Brave Wallabies shut out Boks
9 Oct 2011
JON CARDINELLI watched the Wallabies hang on for what could be the unlikeliest yet most significant victory at this 2011 World Cup.
Did the better team win? It’s a question the Springboks will be asking themselves from now and until the next global tournament in 2015.
South Africa controlled the game for large periods but were repeatedly undone by the Wallabies’ heroic defence. David Pocock was talked about as a danger man in the build up, and after a breakdown performance highlighted by some momentum stalling and often try-saving turnovers, he was undoubtedly the game’s MVP.
Much will be said about referee Bryce Lawrence’s performance with the whistle. Lawrence adopted an ‘anything goes’ policy at the rucks, but it was the Wallabies that adapted to the official’s style early on. The Wallabies dominated the collisions in the first half, and with Heinrich Brussow crying off with a rib injury, the Boks battled to combat Pocock’s inhibiting presence at the breakdown.
The Boks enjoyed as much as 84% territory and 55% possession in the first half, and yet only garnered a three point return. Their poor ball security at ruck time led to turnovers, as did their tendency to spill the ball in contact.
They upped their game in both respects in the second stanza, and it was all the Aussie could do to hang on. The subdue and conquer style so prominent and effective in 2009 once again held sway, and the Wallabies forwards struggled to resist the Boks when they cleaned out would-be ball poachers. They also battled to deal with the high ball, which was well chased by South Africa’s belligerent backs.
Quade Cooper had a shocker. After a dropping a high ball first up, he was often caught in possession and failed to provide the expected impact with the boot. A number of Wallabies grew increasingly susceptible as the game wore on, but the Boks just lacked that killer blow.
There’s no denying that the Boks had their chances. Jean de Villiers made a scything break in the second stanza and put Pat Lambie away for a try, only to be called back for a forward pass. Fourie du Preez thought he was in for a five-pointer when some good Bok defence dislodged the ball centimetres from the Aussie line. Unfortunately, the ball was again knocked free as Du Preez reached for the line.
Every Bok surge into Wallabies territory was succeeded by a desperate display of defence. The turnover followed, and the Aussies’ inability to clear their lines with any great distance ensured the game remained in the Wallabies’ half. The Boks’ lineout dominance also contributed to their territorial ascendancy, but in the end they will lament their inconsistent showing at the breakdown, as well as their poor finishing when it was on out wide.
After a frustrating period on attack, Morne Steyn finally put the Boks ahead 9-8 with a well-taken drop-goal. With 20 minutes to play, the momentum was with the Boks and if they continued to play in Wallabies territory and control possession, they would advance to the semi-finals.
But the introduction of Berrick Barnes had the desired effect for the Wallabies, and after a series of tactical kicking misfires by his team-mates, he delivered a rolling kick deep into the Boks’ 22. The Wallabies remained in the Boks’ half and eventually won a penalty, which James O’Connor held his nerve to convert.
It was a massive moment for the youngster, who had missed a relatively easy attempt in the first half. If he had missed, the chances were the Boks would regain possession, resume control and win the game. If he slotted it, it would set up a dramatic eight minutes where the Wallabies would need to continue to repel the rampant Bok forwards.
Through the Herculean efforts of Bismarck du Plessis and Schalk Burger, the Boks threw everything at the Aussies in those final minutes. They even managed to turn the Wallabies over, but unfortunately knocked it on just when they were moving back into the area of the field where Steyn would be able to kick for goal.
From there, the Wallabies closed out the game smartly. It will remain one of the great escapes for the Wallabies, but the Boks can hardly argue that they deserved to win this game. They didn’t take their opportunities, and on the day, the scoreboard will show that they were punished for that failure to convert dominance into points.
1,133 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] Show All
9 Oct 2011, 21:30 pm
@happyharry(happyharry)-1087:
He was born in zimbabwe…they went to rsa on their way to aus!
9 Oct 2011, 22:17 pm
@JL1(JL1)-1074:
loving reading all your whinging about the ref.
9 Oct 2011, 22:44 pm
I KNEW I should have KNOWN as I KNOW now.
It WAS NOT a card game
Because NO -yellow- cards were given.
8) brilliantly staged game. Congratulations.
Hard game Aussies. desrved if you admit you were good on defence and aided by extreme ignorance and inebriated refereeing.. then it is all good.
I
You
10 Oct 2011, 00:31 am
@soulfusion(soulfusion)-1100:
the 1999 ABs are listed as ‘No1 Chokers’ because France were absolutely sensational for 30mins at Twickenham, the RWC’99 SemiF.
This is the very same AB team that had the WORST run of results – in their entire history – 12mths previously (5 consecutive losses).
And the ‘no1 Chokers’ has been repeated here, ad nauseum. As a spectator in the stands that day, I simply thought France were awesome and outplayed the ABs with ‘perfect rugby’. But the Brains Trust on Keo gleefully called the ABs ‘chokers’.
