Crash, tackle and boom
21 Oct 2007
Keo, at the Stade de France, on the heroics of the Boks.
There were so many monumental and defining moments in this brutal final, each significant at the time, but collectively all definitive in determining South Africa’s World Cup win.
Victor Matfield was colossal, dominant in the lineout, but even more commanding in his general defence. Never again should there be criticism that Matfield is the flashy boy of a grinding tight five unit. Matfield can scrap with the toughest bulldogs as England growled, barked and growled some more. But the bite they needed was never quite there as their attack had no answer to South Africa’s defence.
Pre-match predictions were of the South African attack against the England defence, but the match unfolded the other way with England getting the greater field position and ball and South Africa required to defend to win this World Cup.
The kick-off is hugely influential in setting the tone for the opening stanza and with England having won the toss and decided to kick first, South Africa were always going to be under pressure initially and it took the Boks an hour to eventually get ahead by two scores.
It is the two-score advantage that killed England because it forced them to play catch-up and they simply don’t have the polish or class among their backs to do this. As they chased the game they hit brick wall after brick wall, with Jonny Wilkinson so desperate that on 71 minutes, with his team trailing by nine points, all he could conjure up was a week drop goal attempt. That was when the Boks knew they’d broken the spirit of a side that had survived on an inner belief that they would rewrite history.
They didn’t and still no team has won the World Cup having lost a Pool match. No team has won it when trailing at half-time in a final. The Boks, unbeaten, and leading 9-3 at the break, maintained the historical status quo.
It was a victory inspired by brutal defence, discipline unmatched among this team and a determination that was never going to lose this final.
England, it was said, had the experience to play ‘Finals Rugby’. They had Wilkinson and they had the memory of 2003 and the 100th minute win in Sydney. South Africa, though, had warriors in every position, who turned defence into an attacking art as they ripped into England in the first 20 minutes and were still smashing anything in a white jersey in the 79th minute.
In that opening 20 minutes England had 12 lineout throws to South Africa’s two and they had all the territorial advantage, but they could make no impact on a South African defence that held its line and kept its shape in a first quarter. England showed their hand in that time, but it was not strong enough and South Africa were comfortable in winning this through an arm-wrestle.
The Boks played the more constructive ‘Finals rugby’ and they showed the benefit of being together for four years. They never panicked and a more inexperienced team could easily have lost this final in that opening 20 minutes.
England were aggressive and equally determined and the Boks were guilty of forcing passes close to the fringes of the break down. But they settled, with John Smit as important to the win as Matfield.
Percy Montgomery, fabulous under the high ball and potent with his line and goalkicking, was never unnerved in the last line of defence and England, outside of the up and under, offered no other means of attack.
Matthew Tait broke the line in the 42nd minute, the bounce of the ball wrong-footing Frans Steyn, and England should have scored from the advantage. They didn’t, with the television referee ruling no try. That, as far as attack, was England’s moment. They had to score a try soon after the restart and they were denied by the width of a shoelace.
The Boks, so disciplined, fought their way back to halfway through the boot of halfbacks Fourie du Preez and Butch James and that’s where they stayed for most of the match.
But the class of this team is that they scored points whenever they got within 30 metres of England and crucially they scored just before halftime.
Coach Jake White spoke of defence winning World Cups, while All Blacks coach Graham Henry preached about the romance of attack. White on Saturday night won his argument.
Defence, however, can only be effective if there is desire. Every Bok had that desire. They tackled and toiled. They won ugly, but never has such ugliness looked so beautiful.
England supporters in the last two weekends will know what I am talking about.
