distribution is something special. He made some snap passes as well as 10m long efforts that went straight to hand. It was a pity that the WP runners could not do them justice by finding some space to run into. Even Zhahier Ryland, who looked dangerous when he got the ball was quickly shut down. The youngster tried hard though and in addition to his sparkling side steps, made all his tackles. He is someone to invest in.

But the closing comment must be congratulations to the Bulls. They seem to live for their matches against the Streeptruie at Loftus. They lived up to their nickname and bullied the WP players off the ball. They played this niggle as much as the referee would allow and as such showed street smarts that the growing WP pack could not match.

If this match was a prelude to the final, then the WP have work to do.

Awesome Currie Cup action

2005-09-10T23:04:00.000+02:00

Northern hemisphere teams readily criticise the "basketball rugby" played during the Super 12 and Tri Nations. The return to classic test rugby in this years' Tri Nations is contrasted by a effervesant style in this years Currie Cup top 8.

When looking at the scoreline from Friday's match between the Leopards and the Cavaliers (the Leopards shaded the Cavaliers by 50 to 47) one would be forgiven by questioning the quality of defence and the game in general. But what a game of rugby! Whilst I'll disagree with Joost pretty often, he was dead right when he said at the end that it was a pity there had to be a loser. There are some fantastic youngsters coming through the ranks. Jongi Nokwe is something special, and plans must be made to include him in the Springbok squad for the end of year tour.

Photo: Supersport

Talking of wings, Zahier Ryland's explosion onto the scene against the Lions was something to behold last weekend. He lacks height though and he will have to put in many a telling tackle to convince people that he is a top-class contender.

The champagne rugby being played has also proved to be the release of De Wet Barry. He was special against the Lions last week. He was explosive against the Sharks this week. Inside him, Peter Grant has begun to blossom. I wonder how much of an impact the skills of Andre Pretorius and Jaco van der Westhuizen are stifling the Boks on attack. Of course international players are going to have more space in the local competition, but the way our backs have been shut down (including the highly creative Jean de Villiers at 12) when they have made their limited attempts at primary phase attack, one has to look for some weakness.

Photo: Rugby365

De Wet's revival has accompanied the explosion of the Western Province backline and today's performance by Jean de Villiers drew a lot on the attacking organisation laid by Barry on his inside. In fact, I am sure Jake White must be thinking of a possible alternative centre pairing with Barry at 12 and De Villiers at 13.

The WP coaching staff must also be congratulated. We saw the Province backs create tries through set pieces today. One move involved Barry on the drift with pop pass from Grant to De Villiers on the scissors. Simple stuff that saw the number 13 in under the poles. On another occassion, the loosies joined Barry in a midfield rush who then popped the ball to another back on the loop round. It was, however, a little worrying that Province took their foot off the gas a bit in the second half. They were even better than the score suggests - as were the Sharks poor.

Sadly today's matches saw some spoiling and bad tempered play by forwards. The Lions were lucky not to have multiple players sent to the bin for repeatedly killing the ball later in the match. It resulted in a match that promised much being reduced to a scrappy affair in the second half. The Cheetahs will have reason to feel aggrieved at the referee's repeated warnings but lack of action. They drew close but struggled against the spoling tactics of the Lions on defence.

This constrasted to the performance of Mark Lawrence at Newlands however. The four yellow cards were a bit of a joke. Especially since the offences that earned them seemed far less serious than offences that went unpunished. Twice the Sharks rucked the heads of Province players. Barry blatantly tripped a Natal player. Those were worthy yellows. Not those earned by Pienaar or Shimange. Poor Shimange must be wondering what he needs to do to spend time on the field.

Lawrence's reading of the scrum also left something to be desired. Early penalties against Eddie Andrews for collapsing the scrum were a load of rubbish and unfortunately just gave those less appreciative of Andrews' efforts and scrum-time laws more to chirp about. The introduction of Frederico Mendez at Province has clearly inspired a new lower packing scrum. Deon Carstens shouders were clearly below his hips - Andrews had nowhere to go but down. When Lawrence did get it right and asked Carstens to lift his bind, John Smit was immediately popped - a sure sign of a front row under pressure.

Province have some under-recognised loosies. Besides the talents of Luke Watson, Henrik Gerber and Adri Badenhorst are workhorses who combined with Joe van Niekerk to utterly dominate the breakdown against the Sharks today. Justin Melk looks to be a find, and with Schalk Burger gives the Province team an embarrasment of riches in this department. Ross Skeate is making fantastic strides and White must be watching him carefully as potential backup to the Tri Nations All Star pairing of Botha and Matfield. Together with Andries Bekker (unavailable through injury today), we may have another star pairing in the making.

The Lions also have some under-recognised forwards in Wikus van Heerden and Willem Stolz. We need to protect these guys and find them opportunities.

If Jake White wants to rest some of his stars, there will be opportunities on the end of year tour to blood some youngsters by either using his stars as impact players or playing them for the first 40 minutes and then bringing on the youngsters.

But the Boks are shining in the Currie Cup and hopefully creating confidence amongst the many new exciting talents around them. Let's hope this can carried forward to the Super 14. We got excited during last year's Currie Cup to be disappointed in this year's Super 12. Skill levels appear to be much higher though.