Does that answer your question ? The answer is there, but only if you want to see it.
10 Oct 2011, 00:35 am
@Jinx2(Jinx2)-1093:
“we are the best”
then enjoy your Chump steak in QterF cattle-class to Jo’berg and mind the travel disadvantage when you get there.
10 Oct 2011, 01:36 am
SA were facing a serious threat of defeat from the moment Frans Steyn was injured after the Samoa game.
His boot would have been the difference in such a tight game, there is no question in my mind. I commented on this after he and Carter were injured over the same weekend.
Both were crucial to their respective teams strategy, but if anything, the loss of Steyn was a bigger blow. His ability to score points from long range was like gold, but in losing him, that advantage was gone.
There was no one else in the SA squad who could score points the way he could.
10 Oct 2011, 01:54 am
@Brads(Brads)-1106:
Brads, to be honest losing Steyn was a big blow, but at least SA had someone that could step in, that has played alot of international rugby in that position for SA. Of course a different type of player but when you compare it to us losing carter, really there is no comparison. Carter is the best in the world at that position. Steyn is not. Carter has actually won more games on his own for the ABs than what Steyn ever has or will ever do.
Not saying Steyn wasnt missed,he sure was but you cant compare NZ losing Carter to SA losing Steyn
10 Oct 2011, 02:09 am
@Hurricane(Hurricane)-1107:
You are missing the point I was making.
Against good opposition SA have relied on kicking for goal rather than scoring tries. When he was lost, they didn’t just lose a good player, they lost entirely the ability to accumulate something like 40% of their total points.
There was no one who could replace his contribution to the team.
So yes, Carter was a massive loss to NZ, but his loss to the team does not have the same overall impact to the team strategy.
SA rely on appling huge pressure and then capitalise on the opposition mistakes through kicks at goal. Morne Steyn is a brilliant kicker, but can’t do what Frans is capable of.
10 Oct 2011, 05:18 am
Well played SA, I’d say you’re entitled to feel hard done by. It reminded me of our QF exit in ’07 and it’s dismaying to see the same thing happen four years on. No doubt Paddy will again award himself a pass mark.
10 Oct 2011, 05:39 am
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/8816349/Rugby-World-Cup-2011-Bryce-Lawrence-reduced-breakdown-to-a-farce-in-Australias-win-over-South-Africa.html
Not only Saffas who are gobsmacked.
10 Oct 2011, 05:43 am
http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/10/10/surprise-lawrence-refereeing-produces-a-dour-game/
And even some Aussies.
10 Oct 2011, 06:54 am
@>^..^< katman(katman)-1110:
@>^..^< katman(katman)-1111:
you have ALL that possession
and you cant score ONE try
and yet youre blaming the referee
right ?
btw – has it occurred to you that the breakdown was a ‘free-for-all’ for BOTH sides ?
let me guess, a conspiracy ?
did you see that Richie McCaw scored a legitimate try against the post vs Argies last pm, and yet the TMO inexplicably ruled it ‘No Try’. It was the 3rd such ruling by TMOs against the All Blacks in the past 12mths. Have ONE guess which nation supplied all 3 of those TMOs.
10 Oct 2011, 07:45 am
I’m a kiwi and I wouldn’t have given that try. It was clearly off the ground (Argie foot under the ball) and (as the commentators at least understand the current rule) it must be *grounded* against the pad.
10 Oct 2011, 07:47 am
Well played Wallabies. Heroic defence. You took your chances and rode your luck the way you need to in this tournament. A young team with plenty of talent, guts and clearly a strong team identity, you will go a long way.
10 Oct 2011, 08:20 am
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-1112: How was that a legitimate try? You have to touch the pole AND the deck at the same time. That didn’t happen.
10 Oct 2011, 10:39 am
defunkt – Just read on the roar.com.au site that the Boks were playing straight up through the middle but didn’t get their backline moving, showing lots of guts but no penetration. I think that is the correct summation n the Boks and their RWC campaign. Infact for about 2 years now the Boks have lost the ability to create good bakline movments and have just relied on crash ball tactics, which sometimes work e.g. when JDV put Lambie awaysforward pass though). Things only changed when Frans Steyn was at 12, he managed to get the whole backline moving by himself!!
But again PDVs reign will be summed up by the fact that he brought notihng knew into the Boks mix whilst having the greatest generation of players at his disposal.
10 Oct 2011, 11:43 am
@Ratel Brussow(Morne Steyn is under-rated)-1115:
oh really ?
IRB says otherwise:-
“(b) Grounded against a goal post. The goal posts and padding surrounding them are part of the goal line, which is part of in-goal. If an attacking player is first to ground the ball against a goal post or padding, a try is scored
10 Oct 2011, 11:44 am
@defunkt(defunkt)-1113:
only needs to touch the padding or post, which it clearly did.
