Klapping the Kiwis
1 Jul 2008
Former Springbok captain Gary Teichmann and coach Nick Mallett talk about their famous 13-3 victory against the All Blacks in 1998, and whether the Boks can win again 10 years later.
What did winning that Test at Athletic Park mean to you?
Teichmann: It was a huge win for us and showed the character of the side. There had been a lot of hype about the Test, because it was the 50th between the Boks and All Blacks. I remember we defended superbly, especially [centre] Pieter Muller who made the most tackles that day.
Mallett: I was very proud to be coach of the first Bok side to win in New Zealand since 1981. For me, it also vindicated some of the selection decisions I’d made up until that point.
How did the team prepare for the Test?
Teichmann: We had beaten Australia 14-13 in Perth the week before, but we were lucky to win that game. Nick read us the riot act afterwards and we desperately wanted to win in Wellington. But I don’t think we prepared any differently.
Mallett: Our preparation was very good. We’d just beaten the Wallabies and had also had a successful end-of-year tour in 1997. We had an excellent captain in Gary and other players like Joost van der Westhuizen were on top of their game. Overall, we had a very settled team. I remember the All Blacks lead-up to that game wasn’t ideal, because there was debate over who should play flyhalf – Andrew Mehrtens or Carlos Spencer, who had done very well for the Blues that year.
Were the Boks just lucky that Spencer had an off day with the boot, or did you deserve to win?
Teichmann: We deserved to win. Spencer had played really well in the Super 12, and was the All Blacks’ first-choice flyhalf. I think we deserve credit for putting him under so much pressure that day.
Mallett: It would be an insult to say we were lucky to win. Any win in New Zealand is a bloody big achievement. Sure, Spencer didn’t play well, but that’s because we forced him into making mistakes. He was also substituted 10 minutes into the second half, so the All Blacks played 30 minutes of the game with Mehrtens at flyhalf.
What was it like in the Boks’ change room afterwards?
Teichmann: It was fantastic. I remember Joost telling me it was almost as good as winning the World Cup. We had quite a few drinks that night.
Mallett: It was overwhelming. Many of the guys were in tears. Someone like André Venter had never won a match in New Zealand, at Super Rugby or Test level.
What was the reaction of the crowd like? Was there a deathly silence?
Teichmann: They had arrived expecting a win, so they were very quiet at the end when the result became apparent.
Mallett: I was sitting in the crowd and when Pieter Rossouw scored that try (above), you could hear a pin drop. In fact, the only sound I heard was the referee’s whistle when the try was awarded. The guy in front of me, an All Blacks supporter, just said ‘Shit’.
Why do the Boks have such a poor record in New Zealand over the last 10 years?
Teichmann: South African rugby structures simply aren’t as good as those in New Zealand. I don’t think the mental aspect of playing in New Zealand has anything to do with the Boks’ poor record.
Mallett: I also don’t think it’s a mental thing. The Springboks love confrontation and are physically aggressive – they aren’t scared to play anyone. We’ve struggled to win in New Zealand over the last decade because the All Blacks have better skills than us. However, the Boks came close to winning there in 2004 and 2005, so they showed it can be done. As a visiting team, you just have to hope that you catch the All Blacks on a bad day and play exceptionally well yourself.
South African sides have generally struggled to make an impact in Super Rugby. Is this partly responsible for the Boks’ poor Test record in New Zealand?
Teichmann: You could say that. If you’ve won away from home regularly in Super Rugby, like the New Zealanders, then you do take that confidence into the Test arena. Over the last 10 years, we have often been
low on confidence at the end of May.
Mallett: New Zealand’s teams have done consistently well in Super Rugby, which has helped the All Blacks. Fortunately, our franchises have started to win regularly overseas – the Bulls won three out of five last year and the Stormers three out of four this year. The Sharks also have a good record in Australia and New Zealand.
The Boks play two Tests in New Zealand this year. Can we realistically expect to win at least one of them? And which players should be selected?
Teichmann: I don’t see why we can’t win. We are the world champions and Peter de Villiers has quality players to choose from. I just hope he selects an experienced team for those two matches. You can’t pick new caps and expect them to play under that kind of pressure. You need guys who have been in that situation before.