Two issues that bug me: I was at Ellis Park last week for what has historically been one of the biggest encounters of the year - the Lions vs. Province. Then, as today at the Newlands match, the crowd size was pathetic. SA Rugby, you'ce got to get the crowds through the gates. Local game time support relates to the health of the game outside of the stadiums. The second issue is the booing at Newlands. It started about 12 years ago. It greeted Montgomery's return as a Shark today. Skinstad and Krige appealed to the crowds in their time to stamp it out. It has sadly become typical behaviour. It has no place. Newlands used be known for its knowledgeable support.

Disappointed

2005-08-28T17:09:00.000+02:00

I was tempted to call this post "Chokers" - but chose the headline to rather describe my feeling. Is the term "Chokers" too harsh? Perhaps.

I will not go with the "glowing" posts of many other commentators though - the South Africans were poor against the All Blacks. I completely agree that the Boks showed good character to come back from an early deficit to lead the match with 4 minutes to go. Players never gave up and the opportunist tries of Bryan Habana and Enrico Januarie exemplified this.

But frankly, it did not look like the Springboks arrived at the match kick-off. It was not for nothing that the All Blacks sped to an early lead. To allow this and then rely on opportunist play to make up the deficit is too much to ask. The Boks looked flat. The commentators were at one point moved to note that it looked like Montgomery was labouring to get around the park at the back. But to blame one player (as some have done) is crazy. Everyone must stand up and accept their accountability - starting with the coaching staff.

In my post from earlier this week, I outlined some points on "How to beat the All Blacks". If I, as a merely knowledgeable supporter, could pick up some of the potential All Black tactics for the day, then surely so could our coaches. The All Blacks have been lauded for the execution of their close in attacks by Weepu and Collins. Both played well, and for my money Collins was the difference between the two sides' loosies. He is physical and sucks in defenders. But given the success of the Boks' rush defence, it was obvious that the Blacks would look to this tactic. Ditto with regard to McAllister's chips over the line - also predictable. Breyton Paulse's support at the back was missed and if anything this contributed to Monty's "overwork." Jean de Villier's hashed attempt to clean up when racing back close to the end directly led to the All Blacks' final try.

Montgomery nominated the All Black tactic of bombing him during this match beforehand. Yet his fielding of these kicks was pathetic. And his feeble attempt at a tackle after grassing one, directly led to an All Black try. I have seen Monty take up-and-unders, come down and spin out of tackles since school days. He can do it. All that said, Monty did a lot right yesterday - his kicking for position was pin-point, and his few misses at post were within allowable percentages.

But it is seldom that tests are won by backs alone. They rely on good primary phase possession. And our tight five were dreadful. They looked dog-tired and our set-pieces were shocking. Our scrums were wheeled at will, our lineouts were terrible and our cleaning out at ruck time was pathetic. The latter is not a first time occurrence during this year's Tri-Nations. I hope the backs give the forwards a bollocking when they sit in the video session and watch as three backs try and clear quick ball from a ruck after three phases of Bok possession. I count three to four Bok try scoring opportunities wasted during this year's Tri Nations due to exactly this.

I wonder, particularly, how Os, Smit, Matfield and Botha were trained this week. It has been a long series of matches since the beginning of the French tour. Either they trained too hard this last week, or better use should have been made of the Bok's reserve strength in this match. You have to feel for Os playing eighty minutes looking as tired as he did. Smit was continually popped at scrum time - a sure sign his props were under pressure.

I appear to be the only one who thinks that Jaco van der Westhuizen made the Boks look better than Andre Pretorius. I think his rotation for this match might have improved the look of the Boks tactics. That said, Jaco's tackling also needs some work.

Of the Bok loose trio, I thought Burger and Van Niekerk worked like trojans. Juan Smith tried hard, but fell off some tackles he should have made - notably that on Rokocoko that led to the flying islander's try. But then so had four other Boks. Burger was critical to the Springboks effort. He was courageous, hard working and disciplined, and to my mind, again shaded McCaw.

Well done to the All Blacks. They looked hungrier and played smarter. They made mistakes but less than the Boks.

This Saturday was the best chance yet for the Springboks to break the Dunedin duck - they had momentum, they were the defending champions and winning would have brought the Tri Nations and the IRB rankings top spot. They were also given a helping hand by another poor refereeing performance that seemed to favour them more than the All Blacks.

So yes, I am disappointed, but yet also excited. The Boks should get better from here. Jake White adopted a game plan that focused on winning first and then developing confidence, flair and style. He is still in position to do that as his players must take heart from the fact that they have only lost two matches out of eight on the trot against the All Blacks, Australia and the French.

How to beat the All Blacks

2005-08-24T19:57:00.000+02:00

This Saturday has me nervous. Nervous because chokers in the Springboks' position would fail this Saturday. The form side. Momentum - four matches on the trot. The Boks are playing classic test match rugby. Winning would close out the series.

Why am I nervous? Not many of the Boks have been in this position before.

So a change in game plan is not exactly a recommended option. But I believe that at this venue against this side in the context of this match, such a change is required.

I'm not going to talk about the obvious - the Boks must make their first time tackles, keep up their basics/ keep the mistakes to a minimum. And most obviously, look to pressurise MacDonald in his stop-gap role.