10 Oct 2011, 11:57 am
Stop, Pantie, because you are embarrassing yourself here.
What do you think “grounded” means? Here’s a tip – it has nothing to do with coffee beans.
Or do you seriously think you can touch the ball against the post, 2m up, and the ref should award a try?
Ease into the week, pal
10 Oct 2011, 12:18 pm
@>^..^< katman(katman)-1119:
I dunno, what do you think “The goal posts and padding surrounding….against a goal post or padding” means then ?
touch the ball against the padding and its a Try. Are you telling me youve never seen this before ?
Your condescending tone amuses me, please continue.
10 Oct 2011, 12:26 pm
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-1120: Sweet Prince of Thickness, the answer lies in your own quote from the IRB:
“(b) Grounded against a goal post. The goal posts and padding surrounding them are part of the goal line, which is part of in-goal. If an attacking player is first to ground the ball against a goal post or padding, a try is scored…”
The word grounded means, literally, to place on the ground. What the men of the IRB failed to explain simply enough for the lowest common denominator (i.e. you) to grasp, was that the part of the padding or post that forms part of the line, is the part that touches the GROUND (gettit? grounded and ground share a more than coincidental likeness). In other words, even though the padding is wide and extends beyond the line, you simply have to GROUND the ball against this part of the padding to score a try.
If this is still unclear to you, ask your teacher to explain it.
10 Oct 2011, 12:30 pm
@>^..^< katman(katman)-1121:
10 Oct 2011, 12:45 pm
Black Panty you must be gutted that it wasn’t a South African that was beaten to death by those 3 kiwi’s in Auckland hey?
10 Oct 2011, 13:20 pm
@>^..^< katman(katman)-1121:
You clearly dont get it
yes, the ball touches the ‘ground’. Given the thickness of the padding, the ground will actually be BEFORE the line because the padding sticks out beyond it. As “goal posts and padding surrounding them are part of the goal line”, ie AS IF the padding were the line itself. Therefore, touch the turf before the line – no try – but lean the ball forward and hit the padding, which is what McCaw did, and a Try should be awarded. Defunkts point is the valid one, I say the boot was not between ball and the turf. We disagree on that point, only.
10 Oct 2011, 13:23 pm
@Fern is not a stud,he is merely no19(Fern)-1123:
Dont apply your own mental sickness on to others so liberally, Fornicator.
10 Oct 2011, 13:39 pm
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-1124: Try that again, in plain English. Not some simpleton dialect that gets tongue tied at the thought of a two part sentence.
You claimed, totally fcking erroneously, that the ball could be placed ANYWHERE along the post or padding for a try (i.e. as high up as you like)
I corrected you, totally fcking righteously, by stating that the ball had to be
GROUNDED against the padding (i.e. on the ground) for it to be a try.
You mocked and condescended until you realized what a complete douche you were. And now you are trying to weasel your way into some kind of explanation that sits comfortably half way between the IRB law and the drunken madness you claimed earlier.
Fugeddaboudit, clown. You can’t undo the damage that’s been done.
10 Oct 2011, 13:44 pm
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-1124:
Babes!!!!
Why so irritable today!
10 Oct 2011, 15:24 pm
wonder if bitter panties also misunderstands the “grounding” rule in a hazard?
does he also cheat at golf?
10 Oct 2011, 15:35 pm
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-1117:
Bud it has to touch the ground and the padding of the post.
10 Oct 2011, 20:12 pm
@charo(charo)-1128:
‘bitterness’ is an Exclusive product here since Sunday. I couldnt get my hands on it if I tried.
catch a wave, bruv !!!
10 Oct 2011, 20:19 pm
@wallabie.(wallabie.)-1129:
I think you’ll find thats exactly what I said at 1124.
Good luck for this w/e – its sensational that all the RUGBY playing nations have made the Semis, the ball will actually pass ‘through the hands’ and the RWC-watching public will finally get what they deserve with not a kick’n'clap imposter in sight. No England, No Sth Africa.
Coincidentally, or not, the 2011 Semi lineup is exactly the same as 1987 – the same tournament that ‘doesnt count’ in the eyes of the bitter masses.
Should be some match.
10 Oct 2011, 20:35 pm
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-1131: Perhaps, but that’s certainly not what you said in 1118 or 1120. You seriously though you could just pop the ball up against any old part of the post and the ref would stick his arm up and say well done.
You only changed your tune in 1124 after I rubbed your nose in your incredible denseness, like you do with a puppy that peed in the house.
And you can’t even go back and delete your stupid posts. They have to remain there as a monument to your dimness for all time.
11 Oct 2011, 01:39 am
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-1131:
I am looking forward to it….the best team will win….whoever it is!
Pages: « 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.