Going nowhere: Pierre Spies breaks blind off a scrum and gets bundled into touch
The quarter-final between South Africa and Australia was one of the best games of international rugby since the Lions Tests of 2009. Actually, there's no maybe about it. It was.
It had everything: skill, commitment, heart, tension, and some of the most robust collisions you are likely to see on a rugby field.
After the match I spent nearly four hours in the pub picking over the bones of the defeat with my cousin and we couldn't find too much to fault in South Africa's tactical approach, or their performance.
Now I've had a chance to re-watch the tape of the match in the cold light of day there are a few things to be critical of from that Springbok performance, but also plenty to be positive about.
I must also add that I think it's too simplistic to boil this game down to South Africa's attack not being good enough to beat Australia's admittedly superb defence. Here are my five reasons why they lost:
1. Bryce Lawrence
I have put this at the top because having watched the game in its entirety twice it is clear that Lawrence is the dominant figure of the match. As Mark Reason has blogged, Lawrence made a complete hash of the breakdown and a complete mockery of the IRB's directives. They were handed down to make sure the breakdown was strictly refereed with no funny business. This, the IRB hoped, would lead to a more attacking game as there would be less turnovers or defensive penalties at the breakdown. Lawrence failed in this. As he failed to award two clear high tackle infringements from James Horwill and Quade Cooper in the final 10 minutes. As he failed to spot Dan Vickerman's hand in the ruck with the Boks three metres out from the line. The lack of consistency in refereeing styles continues to blight Test rugby.
2. David Pocock
The openside made 26 tackles and was a force of nature at the breakdown. He must be given credit for his chutzpah. He realised pretty damn quickly that Lawrence was not going to penalise him very often at the tackle area, and he certainly wasn't going to bin him. He rode his luck for the full 80 minutes, using his physique, fitness and technique to slow down or pilfer the ball at every opportunity. It's going to take some performance from Richie McCaw to keep this boy quiet next week.
3. Heinrich Brüssow's injury
Prior to this match Brendan Venter wrote in his column that while Pocock was clearly an exceptional rugby player he would not been given a free pass at the breakdown because South Africa had stumbled upon a great balance in the back row, with both Brüssow and Schalk Burger there. Burger went on to produce another incredible Test match performance (in fact, he is so good and plays with so much heart I have noticed a few Lions fans forgiving him for fiddling with Luke Fitzgerald's eyes) but without Brüssow there he was unable to neutralise Pocock. Francois Louw had a super game off the bench but he is not in the same class as Brüssow when it comes to pilfers. I have no doubt that had Brüssow not gone off after the first quarter Pocock would not have exerted nearly as much influence over the game.
4. Too late to use the boot
When did South Africa look their most dangerous in this game? When Fourie du Preez, Morne Steyn and Pat Lambie were aerially bombarding the Aussies. JP Pietersen also played a blinder in this respect, chasing and tackling like a man possessed. It certainly ruffled the feathers of Quade Cooper, who went missing in action yet again at the World Cup, but we didn't see enough of this tactic in the first half. Nor did we see enough territorial kicking, which is particularly surprising when you consider that the Springboks won all 14 of their line-outs and stole five of the Wallabies'. I know it sounds bizarre to say it about this Springbok team. But they probably didn't kick enough.
5. Selections and injuries
The biggest debate in SA rugby over the last year has been about what the superior starting XV was. And three substitutions yesterday showed what was the real best team. Bismarck du Plessis at hooker, Francois Hougaard on the left wing and Willem Alberts at No 8. The trio, who replaced John Smit, Bryan Habana and Pierre Spies respectively, improved the side to the extent that you wonder what might have been had they started. Smit's impact at the set-piece was clear but he didn't add much around the park other than a few routine carries. Habana took a bit of a battering with the ball in hand and a quick comparison between his contributions and those of Hougaard show who is the bigger attacking threat at the moment. As for Spies? Well Opta say he made 121 metres with the ball in hand, more than anyone in the four quarter-finals, but unfortunately for South Africa a high proportion of these were runs down blind allies. Alberts got through his fair share of carrying but he also hit rucks and tried to spoil Australia's ball. Spies could learn a lot from his work-rate.
No comments:
Post a Comment