Bryan Habana makes a fearsome tackle against the All Blacks at Newlands in this year's Tri-Nations
Photo: SA Rugby

The first issue, is that despite the fact that no one has cracked the Springboks yet in this year's Tri-Nations, nobody executed anything like an opposing plan against it - that should change.

Resolution 1: anticipate the All Blacks game in the context of playing the Springboks in this, game 5 of the Tri-Nations, and the Boks confident about their defence. What can we expect? Well some of that depends on the weather. But let's put that aside - wet weather rugby is a known game, and typically the side that executes a 10-man game better and plays for position well, wins.

The Springboks can expect the All Blacks to try to bring their back three into the game. Doing this might create the space in the face of the Boks' rush defence. Look for Rocokoco to be brought through the number 10 channel. Look for the skip pass to Gear. Look for Muiliania running the reverse angle when coming from the back. I think Weepu is gaining in confidence and I wonder if he will make a few breaks. All you can ask is for the loosies to be ready to cover Pretorius in the channel, and for cover on the wing if the backline is "tackling in." First-time tackling is key.

Expect the grubber / chip - no one has properly executed a plan yet against the Boks' rush defence - it will mean that Monty and the blindside wing will have to do a lot of cleaning up. It may also force them to come up on defence, resulting in spaces for kicks for the wings to run onto, turning the Boks around. A Weepu box-kick might also cause problems. This will be the Bok nightmare. I believe they might have to mix it up on defence here. Be prepared to employ the drift defence on quick opposition ball and really punish the flyhalf and centres on slow ball. De Wet and the loosies will be key here. To combat the kick-throughs, Joe van Niekerk must hang back to clean up the short stab, and Monty and the wings must keep to their positions well. A long kick must be received and either punished through planned counter attack or a big punt for ground. Accuracy will be key.

The second issue is possession. If the Boks are going to ease the defensive burden and create more opportunities on attack, they will need to retain more ball. Resolution: continued execution of the basics - no knock-ons, no turnovers and lots of patience. Playing positional rugby will still be required, and the Boks should not be suddenly looking to attack from their own 22. But the Boks have yet to effectively employ the rolling maul - on a heavy field this might be key. Further, reverse passes from Pretorius to a breaking open-side flank and eighth-man might create some holes for the backs to look to run-off them. All of this will encourage multi-phase rugby. Will the Boks basics and patience stand up to a sudden increase in possession?

The third issue is variation on attack. Resolution: Don't get too fancy. Variation can be created by bringing Monty into the line as the attacking runner and not just to create space for the wings - his primary role on attack thus far. Ditto with bringing the blindside wing in on the loop around. De Villiers looks for work like this when he plays wing, so that might help. But I dream of seeing Habana coming round the scrum to join the line. Further, let's see Januarie use some of his pace around the scrum and working with his loosies to punch some holes close in. Ditto for use of the blind-side.

These are not radical changes in plan. Resolution two and three relate to the Bok's play on their own ball and in good field positions.

Issue 1 is major, however. I believe it is where the New Zealanders will ask the most questions. And it requires siginificant composure to execute an intelligent response to new forms of attack. I think the Boks response to a varied New Zealand attack will be key.

I'm calling it close. Dry game - Boks 24 - New Zealand 21. Wet game - Boks 19 - New Zealand 18. Some money on a draw might be good.

We'll take it

2005-08-21T18:34:00.000+02:00

John Smit and Jake White said: "It wasn't pretty but we'll take it."

It might not have been pretty, but it was damn exciting. Given that we watched the match at 12h00 on a Saturday here in South Africa, it feels like I've been in and out of celebration induced hangovers ever since.

Bryan Habana sprints away to score one of two 80m efforts
Photo: SA Rugby

Is this a Springbok win that we should take and forget about? Most definitely not. Many have written that the Springboks were lucky to win. But the same people said the Boks were lucky to win against the All Blacks and Wallabies in South Africa. And the truth of it is that, as in life, in rugby you make your own luck. The Boks played good positional rugby and preyed on Aussie mistakes. The thing about playing positional rugby and having a rock-tight defence is that you force the other side to take risks or into attritional mistakes. This was well demonstrated late in the match when the Wallabies first put 8 phases together, the Boks won a turnover, the Aussies won it back and then put together another 7 phases. Then they knocked on.

The South Africans, on the other hand, played calculating rugby. This was in turn epitomised when after failing to cross the Wallaby goal line after some time in their half, the ball was whipped back to Montgomery who slotted a monstrously long drop goal.

In fact, as Nick Mallet pointed out in his Sunday Times article, the victory could have been far bigger - the Boks left some points out there. Montgomery had an off day with the boot and the backline butchered a try by attempting a skip pass when a passing down the line would have taken adavantage of a four man overlap.

Further, in the second quarter, the Boks were on the Wallaby line. They took the ball into a ruck 5 metres short of the Aussie line - and just three green jumpers went in to clean out. Needless to say, the forwards in the backline did not get the ball.

And Nathan Sharpe and Daniel Vickerman ensured that the Boks did not have it all their own way in the lineouts - although some have speculated that Bill Young and Matt Dunning used underhand tactics to help reduce the South African lineout threat.

