Nothing pasty about Poms
5 Feb 2006
Jake White would have been more concerned than Welsh coach Mike Ruddock at the 47-13 mauling of the Dragons at Twickenham. White plays the English twice this year and the 2003 World Cup hangover has finally been shaken off.
There were signs against Australia and New Zealand that England coach Andy Robinson was starting to find his feet and assemble an England pack around which a World Cup defence can be based. Those signs were even clearer on Saturday as England dismantled a Welsh team that crumbled in the last 20 minutes.
South Africa gave England a miss last year, but it may have been their best chance of breaking a Twickenham losing streak that dates back to 2000 when Harry Viljoen’s side lost 25-17. Since then the Boks have lost in 2001, 2002 and 2004. The last three results have been diabolical with scores of 29-9, 53-3 and 32-16 underlining England’s dominance.
The Boks play the Poms in the pool stages of the 2007 World Cup and French conditions won’t be much different to that of Twickenham.
England were good on Saturday, much better than they have been for some time. They still need a fit Jonny Wilkinson back and a decent midfield pairing, but they have the players around 10, 12 and 13 to form a formidable side and pose an equally formidable challenge.
Jake White’s season on Saturday only got harder. France, in Paris, was tough in 2005. Twickenham, will be even tougher.
28 Comments
6 Feb 2006, 01:19 am
Need to just do the basic’s right against England – they have a big pack of forwards that clean out the ruck and mauls well – Scotland showed today what happens when you play by not making mistakes at critical moments. Scotland only made one (in first five min which in effect was not using a 2 man overlap). The Boks do have the forwards to match them so unlike Scotland will not loose the plot in last 20 min. Scotland were outplayed 2nd half but hung in there to take a good win. They just did the basic’s right and never overdid any moves (the forward drivesand the backline using the back runner to goo effect)- this kept the French on there toes and forced tehm into making mistakes. The game against Wales yesterday England really did not show anything special and were helped by some bad ref calls and this sunk the Welsh. The number of forward passes and the try of Matt did not help, as with the position on LD try made the defending impossible.
The ref’s play a bigger part to the game than we think. Kaplan had a good game and only made one bad call – in the other two games there were more than a few bad calls.
Scotlands win has thrown this years 6 Nations wide open – even giving the teams that lost a chance now. Can’t wait till next week and the start of the Super 14!!
6 Feb 2006, 02:34 am
the Boks havent won against the english since 2000 because they are are too busy trying to run them over physically when thay havnt been able to, yet.
6 Feb 2006, 03:41 am
Boks have never done well in the NH.
Jake White has got 2006 to sort his all conditioned forwards and backs to play in any condition like the ABs.
6 Feb 2006, 03:57 am
Anvil
THE BOKS HAVE WON FOUR GRAND SLAMS, twice as many as the AB’s who recently won their second.
Re-examine your comment “the Boks have never done well in the NH”.
Historically the Boks have the best record of any SH team in the NH.
6 Feb 2006, 04:11 am
The last Springbok team to win a Grand Slam was Malan’s 1960-1961 touring side ! Forty five long YEARS ago!
Many of the schoolboys who listened to those tests broadcast on short-wave wirelesses are grandpas now (FM radio wasn’t even available then and TV was a generation away. Rugby teams still travelled to their destinations by ship!
Few of the players who played on that tour are even alive these days. The previous Bok grand-slam wins were in 1951, 1931 and 1912.
The most recent All Black grand slam win was a mere three months ago.
That’s a far bigger brag.
6 Feb 2006, 04:14 am
Tackler I take your point. The Boks recent record in the NH is shocking.
But Anvils seems to not know what the word “NEVER” means.
6 Feb 2006, 04:27 am
And the reason the All Blacks failed to win the Grand Slam outcomes at previous attempts are:
1905 — local referee infamously refused to award a legitimate try close to the uprights to an All Black, Bob Deans, as the ref was 30m away from the play and was unsighted in the dense Welsh fog. Wales “won” 3-0.
1924 — scheduled test against Scotland did not take place because it was cancelled over a dispute about expenses. NZ won all three the other tests.
1935 — NZ beaten in two of the tests. Fair & square defeat.
1963 — nil-all draw with Scotland the only blot.
1967 — Ireland test cancelled because of a Foot & Mouth disease scare
1972 — draw against Ireland the only blot
1978 — NZ wins her first Grand Slam.
2005 — NZ wins her second Grand Slam.
And that’s the whole history!
6 Feb 2006, 04:42 am
The above reads like a WIMPY MENU OF EXCUSES. What is your point?
6 Feb 2006, 05:05 am
Delek, Ja your factually right.
So lets say we have not done well in recent times and if Tacklers horseshit is anything to go by that was almost half a centruy ago!.
I strongly stand by my second comment.
6 Feb 2006, 07:14 am
How can the cancellation of not one but TWO grand-slam attempts, owing to a quarrel over costs or foot & mouth disease even be COUNTED as a “loss” of a grand-slam attempt? The All Blacks simply could not try! Or two other grand-slams be regarded as “failed attempts” because one test ended in a draw and not a win?
At least the AB’s have won their last TWO attempts — in 1978 and in 2005. At least almost all of the players on either side who played in those eight tests are actually still alive!
South Africa’s “brag” about winning 4 grand-slams of which the last was 45 years ago in 1960 means that by the next time if and when the Boks win a grand-slam, there will sadly be no other living survivor either from South Africa or any of the Home Unions who will be around to remember the last time that such a thing happened.
