whatty
Bob Loudon (25)
Far better than the accusations been dealt out.
Springboks v Wallabies, Newlands, September 28 2013
- Thread starter RoffsChoice
- Start date
- Status
Richo
John Thornett (49)
Certainly players have been penalised for leaping before -- see the post above.
Sidbarret
Fred Wood (13)
When a twenty point thumping feels like a loss.
I rarely listen to post-match interviews, but made an exception this week and I thought De Villiers summed things up very well he said that he can't believe he is disappointed with beating the aussies by that margin. The record book will show that South Africa one the game by twenty clear points, those who recall the match in isolation will say that it was a non-contest almost from the kick-off and yet somehow the result is disappointing. In the context of the rugby championship the failure to secure the bonus point is a real gut shot.
South Africa started the game "positively", they ran wider from deeper than we are used to seeing and it worked a treat. The wallabies made some mistakes with discipline and with poor kicks, but the real reason for the early blow-out was their inability to deal with the pressure being applied. The Kirchner try illustrated the idea of applying pressure very well I thought. On receiving the kick-off they set up a nice little maul to get onto the front foot and then spread the ball in such a manner that Tomane was forced to make difficult decision in defence, a decision he got wrong and seconds later Kirchner dotted down under the posts.
Sadly, confusingly or annoyingly South Africa moved away from what was working soon after. I see some people on the internet are saying that the Springboks went back into their shells and stopped taking risks. I don't think that is the case, rather they were taking the wrong risks. On a number of occasions I thought we had guys attempting low percentage kicks for territory which either conceded possession or simply went straight out on the full when running the ball would have made more sense.
With the exception of Du Preez, most of the players were workmanlike rather than good. Even Du Preez was only good compared to other scrumhalfs, I still think he has two or three levels in reserve.
Where does this game leave the wallabies? I am not going to patronize the Wallabies and say they played well, but I have seen them play a lot worse over the course of the season. In the end the game reminded me of that comic book fight where you have a big kid holding off a little kid while the little kid flails about hopelessly.
While on the subject of flailing about, the teams really don't seem to like each other at all. There is nothing specific, but the game had an underlying nastiness which has strange to see.
While on the subject, I don't care what Van der Merwe's intention was or what the judicial commission finds, I just hope he gets the boot. No matter how well he plays, and he was good in the opening stanza, he is always good for a couple of braindead penalties or actions like this weekend that sees him undo all the good that he is doing. Penalties, even yellow cards, will always happen, but unforced penalties invites unnecessary pressure onto the team which cancels out tons of good work.
I rarely listen to post-match interviews, but made an exception this week and I thought De Villiers summed things up very well he said that he can't believe he is disappointed with beating the aussies by that margin. The record book will show that South Africa one the game by twenty clear points, those who recall the match in isolation will say that it was a non-contest almost from the kick-off and yet somehow the result is disappointing. In the context of the rugby championship the failure to secure the bonus point is a real gut shot.
South Africa started the game "positively", they ran wider from deeper than we are used to seeing and it worked a treat. The wallabies made some mistakes with discipline and with poor kicks, but the real reason for the early blow-out was their inability to deal with the pressure being applied. The Kirchner try illustrated the idea of applying pressure very well I thought. On receiving the kick-off they set up a nice little maul to get onto the front foot and then spread the ball in such a manner that Tomane was forced to make difficult decision in defence, a decision he got wrong and seconds later Kirchner dotted down under the posts.
Sadly, confusingly or annoyingly South Africa moved away from what was working soon after. I see some people on the internet are saying that the Springboks went back into their shells and stopped taking risks. I don't think that is the case, rather they were taking the wrong risks. On a number of occasions I thought we had guys attempting low percentage kicks for territory which either conceded possession or simply went straight out on the full when running the ball would have made more sense.
With the exception of Du Preez, most of the players were workmanlike rather than good. Even Du Preez was only good compared to other scrumhalfs, I still think he has two or three levels in reserve.
