Wikus bound for Paris
8 Jul 2007
Wikus van Heerden stood tallest in Sydney. Keo, in the Sunday Argus, rates the Boks and Wallabies.
Australia
Julian Huxley
7: His best match of the Tri Nations. Sound positional play and withstood the one-dimensional Bok aerial kicking attack.
Mark Gerrard
7: Troubled the Boks and consistently looked good with ball in hand.
Stirling Mortlock
6: Created Australia’s first try with clever decoy running and invariably got over the advantage line. He exposed the frailty of the Bok backs.
Matt Giteau
6: Showed good skill for his try but was inconsistent with his accuracy in the first half.
Adam Ashley-Cooper
6: Limited opportunities, but kept the defence busy when he got the ball.
Stephen Larkham
6: He’ll take the win but it wasn’t the most polished performance in his 100th test.
George Gregan
6: Controlled his pack well, but should have had a greater impact with the good quality ball he received in the last hour.
Stephen Hoiles
6: Solid performance, but lacked the physicality of the injured Wycliff Palu.
George Smith
7: Australia’s best forward. He was a menace at the breakdown and won crucial turnovers.
Rocky Elsom
6: He matched the Boks physicality, but was one dimensional on attack.
Dan Vickerman
6: He has improved with every test this year after a six month injury-enforced absence. His was a controlled performance without it being imposing.
Nathan Sharpe
6: Secure on his own lineout ball and worked hard in the tight exchanges. He threw one shocking pass that cost seven points.
Guy Shepherdson
6: He competed well at scrum time and was busy in the loose.
Adam Freier
5: His scrumming remains questionable. He is effective when the game opens up, but goes missing in tight situations.
Matt Dunning
5: Stood his ground well in the scrums, but his performance against the Boks in Cape Town was more impressive.
Subs
Sean Hardman
5: Replaced Freier for the last 20 but did not make an impact.
Al Baxter
5: Also introduced into the front row in the last 20 minutes, he could not add grunt to the Wallabies pack.
Hugh McMeniman
5: He replaced Elsom, but what Australia gained in athleticism they lost in physicality.
David Lyons
Not on long enough
Phil Waugh
Only used in last five minutes
Scott Staniforth
Only used in last two minutes
Drew Mitchell
Only used in last two minutes
South Africa
Bevin Fortuin
5: No attacking opportunities and rarely involved himself in the game.
Breyton Paulse
6: Scored an intercept try and used every bit of his 63test experience to defensively control his flank. Spirited performance.
Waylon Murray
5: No attacking chances and defensively fell off a few tackles.
Wynand Olivier
5: Struggled because of Derick Hougaard’s defensive vulnerability on his inside. On attack he was a non-factor.
JP Pietersen
5: He never backed himself to take on the Australian defence and his limited kicking game was exposed.
Derick Hougaard
4: Probably played himself out of the World Cup squad. He missed three crucial kicks, limited the attacking potential and was an organizational liability on defence.
Ruan Pienaar
6: He was the best of a very poor Bok backline effort. His kicking game was outstanding in the first quarter, but as Australia got momentum, so too did his impact wane.
Bob Skinstad
7: He led the side courageously and underlined his squad value for the World Cup. Left the field in the 63rd minute with a rib injury.
Pedrie Wannenburg
6: Physically strong in the contact, but the game did not allow for him to be forceful on attack.
Wikus van Heerden
8: The best of the Boks on the night. He got the early try and he matched openside specialist George Smith at the breakdown.
Johann Muller
5: Poor discipline in throwing a punch at a time when the Boks threatened a late comeback. Applied himself well in the first half, but fell away in the last 20.
Johan Ackermann
4: Went into the match with an injury concern and it showed. He was subbed after 30 minutes and that could be it for him at test level.
Jannie Du Plessis
5: Tough introduction to test rugby and he struggled to get into the game.
Gary Botha
6: Passionate performance and he was the most forceful of the tight five. Performed admirably when he had to go to flank. His yellow card proved costly with Australia scoring a try while he was off.
CJ van der Linde
6: He tried to add fire to the Bok effort and played through the pain of injury, but his value is definitely as an impact player.
Subs
Bismarck du Plessis
5: He introduced hustle and bustle, but he was not as good as Botha had been in the earlier stages. Showed good determination on attack, but botched a possible try in last minute by not offloading to Paulse on his inside.