It’s a bit like someone being around who could tell you what it was like when Rome was last a world superpower!
6 Feb 2006, 07:19 am
Delek
His Point is that it took them 100years to do two grandslams where we did four in the same period
In South Africa a “Skaapsteker” is a species of snake
6 Feb 2006, 07:32 am
I still dont know why you lot respond to the skaap ******.
Its tiresome.
6 Feb 2006, 08:56 am
And by the way:
Only Spiere du Toit, Doug Hopwood, Keith Oxlee and **** Lockyear have passed away of the 20 players that played in the 60/61 grand slam. But for the skaapsteker 80% alive is regarded as “few are alive”. What an arsehole.
6 Feb 2006, 08:57 am
Oops, sorry, couldn’t resist feeding the ******!
6 Feb 2006, 09:30 am
This English side is not as good as the 2002/2003 version.They will be formidible at Twickers nontheless…but lets hope we are better prepared this time around.Also,if they ever ventured South,possibly to a hot afternoon at Ellis, we’d be given a chance to damage their confidence.
Alas, they hide in London with not one of their players ever having lost to SA.They truely must feel that we are easy beats.All good things come to an end?
Eeish, aren’t we being harsh on the Taffies,for long spells I thought they were the side playing at home?
6 Feb 2006, 09:36 am
Well after the last English experience of journeying south (against the Wallabies and All Blacks in 2004) they were just making up the numbers.
6 Feb 2006, 10:41 am
I am sure england are coming to SA in our autumn 2007. 6/7 months after we play them twice at twickers at the end of this year. Plenty of time to sort out who can go into the WC with confidence.
6 Feb 2006, 11:30 am
Keo, I note your comment:
“The Boks play the Poms in the pool stages of the 2007 World Cup and French conditions won’t be much different to that of Twickenham.”
This is a widely held view, but it is totally wrong. The game against the Poms is on Sep 14 2007 in Paris. That is virtually late summer, the conditions are very different to London in late November.
6 Feb 2006, 12:18 pm
Derek – too true. And what happeneded the last time we played against England in Paris? If memory serves they went into that match as favorites….
The fact is, if you can withstand Englands forward onslaught, and keep your discipline, then you can stop them easily. The thing is they are the true juggernaut (forget the bulls) and apply relentless pressure. Playing england is like getting the life squeezed out of you by a python. I went to twickers on Saturday and it was one of the most tedious and boring matches I have seen in my life. Perfect for English fans though… terrible for selling the game.
6 Feb 2006, 12:25 pm
Please please please!
Can someone please inform me as to why the Poms havent played a SINGLE game in SA since 2000? When they play us next in 2007, it would have been 7 years? Who arranges the playing schedules that the head to head home game count so favours the Poms?
They have been whipping us like they do with most teams at Twickers for the last 6 years and its about time we give them gas at Ellis Park!
6 Feb 2006, 12:28 pm
bomskok – the adminstrators sold us down the river – because the POMs offered really good cash to have play them there at the end of each year…..we play them home in the next two years – two tests away, two at home !
6 Feb 2006, 13:31 pm
About ******* TIME IG
6 Feb 2006, 13:34 pm
Thanks Ig – I thought that it would be SAR(F)U dancing around cash and in the process give them Poms a huge confidence boost when they play the Boks! There are bloody players in that team that doesnt know the feeling of losing to the Boks – a damn shame!
Very forward thinking, our administrators!
6 Feb 2006, 13:54 pm
England will be formidable come world cup time. The BOKS will have to take them on at their own game. The English backs are big and powerful. We can’t play them with the likes of Paulse. We need to match them with 90 kg plus players. I find the Tr-Nations a bit of a farce now. Instead of increasing it they should have decreased it nad brought in the Pumas and the Island team. Then if the BOKS only play the ALL Blacks once, it will mean much more (home or away)
6 Feb 2006, 14:01 pm
It is a very sad day when we have to concede that the poms have the most powerful pack in world rugby.
wtf is going on? I will hold off such abominations until seeing the england scrum tested at the proper home of world rugby, Ellis Park.
6 Feb 2006, 14:16 pm
cab,
don’t think Poms have the most powerful pack – they are a dirty pack that do a lot ‘off the ball’ play. They tend to intimidate rather than play.
A packs go think Boks and AB have the most powerful packs – however that does not mean you will win the game as Scotland showed in there win against France. Scotland were outplayed in 2nd half but they had done the damage in the first half that made the difference.
For this reason I think that the Stormers will also do well in the Super 14 without having a pack that will try and out muscle all otehr packs. If things click for them they will be in top 4.
6 Feb 2006, 15:19 pm
yes, all_stormers, agree
Think the all blacks are still the most powerful pack both home and away.
the french and boks are capable of also fielding very physical packs, but seem to prefer more skillfull backs like JvN, Smith, Nyanga and Remy Martin as oppose to the more physical backrowers fielded by the english. Also we prefer to opt for an out-and-out lineout specialist in big Vic.
For twickers, i’d be tempted to fight fire with fire, it will be boring, but a backrow of 6. Burger 7. Rossouw/AJ and 8. Cronje must be considered. the light stuff does not work in those stodgy, heavy wet conditions.
7 Feb 2006, 09:06 am
Cab is that why Neil Back excelled at Twickenham for almost a decade??
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.