118 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All
21 Oct 2007, 15:14 pm
the english were pinged once for obstruction and once for truck and trailer. We were only penalized twice in kickable positions thus only the 6 points against us by contrast they were penalized 5 times at least hence our 15 points for 4 by percy and one by frans so in fact notwithstanding them feeling that perhaps that try should have stuck we also enjoyed more decisions for us than against, there were 1 or two borderline obstruction runs that could have been blown against us close to our 22 so in fact we have absolutely nothing to complain about the officials whatsoever they blew this game more than fair and square
21 Oct 2007, 15:16 pm
Certainly missed calls for both teams. My only problem was with the rucks. Unfortunately, in modern rugby, that could mean the entire game.
21 Oct 2007, 15:17 pm
Cueto..take a bow mate, your oscar is on its way
21 Oct 2007, 15:22 pm
MaraudingJ,
The breakdown has been a problem throughout the world cup. Some days it would seem you get the rub of the green, others not.
The next year will see a number of changes to this area. Let’s see if they help or whether they make it even more confusing for refs.
21 Oct 2007, 15:30 pm
The breakdown is certainly the murkiest area of the game. Hell, it’s the most complicated set of rules in all of sport, as far as I’m concerned.
There’s a difference between scrappy breakdowns and clear cynical play, though. Even John Smit was seething by half time.
But, as in every game, both teams get away with whatever they’re allowed to get away with. If I watch it again, I’ll probably see discrepancies creep in from the Boks as well. I just really, REALLY hate cynical play in rucks.
21 Oct 2007, 15:31 pm
yeah stodders i can concur thank god it was not our try that was disallowed.
The new stellenbosch koshuis rules should improve the running style rugby played no end and i would opt for all penalties and field goals not to exceed 2 points, make running rugby the prime objective once again.
21 Oct 2007, 15:33 pm
MaraudingJ,
If you want an example, watch the way Steyn goes over the top of Tait and seals the ball off for SA’s first penalty. Canny play or cynical? The ref decided it wasn’t cynical by Steyn.
21 Oct 2007, 15:34 pm
#106
“make running rugby the prime objective once again”
til someone pops a drop goal
21 Oct 2007, 15:36 pm
skopskiet,
The biggest rule change for me will be the one where teams will not be able to kick out on the full for the 22.
It is like in football when they scrapped the pass back rule. Teams will be forced to play out of the 22 or kick more intelligently. Play will be faster and teams will get tired more quickly. Hopefully it will mean that defences will tire too and attacking play will be seen more.
21 Oct 2007, 15:43 pm
thats why drop goals shouldn’t be given 3 points i reckon 2 points for drops field goals and conversions should equal out the factors enough to ensure tries again become objective no. 1
21 Oct 2007, 15:49 pm
that means that in future there can be no defensive kicking from out your 22 stodders that right? From now on one has to either run it out or drive it out or kick for position in field. Big forwards will definitely tire and players will more than likely become far more athletic all sound
21 Oct 2007, 16:16 pm
#110
yep, the All Blacks will back yopu on that
21 Oct 2007, 16:34 pm
Sir Watson where were you when the super 14 was played? Wayne Julies was excellent. Dont talk rubbish you IDIOT.
21 Oct 2007, 16:46 pm
The ref was ok last night with most of his decision making.
One area of play that did bug me was the English and their up and under tactic.
Most of the players never retreated as they are supposed to and at least half of the chasers where already in front of the kicker before he kicked the ball.
As for the English whinging about the ref…well they always do.
21 Oct 2007, 18:56 pm
I have been a Watson supporter but I believe that he is short of the mark and other youngsters will put him out of the running. There is already a number of players coming through the ranks that will challenge for Watson’s position.
22 Oct 2007, 02:07 am
Here’s another rule change If you select to kick at goal and miss, choice should be 22 drop out or a scrum from the original mark where kick was taken. Teams would think twice about kicking for goal beyond 10 meter line.
22 Oct 2007, 05:49 am
all he could conjure up was a week drop goal attempt.
You mean it is still trvelling and the poms might even get three more points…?
22 Oct 2007, 05:51 am
Oh and I left an obvious spelling mistake in my reply to see if you can pick THAT up…
Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.