Eddie Andrews
Not on for long enough
Albert van den Berg
5: A decade after Australia exposed his inability to hold his defensive line, he is still doing it. He cost the Boks a try on defence and never made it up.
Jacques Cronjé
5: He did as well as could be expected, given his form of late and his late introduction into the game.
Michael Claassens
Only played the last five minutes.
Peter Grant
Only played the last five minutes.
Jaco Pretorius
Not used.
48 Comments
8 Jul 2007, 10:59 am
Eerste
8 Jul 2007, 11:08 am
DH wasn’t the worst again. Pieterson had the best seat in the house. Wikus looks like an athlete and PW needs to tone some of that muscle around his middle. No confidence with ball in hand at the back. Murray’s defense shouldn’t be a problem-he defended more than he should have to.
Well, SA ave 5.6, Aus ave 6.06 on Keo’s rating is
probably close.
8 Jul 2007, 11:17 am
Oh, I remember, DH did miss a few kicks >>>
but just because SA doesn’t have a 10 in the top 10 10′s doesn’t mean we should blame Derick.
8 Jul 2007, 11:28 am
Perfect Bench:
Botha, Steenkamp, CJ, Danie, Bobby
Ruan, Frans
8 Jul 2007, 11:36 am
So all in all to sum up:
NZ don’t have a lineout or centres.
They may still win the WC anyway but finally refs are penalising 6,7,8 like other backrows. So turnovers may dry up a little.
Still the team to beat officially.
SA have a big strong pack. Come WC time the pack whittled down to 8 will be the meanest bunch of crazies you could hope for. Don’t underestimate that , it’s not super 14 forward pass laws.
SA just need somebody to kick (finding touch) for the corners. When a hooker is on his own line with Bakkies and Big Vic smiling at him he’s going to get a bit nervous.
Rugby can be a simple game.
Oz.
If they get ball they are going to be very dangerous.
Trouble is will they get ball?
Arg.
Will fight to the death. May even play the ball ocasionally. Have good footballers in the backs to get their big forwards nearer the goal line.
Eng.
Need a captain and a miracle.
Still pretty easy WC draw so you never know.
Wales.
Pacey backs, good back row, tight five a bit iffy.
if they get ball they’ll compete.
Scotland.
Pick and go effective enough, some big strong backs and a metronome kicker in Paterson.
Ireland.
Can they find the form that they showed last November?
Can they stay injury free?
Do they dare to believe?
The talent is there.
Lacking the real killer pace at 11 and 14 but from 30m out that backline is second to none.
France.
Will get every decision that is 40-60 against them.
Will the refs actually have the bottle to allow both Arg. and Ireland to put Frace out in the group stage?
After all Arg. have beaten France the last 4 games.
Ireland lost to France recently due to a little bit of nerves relating to the history of Croke Park, but France were there for the taking.
A solid if “not very French†team. A little lightweight in the second row, good wingers, solid centres, half backs solid/ok.
Lack creativity like the French of old.
Still good at counterattacking from loose kicking.
Italy.
Big beef, good openside and 12 Bergamasco brothers)
will be found wanting in other areas.
8 Jul 2007, 11:37 am
Yip, thats a great a bench with great potential. We will play 5 forwards I think. But early days. Monty could still die from old age and then RP or FS will have to come in
8 Jul 2007, 11:53 am
It’s too late now anyway, but I think Honiss got it wrong in sending Gary Botha to the sin bin. Unless he regarded him offside to be kicking the ball back, nobody was touching or holding on to him while he was lying on the ground. He wasn’t part of a ruck or a maul. I don’t think Honiss had a good game. Having said that, it would have been a surprise if we had won the match. Still, you want a fair chance.
8 Jul 2007, 11:55 am
Ja well done Wikus, was not a fan of his, but he really put his hand up on saturday, based on his performance id give him another go at 6, mebe even make him captain for sat. In fact he played the 6 roll better then burger has done this season!
There is only one criticism off him though, he seems a bit slow, obviously he’s experienced and knows his way around the park but he was about 2 meters away from the AUS scorer with their first try.
Its hard to crit any of the backs. Some-one like Murray looks gr8 for the sharks, JP scored the most tries in the super14 so he knows how to finish, but within Jakes silly gameplan there is no room for these types of players, either jake and his staff dont have a clue how to coach a backline or they “think” the crash ball stuff is the way to go.
