Rugby World Cup 2011: five reasons why South Africa lost to Australia

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.

Rugby World Cup 2011: Close encounters of the quarter-final kind… with wins for NZ, England, SA and Ireland

Twelve wannabe pretenders to the crown are already snugly tucked up in bed at home – and four more will have joined them come Sunday night. But who will they be?

At face value two of the weekend’s quarter-finals look to be safe bets, and two are absolute humdingers that only a fool would re-mortgage the house for to lay a bet.

But all eight teams, some more convincingly than others, have deserved their place in the knockout stage – and you just have to think back to Cardiff at RWC 2007 that no quarter-final is signed and sealed before the kick-off.

And while purely of academic interest, how different might the draw have looked if the outcomes of a few close games had been reversed… if Argentina had held on to their lead against England, if Scotland had not choked against the Pumas, if the world rankings had held sway between Australia and Ireland?? But that’s how this wonderful game goes, and now we’re guaranteed a southern v northern hemisphere final.

So here some thoughts and predictions… and would like to hear your take on the weekend.

New Zealand v Argentina One of the two ‘bankers’. Even without Dan Carter, even with Richie McCaw carrying an injury, the All Blacks should have far too much class for the enthusiastic but ultimately limited Pumas. There should be some parity among the tight five, the All Black loosies should secure plenty of fast ball, and the backs will have a field day. Game over. New Zealand 32 Argentina 15.

England v France The game between the two teams who’ve made more off-field headlines than set the world alight with their play. The drinking, kissing, lewd dwarf-tossers versus the bitching in-fighters intent on starting a new French revolution. Martin Johnson’s team have hardly been electrifying, squeaking past only reasonable opposition in Argentina and Scotland.

But so be it, they key is they stayed composed and won – and nothing else matters. France, in turn, have been a disgrace, and are the only team to have lost two matches and still qualified for the play-offs.

All signs point to a convincing win for England – and deservedly so. But this – need we any reminding? – is France. Tempestuous, arrogant mavericks that can lose by 50 today and beat the same opposition by two tomorrow. Supporters will hope, opponents will fear, that they have their customary 80 minutes of sublime RWC magic in them, when every bounce of the ball goes their way.

Just don’t see that happening. This France team make their 2010 Football World Cup counterparts look smart and disciplined, while England have enough grunt upfront to silence the calls of Allez Bleus. England 28 France 17.

Australia v South Africa Compelling, fascinating, thrilling… almost an injustice that the world No 2 and 3 teams should meet so early, and a match that won’t be settled until the final 10 minutes. If the Wallaby loose forwards compete like they did against New Zealand in Brisbane in August, and free up their hard-running backs, they could sneak this one. But the Springboks have shown in close matches against Wales and Samoa that they know how to hold their nerve. South Africa 21 Australia 18.

Ireland v Wales To neutrals surely the match-up of the weekend. Ireland, so brilliant against Australia, have gone about the business with understated grit and determination, throwing the pre-RWC form book right out of the window. A true all-round side, boasting presence upfront, a magnificent back-row and hard-running backs. And there’s the rub… with slightly different emphasis, we could say the same about Wales, who’ve done well to overcome that heart-breaking defeat in their opener to the Springboks.

I’ve tossed my lucky 50p coin untold times – and still it’s even between tails and heads. A draw perhaps at full-time with the tie settled in extra time? Virtually impossible to call in on-field skill, so I’ll predict it on perceived mental strength. Ireland, I think, just have that bit more self-belief than Wales, so it’s Brian O’Driscoll’s team by a whisker. Ireland 24 Wales 22.

Prepared to put a tenner on each of the outcomes. How do you see it?

This blog is supported by Maximuscle, suppliers of sports nutrition to Courtney Lawes, Joe Simpson and the Welsh Rugby Team.

Rugby World Cup 2011: South Africa showed they are still a force in big win over Fiji

Huge: Schalk Burger put in another impressive performance (Photo: GETTY IMAGES)

In the 'Group of Death' South Africa are the chief executioners, brushing aside the challenges in front of them and bringing an abrupt end to any fanciful ideas of upsets and fairytales.