So the Boks could get better. No doubt. We are still waiting to see a repeat of set piece moves like that one that set Jaque Fourie away at Ellis Park. We are still waiting for the Boks to retain multi-phase possession in their opponents half - dominating possession and territory.

I'm not one to harp about referees - I generally feel that things even out in the end. And generally, I think both sides suffered at the SHOCKING performance of Alain Rolland. But it bordered on inept and if the wrong decisions had not evened out in the end, it could have cost one of the sides the match.

And honestly? The Boks' stars appear to have been in alignment during the Mandela series and Tri-Nations. From Mandela's support at the Ellis Park test to the injuries that hit the Wallabies prior to yesterday's match. But the Boks have played to their strengths. The good news is that those are the beginnings of what could be a great side. And this year's run might just ignite the self belief to make this side believe they are the best - rather than that they can beat the best.

A Test the Boks can't win?

2005-08-18T11:47:00.001+02:00

This Saturday's test against the Wallabies had all the makings of an epic. The Boks looking to extend their form at home to an away game of coming so tantilisingly close last year. The Wallabies coming back from stinging criticism of almost every aspect of their rugby and management - and a Sydney loss to the All Blacks.

But with injuries ravaging the Aussie line-up - particularly through the loss of the mecurial Stephen Larkham, this Perth test is turning into one of those similar to when a strong nation plays a weaker one: If you lose you're worse than hopeless, if you win in a closely fought match you should have whipped them, and if you whip them, it doesn't really count because they were so weak.

The loss of Stephen Larkham is the real worry for the Australians
Photo: Chris McGrath, Rugbyheaven

We're likely to hear some of that after the Perth test. Does it matter? Probably not.

The Springboks appear to be in a revival phase. Perhaps this signfies the end of a rebuilding phase. A rebuilding phase where players have been developed and moulded. A phase when a gameplan has begun to emerge. A phase where the team has begun to build confidence based on some good home victories and stability. Jake White's squad shows impressive depth. No injury would be absolutley devastating with the exception of Victor Matfield. This is indeed an enviable position.

An away victory against Australia will be critical for the development of the current Springboks' steel. After the Newlands win against the All Blacks a fortnight ago, Jake White mentioned what a big moment it was for some of the squad who had never been in a side that had beaten the All Blacks before. A win against the Aussies away will be another psychological boost to the growing team. It will put them in a confident position going to Dunedin where they will play the All Blacks.

Defeat to the Australians will, on the other hand, be disastrous. Observers will point to the under-strength Wallaby side; the home-away-from-home venue; the failure to capitalise on momentum.

It is a difficult position for the Bok management. They must inspire the Boks with confidence. But guard against overconfidence. They must banish self-doubt. But engender respect for their opponents.

This Wallaby side is fighting for the lives of its coach and captain. It will not be an easy victory.

My prediction? South Africa to win 28 - 21. Which means no bonus points and a lot required in Dunedin to retain the Tri-Nations trophy.

There's no business like show business

2005-08-13T13:59:00.000+02:00

Today's match was, on the face of it, all about Drew Mitchell, Lote Tuquiri and Joe Rokocoko. The three enjoyed much more space on attack than when anyone had played the Springboks (except for the Sydney Mandela Challenge match), and revelled in it.

Drew Mitchell made the first ten minutes Australia's and looked lethal whenever he got the ball - never more so than when he beat Dan Carter and went on to score. While the tide then turned and the All Blacks came back, Mitchell continued to look like the real deal throughout. Lote Tuquiri had only three chances during the match but ran through tackles on each occassion (five on one particular run).

Mitchell also ran the lines and channels I mentioned last week when I said I wished Montgomery would break through the close-in channels more. I hope he took some notes.

But the All Blacks came back from thirteen points to nil down through a calm self belief, the awesome efforts of their loose trio - and the brilliance of Joe Rokocoko.

For all the rubbishing in the press, Tana Umaga played a massive calming influence in the All Blacks backline. Not only is captainship tested in coming back from early deficits, but Umaga seemed to reorganise the All Black defence and make some big hits to lead from the front.

But I mentioned that this was "on the face of it" show business. The real story was about a set of forwards that made the Australian life miserable. Chris Jack was imperious in the lineout and showed just how good Matfield and Botha were for the Boks against the All Blacks last week. The entire New Zealand pack made the Australians' lives miserable and exposed the injury ravaged Ozzies lack of depth up front. But the All Black loose trio were fantastic and Soialo, Collins and McCaw put in massive hits, cleaned out the rucks and generally made sure the Australians looked increasingly gun-shy as the match went on. Again, this showed just how well the Bok loose trio played last week.

For the Wallabies, big questions will be asked of their depth as their injury list grew. Chris Whittaker eventually ended up as flyhalf as first Matt Gitteau and then Elton Flatley went off. It must be said that Elton Flatley looked fantastic on attack in the inside channel. He ran fanstatic lines and his distribution was just beautiful.

Gregan looked better today than he has looked against the Boks, but the knives will be out for the Ozzie captain and his coach.

On the other hand, Brendan Cannon looked piss-poor for the Wallabies when he replaced Jeremy Paul. He butchered opportunities as he took passes (or more accurately didn't) in the Wallaby line, made the Australian lineout problems worse and generally looked unhappy to be on the field. He emphasises the problem the Australians have in putting together a team for Perth next week.