Oh,why make hougaard and pienaar kick all the ball away, at first good pressure was applied, but the aussie backs were up for it. Kicking ball = giving away possession = bad. SA needed to hold onto the ball through phase play, but with some variation.
AUS are strong at the breakdown, smith made a few turnovers again, when SA tried to keep the ball it was all too predictable with the forwards. Jake is a good coach, he has some good ideas, and some bad ideas, i think his problem is he doesnt want to learn from other teams/ppl. Its his way or the highway.
8 Jul 2007, 11:56 am
Superbok
My understanding is that you cannot play the ball on the ground, even if there are no opposition players around you. E.G. if you run for the tryline but trip and fall down 2 metres short, you actually have to get up again and run over the line, you are not around to crawl on your knees, EVEN IF THERE ARE NO DEFENDERS WITHIN 20 METRES OF YOU.
To me that is a ridiculous rule, but so is the new scrumrule and the lawmakers seem perfectly happy with it…
8 Jul 2007, 11:57 am
#7, he played the ball while off his feet, that kinda illegal…
8 Jul 2007, 11:57 am
no allowed
8 Jul 2007, 11:59 am
Re Paulse: “.. used every bit of his 63test experience to defensively control his flank. ”
You have got to be kidding, keo. I love the oke to bits but he was nowhere near good enough yesterday. His defense seems to consist entirely of trying to get an intercept.
8 Jul 2007, 12:50 pm
As I watched the game yesterady I coulnd’t shake the feeling that it was one of the most bizarre games I have seen in years, though at the time I couldnt quite say why.
After one days reflection I think I now know – never have I seen a game where both teams cound quite easily have run away with the game, and its a poor reflection on both teams that neither were able to pull this off.
Firstly, this was a game that SA could quite easily have won! If we had had the courage to play a slightly more attacking game, asked some questions of the aussie defense, who knows how this might have played out. The gameplan of kciking away every single good ball our forwards secured ensured that we would never know.
Going into the game, and given that it was a b team confronting an aussie team that had just beaten the kiwis, a defensive gameplan may well have been justified. What was disappointing was how badly this defensive kicking system was executed. Box kicks were far too frequent, they were all over the place, were far too deep and most of the time there was no-one chasing up. Ineffectual and inexcusable wastes of possession.
Secondly, our defensive fragility was such that if the aussies played as they did against NZ the week before it could easily have been another record score for them too! They broke through our back line (off 1st phase ball nogal) with such ease it was laughable.
That neither team were able to identify each others weaknesses, let alone capitalise on them, is extremely worrying for both teams just a couple months away from the WC.
8 Jul 2007, 12:54 pm
9 & 10
Cheers for clearing that up. My apologies to Honiss then.
8 Jul 2007, 13:51 pm
I really hope that the pro-Liefling brigade will let go now. He is sooooo limited as a flyhalf. And if his kicking is not up to scratch then there is not much left is there?
8 Jul 2007, 14:13 pm
Ive just lost all respect for your rugby knowledge Keo. If you can say that Pienaar was the best of a very poor backline. Pienaar clearly lost the game for the Boks. His persistence with the box kicks which played right into the Aussies hands and let them back into the game is what cost us the game.
8 Jul 2007, 14:21 pm
For oz,
think Larkham played very well, controls so much, watch his offload to gerrard for the first try its when they got back into the game. master of the perfectly timed inside pass and runs such great lines (seems to drift into space). Hoiles also had a great game, never been a fan, but big game from the debutant no 8. Vickerman and Dunning were very good in the tightloose too. Vickerman has been huge against his old country in both tests.
Ackerman was huge in the first 20 before going off injured (real difference imo and perhaps hougie’s poor boot on the day). If Bakkies and Ackerman are injured, its a considerably weakened tight 5. Our front row coped very well in Sydney – jannie dup played very hard in the tightloose too.
8 Jul 2007, 14:23 pm
pienaar had his worst game in a bok jersey, poor kicks.
8 Jul 2007, 15:10 pm
I think the Aussies read the kicks after a while and were waiting for them, Bobby should have changed the game plan on the field (I know this isn’t easy but if something stops working, change it!! You can’t always wait for the break to get the coach to tell you to change, that’s what a captain is there for).
How the hell did JP get a rating of 5?? He was totally ****, he shoulda been at the state theatre doing swan lake!!!!!