Wales produced one of their best ever Rugby World Cup performances against South Africa, but they were denied at the death by a team who knows how to win.

The 'Flying Fijians' came out of the blocks at a fearsome pace early on and tried to run South Africa off the park. The Boks' first-up defence was poor, but the scramble was excellent and this meant that all Fiji's efforts added up to nil.

Come the second half, with the defensive job emphatically done, the Boks were able to unveil their attacking game for the first time since the opening 10 minutes against Wales, adding four more tries to the two scored in the first half, and winning by a much bigger margin than people were predicting.

For context's sake they beat Fiji by 17 points in 2007, when the Islanders were arguably a much better side. Today the difference was 46, so perspective is needed.

There are still things to work on but there is also plenty to suggest that these Boks will not be giving up their title without an almighty fight.

The good:

Defence: getting better and better. First-up tackling is still a bit ropey, with 26 missed in total, but the scramble continues to be excellent. Star performers in defence were Heinrich Brussow (21) and Schalk Burger (17).

Offloading: South Africa's forwards were particularly impressive in this respect with Burger, Danie Rossouw and Brussow always looking up for the pass. If the Boks forwards can come to the party with the ball in hand in the knock-out stages then they could be difficult to stop in attack.

Discipline: referees are stricter than ever at this World Cup and the Boks only leaked seven penalties. In this context that has to be considered a bonus.

The bad:

Errors and execution:  the Boks made 11 handling errors and still looked a bit scratchy at times in attack. They will be particularly annoyed at not scoring a seventh try at the end when they had several chances to go over. Still, this can only get better.

Selection headaches: does Pieter de Villiers know who his best team is yet? Frans Steyn looked quality at No. 12 but Jean de Villiers is hardly going to get dropped if he is fit enough to play. Morne Steyn missed three kicks at goal, but to his credit came back into the game well with the ball in hand. Pat Lambie also made a big claim to be included in the run-on team. There are so many question marks for the coaches to deal with and I'm sure they'd prefer to have a definitive idea.

The ugly:

Bakkies Botha: he went off at half-time. Was this to wrap him up in cotton wool? Or is 'The Enforcer' actually way off match fitness? They could do with him when they come up against the big boys in the knock-outs.

Thoughts?

Rugby World Cup 2011: Pieter de Villiers must drop the dead wood in his South Africa team

Sink or swim: Pieter de Villiers has a big decision to make (Photo: GETTY IMAGES)

If Pieter de Villiers and South Africa are to achieve anything at this Rugby World Cup he must realise what his best team is – and fast.

The substitution of John Smit, Pierre Spies and Bryan Habana, with the Springboks on their knees against Wales, brought about an instant change in fortunes for the struggling world champions.

Bismarck du Plessis lead the way in defence and carried well when called upon, Willem Alberts brought ballast and application to the back row and Francois Hougaard made more yardage with the ball than Habana had managed for the preceding 60 minutes.

If De Villiers can extend his mea culpa even further by picking young Sharks fly-half Pat Lambie at 10 then South Africa may have something resembling a competitive team.

If the marked improvement in South Africa's performance after those substitutions was not evidence enough for De Villiers then he should look to England's campaign in 2007.

They were also world champions and they also began the tournament in a mess. By the end of the 2nd pool game they had sneaked past the USA and been thrashed by the Boks.

Player power and cold hard reality sunk in and they adapated. Tactics were changed (actually tactics were employed for the first time having been missing in action before). Also, and most importantly, players like Shaun Perry who were quite clearly not up to the task of defending the trophy were removed.

Reinventing the wheel mid-tournament requires guts, but England showed it can be done, going on to reach the final when it looked impossible.

There is however a spanner in the works for South Africa: the fitness of Bakkies Botha, Victor Matfield and Jean de Villiers. If they are all unavailable (and it doesn't look good for Botha) then the Boks lose three towers of experience. If you also drop John Smit you are down four big, big leaders.

Does De Villiers have the courage to do what needs to be done? Will the players need to tell him so? Or will he carry on blindly with Plan A?

For what it's worth this is the team that I would pick for the big game against Samoa:

South Africa: Beast, Du Plessis, Du Plessis, Rossouw, Matfield (captain if fit), Brussow, Alberts, Burger, Du Preez, Lambie, Hougaard, De Villiers (if fit), Fourie, Pietersen, F Steyn

Thoughts?