My man of the match? Joe Rokocoko made it look easy for the All Blacks in the end. On counter attck or from latter phase rugby, Rokocoko can exploit the smallest amounts of space. He helped the All Blacks remember their strength - a back three that can punish the smallest mistakes. Hopefully he will help the Boks remember that the key to beating the New Zealanders is cherishing possession, minimising turnovers and counter attacking opportunities and closing down space.

The New Zealanders beat the Wallabies playing Super-12 rugby - 22 tackles were missed by the two sides in the first thirty minutes. You have to wonder how this will stand up to the classic test rugby style the Boks have adopted.

Today's result holds mixed news for the Boks. It gives New Zealand an away win and requires the Boks to win at least one of their away matches. The Boks will have to look for bonus points in both away matches to be assured of retaining their Tri-Nations crown. The good news is that the Boks confidence of winning away against the Wallabies must have leapt sky-high. They will in fact have to guard against overconfidence. Having dominated the All Blacks in Cape Town, the Boks will also be confident of beating the New Zealanders in Dunedin. They have not had too many matches in the land of the Silver Fern where that has been the case.

Time to get over the inferiority complex

2005-08-07T23:39:00.000+02:00

The world has stood up and taken notice. The Springboks are back and again a force in world rugby. Not because they have won three on the trot - for they have lost many more away from home. Not because they have a promising new centre pairing - for last year Marius Joubert won international awards. Not even because they have the best lock pairing in world rugby - although the benefits of this are clear to see throughout the Bok game.

The world has taken notice because there is a growing self belief. The Springboks might thank circumstance that their Tri-Nations has started with home matches. While they pushed the Aussies and the All Blacks away last year, they lost those close matches they should have won. The Wallabies and New Zealand were better teams this year, and hungry for victory against the Tri-Nations champions. Perhaps they were even indignant that bonus points separated 1st from 3rd in last year's competition, and sought to right unfortunate wrongs. But fortune continued to favour the Boks as they breathed deep from the aura of Mr Mandela. That win reawoke a pride again. A pride the Springboks have paid scant regard to over most of the post-isolation period. It also awoke a belief - a belief that a Springbok match is theirs to lose rather than their opponent's to take away. Perhaps that view was confined to their home matches, but it seems apparent now that the Boks belief has extended to a hunger for the overseas leg of the Tri-Nations. A hunger to improve on past efforts.

Jake White mentioned the importance of the event after the Newlands win. For many of his team who had played the All Blacks multiple times, this was a first win. It spoke of possibilities.

The world has greeted the win with enthusiasm too. Richie McCaw was moved to comment that this is the way Test Rugby should be. Wynne Gray wrote in the New Zealand Herald, that "The Springboks had no cerebral clutter at Newlands. They played with an unerring search-and-destroy purpose in defence. They were not mesmerised by the All Blacks' razzle-dazzle which flummoxed the Lions." He goes on to state that excuses that were raised for last year's away defeats do not wash this time round. Credit has been given where credit is due.

John Drake writes, also in the New Zealand Herald, that "For the second consecutive year, the Boks proved that a simple game plan, sound set pieces and ferocious defence is still enough to win test matches."

"Congratulations to Jake White for the tactics employed. Nothing much has changed from last year, except the South Africans seem to be growing depth in crucial positions."

The beauty of beating the All Blacks is that New Zealanders relish the contest. They sense the old foe is rising and are excited about test series with venom, substance and consequence. There is no whining, but instead acknowledgement (again John Drake): "In the loose, South Africa were fast and physical. Special attention was made of Richie McCaw, and his ability at the breakdown to force turnovers was largely negated. This was achieved by means foul and fair - but I've got no problem here. You get away with what you can. Again, take a bow Mr White. So the Springboks played a smart game and executed the coach's instructions to the letter."

By and large South Africans have grown confident behind their team. However, a few ascribe the renaissance purely to heart and passion. For sure, heart and passion have marked the South African efforts, but Jake White has based his team's success on more than this. Jake has built a game plan based on those old strategic foundations: exploit your own strengths and your opponents' weaknesses. The Boks have made a success of a plan based on brutal physicality, tight forward nous and unnerving pressure. This backed up by a reliable goal kicker. This is no inferior strategy - it is what has always won test match rugby. Peter Bills of the Independent News and Media clearly enjoyed a glorious test match - as did we all. His write up for the New Zealand Herald waxes lyrical over the Boks passion and the All Black's skill: "The wonderful invention and creativity in the New Zealand game was in a class of its own, hard as the Springboks tried to shut them down. They operated at pace and under the severest pressure, yet still they found space. Players spun, twisted and forced their way out of tackles and, joy of joys, the New Zealanders subscribed to that oldest of traditional values, namely, making the ball do the work. It was a delight to see. So, too, was their willingness to open up and attack even from their own line. Such a philosophy will serve them nobly in future."

I believe the Springboks' development will be based on responding to the contra-indication of these statements. Far too many people are implying the Boks have won (perhaps stated simply) because of brawn and despite lack of brains. Furthermore, they have directly indicated that the Springboks lack the skill of their more fancied opponents. Greg Growden of the Sydney Morning Herald simplifies the Springbok success: "The prime reason for the Springboks' third consecutive and important Test triumph is that their defence is so good."