8 Jul 2007, 16:18 pm
Luckily we now if the aussies played with their B team they would have been smashed.
Brumbies is built around larkham, gregan, mortlock, smith. Waratahs: vickerman, harrison, waugh. Force: Giteau, Sharpe. Reds: Latham. Their teams are useless if these players are injured, example Waratahs 2007. This is the backbone of ozzy rugby, and consists out of 10 players of which 2-5 will retire eoy.
They don’t have any future and now they want the boks (their money basket) thrown out of sanzar.
OZZY STUPIDITY!!!
8 Jul 2007, 16:21 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong but Fortuin spent large parts of the game trying to be loose forward … I kept trying to figure out who he was until I saw the No. 15 on his back.
The most disappointing thing of the Bok performance is that they weren’t really fired up as a team; I found this very surprising – if they had the passion, and awareness, they could well have protected their lead, even added to it.
You’re quite right – Hougaard didn’t produce when we needed him.
Pienaar by now should be able to explain to anybody the huge gulf between S-14, in which he was a dominant player, and Test, where he is merely adequate. His kicking may have started well but deteriorated so diabolically as the game progressed that it contributed to our loss – this has been the classical failing of South African strategy for time immemorial – namely, handing our precious ball away – in NZ they make a religion out of maintaining possession; it’s such a no-brainer I just don’t understand it.
Honiss and Walsh get 0/10 – the team should refuse to play if these people, with their own bitter agenda, are officiating.
8 Jul 2007, 16:30 pm
I know some people don’t like Paulse but I do – he has phenomenal instincts for try-scoring AT TEST LEVEL (and he is a very good touch-finder with that left boot on the right wing) – personally I could live with him as a starter on the left wing ahead of Willemse (given the inexplicability of Steyn not starting at that position).
8 Jul 2007, 17:24 pm
#21
Re: Honiss & Walsh. I fully agree and I have been saying the same for AGES. We need to have some bloody backbone. I think SA Rugby should make video analyses of the games these 2 (especially Honiss) have reffed against us as backup and then approach the IRB and say that we refuse to play a test officiated by Honiss (I mean FFS, he let Ireland score a try while we JS was talking to the team behind the line). If the IRB ask why (even when they know WHY), offer the footage as evidence.
8 Jul 2007, 17:58 pm
#23 – I’ve have the same thought for a while – make a video of all the reffing going back to 1995 when the pongo ref disallowed our pushover try in the WC final – for what reason God only knows – in the hands of a half-decent filmmaker it would provideincontrovertible evidence and the blatant doulbe-standards.
8 Jul 2007, 18:14 pm
This defeat is a perfect example of why SA are not consistatnly able to win.
Once again they have proven that unless they play above themselves with more passion and desire than the opposition, they do not have the skills or ability to win consistantly.
The game highlighted a few very important things to me:
1. SA are totally unable to think further than their nose. This is on the field and in the planning room.
Anyone notice the Ozzies gameplan? They sent the ball accross the field with 2 massive passes every time! Then, when the time is right, an inside pass. Notice how they realised how to negate SA’s best attacking option (intercept)and held the ball & pulled the SA players out of position? They were able to think on & off the field.
I also don’t understand how when a player (pick one)knows he is doing something badly, he carries on doing it & why JW allows people to carry on doing it. The same game plan, the same results, when will we learn?
8 Jul 2007, 20:22 pm
Ruan Pienaar showed how inadequate he was internationally. DH wasnt all that bad and WO was totally out of his depth. If the “a” team had played the score could easily have gone pastr that 49. This wasnt a show of sa rugby strength, but rather a show of the coaches stupid loyalty to his supposed 1st teamers,
8 Jul 2007, 20:28 pm
#21 You hit a sweetspot.One should not always complain about refs,but it is the consistancy of some individuals that becomes obvious.PH an SW have consistantly applied double standards when officiating our matches whether blowing the whistle or from touch.Australia had at least two yellowcard offences ,both seen by PH,and warned the players of the seriousness of the offences,BUT no yellowcards.No it might sound like whining ,but decisions like these change matches.Just think what could have happened if the oz had two in the bin and we had none.Maybe nothing.what bothers me is the silence from our rugby officials.Can George Smith still be cited for his stiffarm {as was JP NEL by oz officials and given a three match ban}
8 Jul 2007, 20:32 pm
We are too slapgat to cite them, i agree it might not have changed the result but how much leeway can be allowed untill it does affect the flow of a game.