 

Rugby World Cup 2011: My predictions – Scotland to beat England, an early exit for Ireland, Wales to top Pool D

Under 24 hours to go to Rugby World Cup 2011 kick-off (at the time of writing), so time to spell out how I think the pools will develop. Is this what I hope will happen, or think will occur? Not entirely sure myself – probably a mix of voices from the heart and the head – but no matter, here goes.

And please let me know how and where you agree or disagree.

Pool A

Very much a two-horse race, with the only real significant match on September 24 between New Zealand and their nemesis, France. On paper you'd have to say the All Blacks, but then you think back to 1999 and 2007, and suddenly it's one of THE biggest pool matches imaginable.

Can Les Bleus upset the apple cart true and proper by beating the hosts? Both will obviously want to win the group – thereby, on paper at least, securing an 'easier' quarter-final – but Pool B is wide open and coming second in Pool A might ultimately not be a massive price to pay.

Being the hosts has huge pros and cons for NZ – possibly unbearable pressure and expectations, but also masses of support. The current All Blacks seem to be open and relaxed, mingling with the public and coming across confident. Compare that with the siege mentality of previous campaigns (and failures), and they may just be on to a good thing here.

Prediction 1 NZ, 2 France.

Pool B

One of two 'pools of death'. And gut feel says this is so tight to call that bonus points – for scoring four tries or more or losing by seven points or under – may just come heavily into play.

Yes, Argentina seem not to be the force they were in 2007, but I think they may still be good enough to trouble their opponents. Fence-sitting? No way! England to beat the Pumas by a comfortable few, before backs-against-the-wall Argentina rumble Scotland.

All which sets up the group perfectly for a killer clash at Eden Park on October 1. And in an ugly, messy, attritional slug-fest among the two packs, I predict the Scots to squeeze home by a point or two (all courtesy of kicks). And so we're back in bonus-points territory and possibly points difference.

Prediction 1 England, 2 Scotland.

Pool C

The most predictable in terms of who'll finish on top. Can't see any of the four teams remotely threatening Australia. The Wallabies are also in the comfortable position of having played their two 'big' pool opponents by September 17, allowing some rest for key players in preparation for the play-offs.

Who'll finish second is the exciting bit. On paper it would seem to be Ireland by a country mile – but Italy will fancy their chances given Ireland's lacklustre warm-ups and the narrow 11-13 defeat in Rome in February. Having both lost to the Aussies come October 2, I think the pressure will simply mess with the Irish players' heads. Their dismal RWC record will play on their minds – and continue.

Prediction 1 Australia, 2 Italy.

Pool D

The most physical, closely contested group of the lot – and the other one in which bonus points could determine the final standings. Spare a thought for Namibia, who will be lambs to the slaughter in every match. And much as I like the Fijian way of playing – and despite their heroics last year – this year they'll end fourth in the pool, leaving it to South Africa, Wales and Samoa to slug it out.

This may sound like a caveat, but much depends on whether Wales learn to play the full 80 minutes or stick to exerting themselves only in the last 40, which, against the Boks and Samoa, could mean both games are lost for them by half-time.

Much has been made of Samoa's win over Australia in July, but it was against a mix-and-match team, so I'm going to discount that slightly. Ultimately, then, I somehow believe Wales will win both matches while South Africa's rather boring but efficient kick-and-chase game will stifle Samoa (of course, and I expect some biffo from both, this match could be won by the team who earns the fewer yellow/red cards).

Prediction 1 Wales, 2 South Africa.

Now kick that ball in anger!

Finally, you can still enter the competition to win Maximuscle gear and products by predicting the England v Argentina and Wales v South Africa scores (see the previous blog).

And very finally, my predictions for the big opening matches: NZ 35 Tonga 13, England 22 Argentina 10, Wales 20 South Africa 17. Now let the games begin.