It also seems that the Aussie media's fondness for their own is again on the increase as they remarkably begin to debase the South African success: (With regard to the Boks' defence) "But it is made even better by referees allowing them to get away with offside play. It is marginal, but too often the whistleblowers and touch judges give South Africa the benefit of the doubt." This will rile South African supporters who have felt that the Boks have received more than their fair share of referees' attention over the past few years.

The Boks must continue to play to their strengths. But to under-develop their attacking skills is to overstate a weakness. A visit to any of the top South African rugby schools and indeed, viewing the performance of the South African under-19 and under-21 world cup teams will draw your attention to the fact that South Africans can be mesmerising with the ball in hand. No one expects the Boks to suddenly take on the characteristics of Carlos Spencer and his magic back three. But the individual skills of Andre Petorius, Jean de Villiers, Jacque Fourie, Brian Habana, Breyton Paulse and Percy Montgomery speak volumes about the potential potency of the Springboks on attack.

Confidence is a wonderful thing, and I believe winning might ignite an offensive momentum that opponents will struggle to contain. Of course that will be built on the consistency of the Boks’ basic rugby skills.

Mission accomplished!

2005-08-06T17:08:00.000+02:00

The Boks had to win the Newlands test against the All Blacks to stand a chance of defending the Tri-Nations. Well done boys on your victory!

As Scott Johnson, the Australian video analyst for the Lions said, getting points on the board ahead of the All Blacks could rattle them. It certainly did. The importance of the Boks tactics today cannot be overestimated. It was clear that the instruction was to get into the All Blacks half and get points on the board. Andre Pretorius duly obliged and put over a drop goal. Good pressure, a Montgomery tackle and a De Villiers interception resulted in a try shortly thereafter. Together with a Mongomery penalty, the 13 - 0 lead knocked the All Blacks back out of their starting blocks.

The Boks constant pressure thereafter paid off, causing the All Blacks to become jittery, never more so than during the third quarter, when Daniel Carter knocked on a straight forward pass. It was clear he was keeping a half eye out for Bakkies Botha and Victor Matfield, both of whom played like loose forwards in terrorizing the All Blacks on defence. The pattern was set as early as the first five minutes when Matfield knocked the stuffing out of Byron Kelleher in a crunching tackle. This would eventually cause Kelleher to be replaced by Weepu.

Enrico Januarie was also a terrier on defence and appeared to sum up the Boks determination to win. It was apparent that the Boks walked out with this as their mission today, a plan on how to achieve it and belief that they would. This marks a major change in the Boks positioning in world rugby. They regard themselves as one of the best.

Schalk Burger made a welcome return today and exhibited fantastic self control. He was the workhorse as usual and made sure the Boks turned over more of the opposition's ball than their own. Joe van Niekerk played like an extra back on defence today and complimented Burger well. Juan Smith was a little quieter.

One characteristic marked a changed attitude: the battle for the loose ball today. The Boks clearly decided they were going to play the referee regarding Richie McCaw's tactics on the ground. They did and did well to milk a few penalties and free up more of their ball on the ground. Not that they were undeserved - McCaw plays as far beyond the law as referees will allow him. The changed characteristic is one of intelligence. The Boks clearly understood they would need to reduce the threat of Carter and McCaw and found ways of doing so.

The Boks played a much wiser kicking game today than was the case during their Mandela cup match in Sydney. They kicked more accurately for touch and found the space on the field. Once when Monty missed one of these touch finders it resulted in an All Black try. It marked one of two Montgomery faults during the day. The second when he failed to organise assistance during a place kick on the windy side of the field. By the time he did, he was hurried by the referee and missed the poles. His practice before the game should have told him that he needed someone to hold the ball on the tee. These two faults were really his only two on the day. Sadly the same could not be said for Pretorius, who appears to have been struck by the impression that the drop goal is always on. Misses cost his side possession and potential try-scoring opportunities. His outside backs were starved of attacking opportunities and this seems a waste given their potency.

The most glaring fault of the Boks today was the shocking cleaning out at ruck time and the mysterious slowness of Januarie to arrive. Good ball was often slowed or lost. The backs were sucked in to fill in for forwards waiting on the other side of the field.

The best of the Boks was shown in the lineouts, where Matfield and Botha continued to win on their opponents' throw. They poached four in total and only lost one.

But changed attitudes marked the continued rise of the Boks. The self belief was evident as early as the Haka, when the crowds' chants of Ole, Ole, Ole drowned out the All Blacks war cry. It showed that the Boks and their supporters have no undue respect for their opponents anymore and that they believe their home matches are theirs to bank.

The challenge is now to raise the levels of their game on the road. To be number one in the world, the Boks need to love traveling, soak up the occasion of opposing home crowds and continue to exploit their strengths and their opponents weaknesses.

Perth may provide them with the slight edge: while there are thousands of South Africans in the West Australian city, we have tended to falsely hold up the advantage as a third "home game." It is certainly not in a territory more closely aligned to rugby league than union, but the Bok management should exploit the myth as much as possible.