8 Jul 2007, 22:32 pm
Guys
I know it’s a bit off topic and I hijacked a bit but it’s a WC year and not one bite @ post no. 5
Who do you fancy to lift the trophy.
step back from your own team and pretend you’ve 100000 on a bet.
8 Jul 2007, 23:25 pm
23
Any decent filmmaker could do the same for any team with any ref.
8 Jul 2007, 23:50 pm
so much to say!
ill start with the fwds.
we are still lacking BMT in our tight 5. our front row was average, props are failing at making an impact around the field.
botha had his best game so far in the bok jersey, but he IMO was shown short by bismarks introduction. bismark was more mobile, and had a more in your face style that we need from our hookers. the fact that bismark was involved in that downfield surge, just shows how the kid reads the game, with a bit more game time at the highest level, he will shine for a decade!
our locks were not up to standard. once again, jake plays a guy who is carrying an injury (spies in last years england game) and now the player is rooted for a month or more. thanks jake!
our loosies. i disagree with keo here. van heerden was outplayed by smith. smith had greater impact, and shone in this game, where as the last few games he played he was hardly seen. wikus probably gets to go to france, but only coz no one else legitimate was given a solid go.
P3 was trying to get involved, but again, his impact was limited as our ball was quickly booted away. still looks unfit.
skinstad, well, he tried. he showed some nice touches, and got involved a lot. i dont think he gets on with Honiss
ruan, is unfortunate enough to have to play to a stupid kick and run gameplan that jake believes in. this kid is about a running game, his impact for sharks just shows how good he is ball in hand. meanwhile bok gameplan is kick it away. starting to think that fdp would have been the greatest all time scrummie in the history of rugby, if he had played for a running rugby province and test rugby for another country. instead of being known as the kicking halfback.
hougaard was absolute mud. if the game plan is to kick up n unders,,at least should be able to kick the ball more accurately.
olivier was a non event. poor guy. murray i thought tried as much as possible with what he was given. he kept mortlock in check which is a good achievement for him so far in his young test career.
jp, well, he needs to go hunting for work more often.
so glad breyton showed his worth. his defensive organisation is brilliant. for me, he just has to go to france. you cant throw 63test experience aside when he does nothing wrong.
fortuin,well i hope he gets some form or somthing, or next year without percy the boks are screwed.
9 Jul 2007, 00:28 am
@ Flametop
Based on form – It has to be ABs, Boks or Frogs – $33k on each with remaining $1k on Wobblies if the ref’s don’t shut Gregan up – his constant whining really can affect the ourcome of a game.
9 Jul 2007, 00:31 am
Tomsta
>so glad breyton showed his worth. his defensive organisation is brilliant. for me, he just has to go to france. you cant throw 63test experience aside when he does nothing wrong.
9 Jul 2007, 00:38 am
#33
My comment got closed off…Tomsta I agree 100%, plus he played for France in their domestic competition before, so he knows all the conditions. In a RWC, you will need all the experience you can get.
9 Jul 2007, 01:18 am
Here are some observatiuons on the Sydney game – Wallabies vs RSA:
- Another lost opportunity like Durban with some big chances going begging
-Hougaard kicking one out of four penalties really cost us psychologically
- I couldn’t believe how weak JP Pietersen was, he really has lost confidence and I was hoping Peter Grant or anybody would replace him but amazingly JP stayed on field.
-Our forwards were slow to the breakdown but Wikus, Garry and Bobby stood out. We were often isolated with the ball, pinged for holding on or turned the ball over.
-Our scrum was better than our “A” team’s efforts and more than held its own.
- The Wallabies have now scored two contentious tries (Newlands,Sydney) using dummy runners/blockers.
-Refs keep warning Wallaby and AB players but they never get yellow carded. The Boks are warned less often but always get yellow carded. Consistency?
-We played a quarter of the match with 14 men.
-Interesting after the match that Skinstad presented Larkham and not Gregan with a bok jersey.
-I felt proud of the Boks after all the abuse in the media and Bobby showed himself as an outstanding leader.
At least Honiss didn’t ask Bobby to speak to his men and then let the game carry on like in Ireland.
9 Jul 2007, 02:33 am
Keo -why don’t you rate the ref and linesmen – please bring them into the game. Just for the record, I thought Honis was ok, altho Vikerman was lucky, IMO not to get a card for falling in the maul.