Mallett: A Bok team consisting mainly of players that won the World Cup can beat the All Blacks in New Zealand if they have the same unity.
By Simon Borchardt
This article first appeared in the July issue of SA Rugby magazine. The August issue will be on sale from Wednesday, 16 July.
40 Comments
1 Jul 2008, 08:34 am
Bok Drake !!
1 Jul 2008, 08:38 am
“As a visiting team, you just have to hope that you catch the All Blacks on a bad day and play exceptionally well yourself.”
so what Nick is saying is that when the ab’s play well no-one can beat them?
I don’t know about that.
1 Jul 2008, 08:40 am
#2 the peanut gallery: i think he means at home…always has the advantage, plus if you plat well, odds are stacked…don’t you think?
1 Jul 2008, 08:47 am
i know he means at home. just the way he said it makes it sound like – “oh well, we’ve got no chance. let’s just hope they play ****”
1 Jul 2008, 08:48 am
Wow Simon! 2 in a row! Like I said on the 7-steps thread, congratulations. Why do you guys safe all the good stuff for SA Rugby? It can’t be that hard to give us here on Keo something similar once a week? Can it? Nice one!
1 Jul 2008, 08:52 am
I’m shaking with anticipation,gonna be a thriller
1 Jul 2008, 09:08 am
#2 the peanut gallery:
The last 28 at home we have been unbeatable, doesn’t seem to get much of a mention “choking” is the prefered topic but no other team will emulate that at home.
1 Jul 2008, 09:24 am
#7 NZINCHINA: Let’s see if the AB’s can hold the choke when they play the WC at home in 2011
1 Jul 2008, 09:29 am
Here is something to pondor. Keo has regularly blasted the format of the S14 saying that the teams travelling west to east are at a severe disadvantage. who is the most eastern of countries playing rugby? Because we don’t have the pleasure of 6 week tours anymore, teams don’t have the opportunity to acclimatise properly and are still jet-lagged when they play their test matched (think of the Saffas and Europeans)? Over the years this could have lead to the belief that the Kiwi’s are better? Probably not but it sounds like a damn good excuse!
1 Jul 2008, 10:14 am
they are a great team no doubt about it.
1 Jul 2008, 10:17 am
The Boks can really call themselves World Champs if they regularly go to NZ and beat them there.
Not quite sure why so much is made of that victory in 1998.
We will play far better rugby this coming Saturday.
1 Jul 2008, 10:26 am
Mallett: A Bok team consisting mainly of players that won the World Cup can beat the All Blacks in New Zealand if they have the same unity.
^^^^^^^
1 Jul 2008, 10:33 am
Of course the Boks CAN win. That’s never been in doubt.
What is in doubt is WILL they win?
They have come to NZ for a decade thinking, every single time, that they CAN win this one.
But year after year after year after year they never HAVE.
1 Jul 2008, 10:36 am
would the kiwis be able to beat themselves away from home?
1 Jul 2008, 10:44 am
tackler, that’s impressive, now give me a grammatically correct sentence that has 5 ‘and’s in a row…
1 Jul 2008, 10:57 am
#5 BokiNZ: You still here?
1 Jul 2008, 10:59 am
Yeah Tickler, just like the All Blacks CAN win the World Cup.
They have gone to World Cups for two decades thinking, every single time, that they CAN win this one.
But year after year after after year they never HAVE.
You asked for that you little drol, now go tidy your room.
1 Jul 2008, 11:00 am
How did the French manage that 2-0 series win in New Zealand in 1994, a year before the ABs were devastating in RWC95. Mind you i saw an understrenght French side playing against the ABs a few years after the RWC95, when the ABs were in sublime form, and all of a sudden the French just upped the tempo and began off loading in the tackle, as they do so well, and came rather close to another historic win in New Zealand.
1 Jul 2008, 11:05 am
BuckT #15: now come on ..play the ball , not the man – be fair !!
1 Jul 2008, 11:08 am
My hart says Bokke bo!!!! If I have to put my salary on the game, sorry Bokke…….