Man of the match: Victor Matfield has become the Bok talisman since returning from being dropped. He exhibits a native understanding of what will happen on the opponents’ line out throw, organises his fellow forwards and has upped his work rate so that he is a Trojan on defence and attack. His hits on All Black backs today and his continued organisation of our lineouts made a massive difference. Bakkies was the Supersport commentators' choice, but Matfield was the driving influence behind Bakkies' new renaissance.

Player ratings out of ten:

Mongomery 8

Montgomery has become the foundation of his team's confidence and poise. His reliability with kicks, improved tackling in defence, steadfast takes of the high ball and space creating joining of the line on attack create a base for his team mates to perform. Would have been a 9 but for his missed touch finder, under estimation of the wind (that resulted in the ball falling off the tee twice and the resultant miss of the rushed kick) and once losing the ball to a tackler - although he was somewhat isolated. I wish he would involve himself more on attack through entering the line earlier - perhaps taking the ball at flyhalf and looking to break through that channel.

Paulse 7

Limited opportunities but did what was asked and made huge ground with one touch finder in particular.

Fourie 6

No opportunities to speak of. Played a critical role in rush defence. Defence was read and skip pass resulted in the All Black try.

De Villiers 8

Created huge pressure through being in the opposition's faces the whole time on defence. Together with Monty's tackle, this resulted in yet another intercept try.

Habana 7

Made big tackles when they counted. Is becoming one of a solid back three with good positional play and lethal attacking skills.

Pretorius 5

His first drop goal was spot on as a tactic, the other attempts wasted Bok possession. His outside backs never saw the ball.

Januarie 6

Fantastic attitude, tigerish on defence. Mysteriously was exceptionally slow to clear the rucks from about the 10th minute until the end of the first half. He appeared to arrive late each time.

Van Niekerk 7

Awesome on defence. Closing in on his best form again. Should have been at rucks earlier to clean out.

Smith 6

Almost invisible today. Probably because he was one of the few in the rucks. As a result did not seem to have many hits in defence or opportunities on attack.

Burger 8

Well controlled return to the side. Fantastic on defence with some good hits. Out played McCaw on the day.

Matfield 9

Majestic! Awesome organisation of the lineout, huge, huge hits on defence.

Botha 8

Together with Matfield, ruled the lineouts and was big on defence. Was the main combatant with McCaw but controlled his aggression well.

Van der Linde 7

Made some big hits and scrummed well. Must now be the first choice on his side of the scrum.

Smit 9

Best game as captain. Managed the ref well, resulting in the calling of penalties against McCaw. Led from the front and carried the ball well. Must receive credit for our lineouts too. Could not have been easy throwing in on a windy Newlands day.

Du Randt 7

Good return from injury. Provided experience in the scrums and made some good cover tackles.

New Zealand looms...

2005-07-31T23:06:00.000+02:00

The upcomimg test between South Africa and New Zealand at Newlands has all the makings of a classic. With South Africa showing they can win with flair - and guts it out, and the All Blacks coming off their thrashing of the British and Irish Lions, the match could not be over-hyped.

This is a must win for South Africa. They are at home, they are coming off a high, they have shown they can win a close game. If they lose this match, they will embark on an overseas trip with their backs against the wall, with everybody reminding them of their lousy away record and knowing they must win with bonus points on the road to retain their title.

It is natural that Eddie Jones would talk up the standard of the Springbok game. He believes the All Blacks may suffer from overconfidence: "I think we need to see them play against this mob to see where they are up to," Jones said after presiding over consecutive losses to the Springboks on the high veld.

"They've (the All Blacks) definitely got a lot of confidence.

"It's interesting the way they are talking, how confidently they are talking, given they have come off the back of a series against what you'd have to term not particular high standard opposition."

Graham Henry has been particularly aware of the overconfidence of his rugby public - it will be interesting to see if he is more succesful at moderating the confidence of his team. It is always a difficult task to ensure you team is ready for reality rather than create elements of self-doubt.

The Springboks will take heart from the advice of Scott Johnson, who has coached alongside Steve Hansen at Wales and analysed the All Blacks when he assisted the Lions on their recent tour: "You might get them on an off-night, and they scare if they're not scoring points."

"They do scare, because they don't realise that sometimes you have to grind it out to win it."

"If it's a tough game, New Zealand start to doubt themselves."

Clearly New Zealand haven't had too many tough games recently.

It will be difficult to create that kind of pressure at Newlands for a number of reasons:

1. If it is wet, the game starts with 50/50 odds. The Boks are likely to pick Fourie du preez regardless, anticipating heavy underfoot conditions.

2. Kicking accuracy will be paramount. South Africa must dominate possession to avoid having to absorb massive defensive pressure. They will not want to play the ball from their own half, but should their kicking let them down, they face the strongest back three in world rugby running the ball back at them.

3. The chase will be critical. Daniel Carter is the best flyhalf in the game right now. If the plan is to kick it behind the All Blacks, cut down the angles and force a hurried kick into touch, the Boks will have to improve the chasing of the past three matches. It has been apparent that only Bryan Habana is following up. This even after the Boks picked this gameplan in Sydney and admitted they did not adequately pressurise the Aussie back three.

4. Defence, defence, defence. The All Blacks will be prepared for the rush defence and you can expect plenty of switches back inside and a few little grubbers. In addition, they are likely to emphasise Eddie Joans' complaint about the leniency of Paul Honiss' policing of the off-side line to this week's ref. Finally, if the New Zealand loose forwards break tackles, they are likely to put their runners away.