Follow me on Twitter @lookdownsouth

This blog is supported by Maximuscle, the sports nutrition choice of Courtney Lawes, Joe Simpson and the Welsh team. For more information on how Maximuscle is the Team Behind the Team, go to www.maximuscle.com/tbtt

Rugby World Cup 2011: My predictions – Scotland to beat England, an early exit for Ireland, Wales to top Pool C

Under 24 hours to go to Rugby World Cup 2011 kick-off (at the time of writing), so time to spell out how I think the pools will develop. Is this what I hope will happen, or think will occur? Not entirely sure myself – probably a mix of voices from the heart and the head – but no matter, here goes.

And please let me know how and where you agree or disagree.

Pool A

Very much a two-horse race, with the only real significant match on September 24 between New Zealand and their nemesis, France. On paper you'd have to say the All Blacks, but then you think back to 1999 and 2007, and suddenly it's one of THE biggest pool matches imaginable.

Can Les Bleus upset the apple cart true and proper by beating the hosts? Both will obviously want to win the group – thereby, on paper at least, securing an 'easier' quarter-final – but Pool B is wide open and coming second in Pool A might ultimately not be a massive price to pay.

Being the hosts has huge pros and cons for NZ – possibly unbearable pressure and expectations, but also masses of support. The current All Blacks seem to be open and relaxed, mingling with the public and coming across confident. Compare that with the siege mentality of previous campaigns (and failures), and they may just be on to a good thing here.

Prediction 1 NZ, 2 France.

Pool B

One of two 'pools of death'. And gut feel says this is so tight to call that bonus points – for scoring four tries or more or losing by seven points or under – may just come heavily into play.

Yes, Argentina seem not to be the force they were in 2007, but I think they may still be good enough to trouble their opponents. Fence-sitting? No way! England to beat the Pumas by a comfortable few, before backs-against-the-wall Argentina rumble Scotland.

All which sets up the group perfectly for a killer clash at Eden Park on October 1. And in an ugly, messy, attritional slug-fest among the two packs, I predict the Scots to squeeze home by a point or two (all courtesy of kicks). And so we're back in bonus-points territory and possibly points difference.

Prediction 1 England, 2 Scotland.

Pool C

The most predictable in terms of who'll finish on top. Can't see any of the four teams remotely threatening Australia. The Wallabies are also in the comfortable position of having played their two 'big' pool opponents by September 17, allowing some rest for key players in preparation for the play-offs.

Who'll finish second is the exciting bit. On paper it would seem to be Ireland by a country mile – but Italy will fancy their chances given Ireland's lacklustre warm-ups and the narrow 11-13 defeat in Rome in February. Having both lost to the Aussies come October 2, I think the pressure will simply mess with the Irish players' heads. Their dismal RWC record will play on their minds – and continue.

Prediction 1 Australia, 2 Italy.

Pool D

The most physical, closely contested group of the lot – and the other one in which bonus points could determine the final standings. Spare a thought for Namibia, who will be lambs to the slaughter in every match. And much as I like the Fijian way of playing – and despite their heroics last year – this year they'll end fourth in the pool, leaving it to South Africa, Wales and Samoa to slug it out.

This may sound like a caveat, but much depends on whether Wales learn to play the full 80 minutes or stick to exerting themselves only in the last 40, which, against the Boks and Samoa, could mean both games are lost for them by half-time.

Much has been made of Samoa's win over Australia in July, but it was against a mix-and-match team, so I'm going to discount that slightly. Ultimately, then, I somehow believe Wales will win both matches while South Africa's rather boring but efficient kick-and-chase game will stifle Samoa (of course, and I expect some biffo from both, this match could be won by the team who earns the fewer yellow/red cards).

Prediction 1 Wales, 2 South Africa.

Now kick that ball in anger!

Finally, you can still enter the competition to win Maximuscle gear and products by predicting the England v Argentina and Wales v South Africa scores (see the previous blog).

And very finally, my predictions for the big opening matches: NZ 35 Tonga 13, England 22 Argentina 10, Wales 20 South Africa 17. Now let the games begin.

Follow me on Twitter @lookdownsouth

This blog is supported by Maximuscle, the sports nutrition choice of Courtney Lawes, Joe Simpson and the Welsh team. For more information on how Maximuscle is the Team Behind the Team, go to www.maximuscle.com/tbtt