PdV made a big mistake not chosing BJ Botha. Even with Guthro / John / CJ we need more beef up front. Forget about Jantjes (for this test), use the experience and trusty boot of Percy. Play Francois Steyn inside and Jean outside. Send Steyn to the barber before the game and hope for the best. My team for Saturday:
Percy , Bryan , Jean , Francois , Odwa , Butch , Enrico , Pierre , Juan , Schalk , Bakkies , Victor , CJ , John (c) , Guthro
Bench: Bismarck , Brain (BJ) , Andries , Joe , Ruan , Adi , Conrad.
1 Jul 2008, 11:20 am
jonnow #17 : I suppose its a relative thing really …. don’t do so well in RWC but win virtually ALL other games you play OR win RWC and struggle/lose most of all your other games. England comes to mind and who knows what fate is in store for the Boks. Saturday will be a defining moment but i would back the Tackler and his comments anyday !!
1 Jul 2008, 11:34 am
#16 The Insider: Why? Should I have gone anywhere? If so, nobody told me!
1 Jul 2008, 11:39 am
Grunt #18 : Yes mate, one of lifes mysteries… call it what you like, French flair…throw the ball anywhere and hope like hell one of your team mates is there to catch it and just maybe with a bit of luck…..who knows!! The French play like that and on occasions ALL things come together – I wouldn’t recommend it as a regular way to play but the French have had some success, particularly against the AB’s – but they have still lost a lot more than they have won.
1 Jul 2008, 11:46 am
The Boks win so seldom in NZ that by the time the next win comes around, the actual stadium in which they last won a test has been torn down and replaced !
1 Jul 2008, 11:46 am
007 – Leaving BJ at home was a brain **** of note. The Boks could have atleast had a settled front row of BJ, Bismark/Smit, Beast with CJ on the Bench. CJ is not an 80 minute front rower but is one of the best super sub front rowers in the world. As Teichman quite rightfully says, experience is what is needed for the Boks to pulloff a win in New Zealand, which also means Pakslae should be in the squad too.
1 Jul 2008, 11:47 am
#22 BokiNZ: Hey friend. Why don’t you check your mail and respond. After all you strike me as the type of person to take responsibility if you made a false claim. That would be greatly appreciated champion. Bless you.
1 Jul 2008, 11:58 am
No team bar AUS dominated after a RWC title, this coupled with the ELVs, dismal record in NZ, the failure of SA sides in the S14 and golden boys like Spies, Pienaar, steyn, Luke and Kanko will see SA fall to the same plight. Good team SA lots of luck, but a bridge too far.
1 Jul 2008, 12:01 pm
Ryan – be a sport and show us the email?
1 Jul 2008, 12:42 pm
RE: When the try was awarded … the guy in front of me, an All Blacks supporter, just said ‘****’.
Here’s hoping to hell the guy in front this time doesn’t say ‘Oh fok!’
Cos that’ll mean tickets for the Boks
1 Jul 2008, 13:31 pm
Pieter Muller – he was a machine in defence. There are many test centre that were **** scared of being tackled by him. Can’t say I saw many low tackles but his technique of body checks worked well.
1 Jul 2008, 14:47 pm
#27 magog: that whole dominating after a RWC is rubbish anyway, its just an excuse brought up to make NZ feel better about peaking in between RWCs.
Kiwis can say a team isn’t a worthy world champion, but they haven’t been world champions period (since the farcical tournament in 87) so they clearly aren’t worthy either
1 Jul 2008, 14:50 pm
I have said over and over that it all depends on whether he selects the hardened, experienced players and plays a risk free test match, based on forward ascendancy, territory and defence.
Seems to me that Teich, Mallett, Mark Andrews are all saying the same thing.
I am not trying to be smart, but am merely stating again that the coach needs to understand the reality of a test against the All Blacks from a technical point of view.
It is not about thinking you have 28 players of equal ability, as you don’t.
It is about understanding who to pick and how to play.
1 Jul 2008, 18:52 pm
Big ****/Big ***
Just when I thought that you had found a boyfriend and had something else in your mouth – you started sprouting **** again. Oh well, almost a perfect day !
1 Jul 2008, 21:54 pm
Would have spiced up that interview a bit if one of the questions had been about the selection of Bob Skinstad!