Where does this game leave the wallabies? I am not going to patronize the Wallabies and say they played well, but I have seen them play a lot worse over the course of the season. In the end the game reminded me of that comic book fight where you have a big kid holding off a little kid while the little kid flails about hopelessly.
While on the subject of flailing about, the teams really don't seem to like each other at all. There is nothing specific, but the game had an underlying nastiness which has strange to see.
While on the subject, I don't care what Van der Merwe's intention was or what the judicial commission finds, I just hope he gets the boot. No matter how well he plays, and he was good in the opening stanza, he is always good for a couple of braindead penalties or actions like this weekend that sees him undo all the good that he is doing. Penalties, even yellow cards, will always happen, but unforced penalties invites unnecessary pressure onto the team which cancels out tons of good work.
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
I agree that Cooper had to try to tackle Strauss, although I think that Louw's overs line would've quite easily have gotten him around Alexander. Cooper should have stayed on Strauss as his man. I would hope that in the match review that is shown to Cooper his mistake.
Having said that, a hooker vs a 10 is a plain mismatch a few metres from your own tryline. You have to credit that Bok forwards for creating that mismatch, and equally wonder why/how our forwards allowed that to happen.
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
And, agree that as Alexander had missed his man (Louw), it was likely a Boks try even if Cooper had made his tackle as Strauss had Louw in support on an isolated Cooper. But that's all hypothetical, and it goes down as a mistake for Cooper.
Which for me is a shame as it blemishes an otherwise good game from Cooper, one missed bomb aside as well. (I don't subscribe to his kick-offs being poor, they looked like a plan to me with fast backs chasing high kicks to about the 22m.)
Which for me is a shame as it blemishes an otherwise good game from Cooper, one missed bomb aside as well. (I don't subscribe to his kick-offs being poor, they looked like a plan to me with fast backs chasing high kicks to about the 22m.)
Sandpit Fan
Nev Cottrell (35)
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
That sort of grammar fits in perfectly right here in Straya.
Watch some free to air TV if you think I'm joking you.
Streuth.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
I agree, too often for example are our tight forwards defending out wide, which allowed the boks to run at them and beat them for speed.
I undestand @whatty betterer than you, @Blue
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
Anyone know why the @ button isn't working when you are trying to tag someone in a post?
See below post for @blue example
Seems to be something that has happened in the last 24-48 hours.
@moses - whazzup?
See below post for @blue example
Seems to be something that has happened in the last 24-48 hours.
@moses - whazzup?
I undestand @whatty betterer than you, @Blue
nugget
Jimmy Flynn (14)
yes, you poor saffas, I too feel your heartbreak and loss at only beating us by 20. Such a shame.
Richo
John Thornett (49)
Shiggins
Simon Poidevin (60)
How was his tackle wreckless? I don't get it. The guy tackled etzy around the legs he jumped. It's etzy didn't jump there would be no problem. I understand u don't think it's deceived a card but even a bit wreckless isn't right to me.
He he. I mean IT things. Icky things, I can fix.Do you tell your patients that too?
The frog from the weekend is not the only international ref that has become a bit keen to reach for the pocket. The reasonable thing to do after reviewing the Hooper tackle would have been to talk to the two players, conclude that the event was the consequence of a bunch of circumstances beyond any one player's control and get on with the game.
I understand that the IRB wants to reduce head, neck and back (ie life changing) injuries and perhaps just as importantly the individual unions want to avoid litigation for the same, but sending Hooper from the field does nothing to further the perceived disincentive to tackle dangerously, since he quite clearly carried neither intent nor recklessness.
The question really is - what can Hooper do to avoid that situation in the future - and the only reasonable answer is "nothing", which is why the card was stupid.
I understand that the IRB wants to reduce head, neck and back (ie life changing) injuries and perhaps just as importantly the individual unions want to avoid litigation for the same, but sending Hooper from the field does nothing to further the perceived disincentive to tackle dangerously, since he quite clearly carried neither intent nor recklessness.
The question really is - what can Hooper do to avoid that situation in the future - and the only reasonable answer is "nothing", which is why the card was stupid.
- Status