5. Cut down the errors. Typically the side that makes the fewest errors wins close tests - especially in wet weather. The Boks have cut down on the 50/50 passes - they will have to maintain the improved standard. If they knock-on with the line at the mercy, they are likely to lose the match.

6. Maintain the discipline. Juan Smith's petulant trip at a penalty restart could have cost the Boks a yellow card this last week. He and Schalk are likely to start against the All Blacks - they will have to be on their best behaviour.

7. Use the substitutes wisely. The Boks are playing three enormous matches on the trot with, in addition, only a week's break from Sydney.It is likely to be particularly hard on the tight five. It will be too late bringing on replacements with 10 minutes to go. White must make a plan if he brings on a reserve hooker. John Smit was exposed at prop on Saturday.

It promises to be an epic. I'm in a mild panic as I appear to have left getting tickets too late - Newlands is sold out. I'll be pulling every string over the next few days...

It is time to put the statistics right...

2005-07-30T23:50:00.000+02:00

Tri-Nations title wins:

New Zealand: 5
Australia: 2
South Africa: 2 (1998 and 2004)

South Africa has:

Finished at the bottom of the standings five times (consecutively between 1999-2003) in the nine-year history of the tournament.

Won the least games in the competition - 14 of 37.

Not won away from home since 1998.

A Classic Test!

2005-07-30T18:27:00.000+02:00

Test rugby was once a dour tit-for-tat affair. Today's test was much closer to that mould than the festival rugby we often enjoy in the Southern hemisphere.

It was an exhausting game to watch as the Boks and Wallabies traded blows. Tactical appreciation was far more in evidence than during the Mandela Cup and the ball was kicked far more. But it seemed that the Boks believed they could win and never looked nervous when the Wallabies edged ahead.

It seemed that the Australians had done their homework this time and for some reason remembered that Monty was once suspect under the high ball. Indeed, the first two kicks he recieved were a disaster for the Boks - the first hit Montgomery on the head.

But as the Boks never panicked, neither did Monty and his return to strength seemed as natural as the Boks scoring when required.

The Boks turned it on with a well worked try where first Habana worked his hands above the tackle well, threw the pass to Montgomery who drew his opposition to put Breyton Paulse into space to score. It was typical of the South African fullback this season - he has worked to put his backline into space and kept the ball alive. Today both wings joined him and came off their positions to create attacking opportunities.

Valuable lessons were learnt today. The Boks did not look as well oiled with Fourie du Preez at scrumhalf and neither did the loose forwards look was menacing with the combination of Smith, Van Niekerk and Cronje. The difference was marked when Enrico Januarie and Schalk Burger came on.

If the Boks are going to give Gary Botha some game time, they will have to do better than making do with John Smit at loosehead. His move caused problems in the Bok scrum, allowing the Wallabies to create signficant pressure on the South African put in.

But today was an important match. It was one that the South Africans seemed to control, rather than run away with. Ultimately this is they poise that the Boks will need to demonstrate again if they are going to win the matches overseas - and against the All Blacks.

You know the Wallabies are in trouble...

2005-07-29T21:36:00.000+02:00

...when their media start turning on them. Arguably the most parochial media in the world have turned on their own. Today's headline on the Sydney Morning Herald is entitled Wallabies Reach Crisis Point. Greg Growden is baying for blood. Far too often Aussie media ignore their shocking hypocrisy at calling for South Africans to be fined, banned, etc, or calling our players big dumb brutes. But it appears that the thoroughness of their defeat on the 23rd July 2005 has marked the beginning of some introspection. If that didn't do it, then the cover up of Matt Henjack's attack on team mate Lote Tuqiri appears to have done it. Finally, the idiocy of the team bonding exercise at Tank restaurant has embarrassed the Aussies. Aussies are deeply proud people and would have you believe they are all clones of Crocodile Dundee. He, by extension, is merely typical of them.

The difference however is that Croc Dundee's charm was in his self-effacing nature and down to earth character. As is the nature of most Australians. Perhaps this is why South Africans cannot bear it when they assume a pius and accusatory attitude. It does not become them.

Which is why Greg Growden believes that, "Somewhere in the high veld, Springboks coach Jake White, otherwise known as Sideshow Bob, is killing himself with laughter."

Growden believes that the reason for this, is that, "In one of the most lamentable weeks in the history of Australian rugby, the over-pampered, over-paid, over-and-out Wallabies have been accused of harbouring drunks, late-nighters and impetuous fools who need anger management counselling."

White has not said enough this week to be worthy of his Eddie-Joans-given nickname of Sideshow Bob. He has however reminded the Aussies of the 61-22 whipping that they received at Loftus in 1997. Growden recalls this as the match where some Aussies gave up so as to get rid of their coach. Funny, I don't recall that stunning bit of information. But perhaps it my own national bias that inspires me to remember Carel du Plessis' final match as coach where a group of young inspired choices ran the Aussies ragged.

I, for one, am thoroughly enjoying the Aussies recent journey of self discovery.

Perhaps what is more important though, is the Springbok's growing self confidence and their discovery that the Aussies are less than perfect. Now if only they would learn from that as they consider the All Blacks.