Regards
2 Jul 2008, 03:00 am
#31 Big Hit:
Big Hit,your team bought all this to light since there 2003 win at RWC.
Ok in 2003 you had a very good team and won RWC but how can a team be called World Champs and lose 15 out of there 17 away games.I am not trying to down the RWC but it is a cup and a tournament that lasts 6 – 7 weeks and you dont even have to beat the best in world to win the rights to saying your are the best.And you bring up 1987,correct same applys there.SA wasnt there and we won,hollow victory,yes,but we continued on winning there after until the next RWC where Ozzie dominated.But we won against 85% when we had the cup,so we did the cup justice.2007 we lost against France,and SA won against a poor English team.You ask any SA on which team would they had rather beaten at the RWC,you will find that it would NZ cos at the time of the RWC we were the best.
You yourself devalue all test matches that are played cos of your excuse players missing either by injury or just not playing.So really Big Hit this weeks test match NZ vs Boks isnt a true reflection of the strength of NZ cos we are missing so many players.Honestly who gives a **** how many players we are missing.Us Kiwis back all our teams no matter whos playing or not,unlike you.We have confidence that our team we put out will still have a good chace of beating most,unlike you.So you cant tell us on what we think or how we feel cos mate you are miles away from the truth.
2 Jul 2008, 03:12 am
#35 Hurricane: thats the thing, it doesn’t matter what you do before the tournament or after the tournament, its what you do when you’re there.
Is everyone going to forget Argentina’s or Fiji’s great performances because of games before or after the tournament? No, and its no different for the winners.
If they had won, Kiwis would be celebrating the achievement but because England won or SA won or any of NZ’s rivals they do nothing but ***** about it
Honestly, you Kiwis are obsessed with the RWC just like Rob Andrew said, and you’ll throw dirt at anyone who wins it in any way you can.
2 Jul 2008, 05:50 am
#31 Big Hit:
Eales, Krantsky, Blanco and ZZ Brook declared the 87 All Blacks to be the best team in living memory. Check it out at YouTube. The 87 was the only amateur cup, and in my mind the only real RWC, despite the absence of the RSA. Now that the IRB rankings will decide the top seeds, I have no doubt we will have another real RWC, one in which the **** nations will be scarcely represented.
2 Jul 2008, 05:59 am
You can’t rubbish England’s World Cup victory. Most sides in the modern era have a 2-3 year cycle. England proved home and away in 2002/03 that they were the best team in the world. They peaked with their victories in New Zealand and Australia in the June Tests & kinda scraped their way to victory in the World Cup, but that was a testament to the side they had built. It truly was one of the great sides of the modern era.
Other sides like the ’87 All Blacks, ’91 Wallabies and ’99 Wallabies won the World Cup at the beginning of their cycle, so of course they look like worthy champions post-WC.
There really haven’t been enough WCs yet to make any conclusions about patterns, but England were the only side that went into a WC as favourites and won it.
2 Jul 2008, 18:56 pm
#38 ohtanisjacket: Keewees would try to rubbish any World Cup victory apart from the hollow 1987 one
2 Jul 2008, 22:38 pm
#38 ohtanisjacket:
I hope you arent saying i an rubbishing Englands RWC win.If you read my second line it says they were a good team.But i am rubbishing after the fact that even after you lose 90% of your games you can still be called world champs,thats what i am getting at.And i am rubbishing people that put down a test match against 2 nations saying that one of the team had a couple of injured players so the victory was hollow.
#36 Big Hit:
You dont get it do you,it does matter what you do before and after the RWC.What you are saying then Englands win in NZ in 2003 didnt matter to there RWC victory.I think it did.England proved to themselves they were the best at that time.Confidence plays a part in it,you dont get confidence in losing.
And after the RWC,now that you have the cup you think that test match rugby is warm up games to the next RWC.6 nations and Tri nations etc are really nothing and the teams dont mind losing cos at the end the RWC is all that everyone wants.WRONG!!!!
Us Kiwis want the damn lot.We will put our best on the pitch or what the coaches thinks is our best for the game and conditions.
#39 Big Hit:
If you cant see the problem with the RWC set up then you are seriously blind.2007 RWC bought up the problem for all to see and thats a fact.
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.