9 Jul 2007, 02:46 am
Someone said that Derrick wasn’t the worst – gosh, when he passed to the backline, everyone went a yard backward, every time (Ruan was part of this debacle). And furthermore, the guy was there to kick points ala Bulls stylie, and those kicks weren’t difficult. Sorry Derrick
However, Claasens and Grant had one backline completion in theor 5 minutes and okes were very mobilised, and actually looked dangerous. Come on Grant
9 Jul 2007, 02:53 am
Getting back to the subject, Wikus was great. A real pity he and Schalk are competing for a place in the Boks as we wouldn’t have Schalk getting isolated so often if he had Wikus tearing away with him.
9 Jul 2007, 03:18 am
thats why burger should move to 8. already his game is more like an 8, so why not make the obvious switch, therefor allowing a fetcher to play alongside him.
9 Jul 2007, 04:26 am
Tomsta
Where would that leave AJ
I know he has retired, but would you bring him in at blindside?
9 Jul 2007, 04:49 am
absolutely. AJ is the tightloose fwd we need. he is a hard hard man, and his early retirement ahead of WC, just shows what kind of guy he is, he isnt one to be pushed around, by selectors in this case.
he was one of the form loosies for super 14. led his team to a super 14 final.
my ideal loosie combo, would be, and my team for ‘good’ measure…
guthro
smit
botha
bakkies
victor
wikus/watson
AJ
burger
ruan
butch
habana
jdv
fourie
paulse
percy
cj
bismark
danie
spies
fdp
steyn
julies
9 Jul 2007, 04:54 am
Nice team.
What do you think of the Grant argument?
9 Jul 2007, 05:02 am
inconclusive
the guy struggled a bit at super 14 level. he does have a good game, but for ages the coaches and selectors, despite their complete ineptitude for spotting talent, still managed to play naas olivier ahead of grant for a season or so.
the guy could be groomed to take over from 2008. what is agaisnt him though in terms of bok honours, is that he doesnt fit the typical bok #10. his kicking isnt ‘naas like’.
next season i would like to see him up against steyn in a provincial duel. both are more of a running type 10.
9 Jul 2007, 08:39 am
Hougaard is K@K!!!He was abysmal on Saturday.He and Heyneke Meyer must stay at the Bulls.That type of rugby must never be employed at test level.Relies too much on individuals to win the game(ex:Pienaar & Hougaard tactical kicking).Not proud of the tactics employed by Jake…Cheap RUGBY.
Hougaard never the answer,the game(gameplan suited him) was primed for him to be a hero in what he does best-KICK…And he didnt execute,plain and simple.Even when the forwards gave him front foot ball…=HE FAILED
9 Jul 2007, 09:52 am
Someone still has to tell as to what Gary Botha did to earn any accolades in this game.
Oh ja, he made his first 3 meter gain in test rugby to set up a try. Unfortunately that gain was negated by the amount of times was was again driven back in the tight. It was chalk and cheese when Bismark came on.
In his defence though, can anyone enlighten me as to whether his on the ground infringement is a mandatory yellow card, especially when you are 70 odd meters from your own goal line???
9 Jul 2007, 10:01 am
45 – And how come the Aussies get blown up about a dozen times in 15 minutes in their own 22 and simply get a couple of stern warnings?
9 Jul 2007, 10:15 am
I dunno Katman… and its not in my nature to harp on about refs after a loss, yet this one didnt go down well
Was it only me that picked up on George Smiths unpunished, yet blatant little uppercut… the very same little uppercut that got Johan Muller binned??
Ag, us poor Saffas… all the refs hate us
9 Jul 2007, 15:55 pm
Bod – if you are Aussie, Kiwi or Pongo you are allowed to hit – if you are Moody you are allowed to decapitate and SA flyhalf with a head tackle and get a verbal warning – if you are a Bok the best you can expect is a yellow card.
Honiss is a cheat, Walsh is a cheat … etc. I would say it to their faces and get the videos to prove it.
The refs with the best integrity are the SA refs, followed by the French.
What can we do to make our point, short of refusing to play a major game if they are officiating – refuse to play and let the refs to the 60,000 fans that paid their money to watch, not to mention Rupert Murdoch and the TV people, the reason – and I think then we might see some genuine objectivity – but, of course that won’t happen. Very frustrating.
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.