[2015 TRC] Australia v South Africa in Brisbane (18/07/2015)

[William18]

No one has really said that Hooper had a poor game. Either way Australia got completely bossed at the breakdown and you really can't allow that to happen at the RWC. As a #7 if you get beaten up at the breakdown then the finger is probably going to be pointed straight at you.

 

[austingtir]

No one has really said that Hooper had a poor game. Either way Australia got completely bossed at the breakdown and you really can't allow that to happen at the RWC. As a #7 if you get beaten up at the breakdown then the finger is probably going to be pointed straight at you.

For me surely the Boks will feel they choked more than Australia got the better of them. Again I thought the level of dominance they had upto and after half time was crazy. So many things happened to turn that around including a very good Australian turn around.... it should never of been enough to win them the game though.

The amount of ridiculous kicking in this game almost set a new bar. If cooper had stayed on it surely would of....

Pollard was as bad as Cooper which was a surprise to. When you have two first fives that are as bad as each other they probably nullify each other out when one is replaced and one isnt thats obviously going to contribute to a change in fortunes.

 

[goodNumber10]

No one has really said that Hooper had a poor game. Either way Australia got completely bossed at the breakdown and you really can't allow that to happen at the RWC. As a #7 if you get beaten up at the breakdown then the finger is probably going to be pointed straight at you.

by people who don't understand how australia are playing.

New Zealand favour a gound man like McCaw because a lot of the time they play an "in to out/drift defence" which often results in low or side tackles, that allows a player like McCaw and Pocock to get over the ball.

The Waratahs, and Australia favour more of a blitz/rush defence like England - which means you don't commit to the breakdown because you're looking to create pressure and mistakes in the opposition with ball in hand, and adding men into the breakdown cuts your defenders.

 

[Peat]

by people who don't understand how australia are playing.

New Zealand favour a gound man like McCaw because a lot of the time they play an "in to out/drift defence" which often results in low or side tackles, that allows a player like McCaw and Pocock to get over the ball.

The Waratahs, and Australia favour more of a blitz/rush defence like England - which means you don't commit to the breakdown because you're looking to create pressure and mistakes in the opposition with ball in hand, and adding men into the breakdown cuts your defenders.

Australia's breakdown problems came in attack though. I mean, yeah, they didn't do a huge amount to pressure the Saffa breakdown in attack, but what looked set to cost them the match was the number of times they got turned over in attack.

In fairness, the tide there turned as much with BdP going off as Pocock coming on.

 

[Kiwi_]

All in all you can never play the perfect games and there's areas where the other side will be better than you and vice versa. Pocock was the game changer IMO and Phipps. SA lost intensity after getting a comfortable lead and made some uninspiring subs, lesson learned. Do Aussie play them in SA?

 

[goodNumber10]

Australia's breakdown problems came in attack though. I mean, yeah, they didn't do a huge amount to pressure the Saffa breakdown in attack, but what looked set to cost them the match was the number of times they got turned over in attack.

In fairness, the tide there turned as much with BdP going off as Pocock coming on.

Think that's more to do with Skelton and Higginbotham not doing their core work than with Pocock coming on....When you've got Fardy, Higginbotham and Hooper all playing wide you've only got 4 clearers and your backs.. which is going to lead to isolated ball carriers and turnover.


Hooper roams like an extra centre we all know that, but to do that he needs a tight five that dominate and Skelton was frankly awful yesterday, so I think the biggest change yesterday was Horwill coming on, he added some power and the Hooper try was a result of that.

- - - Updated - - -

All in all you can never play the perfect games and there's areas where the other side will be better than you and vice versa. Pocock was the game changer IMO and Phipps. SA lost intensity after getting a comfortable lead and made some uninspiring subs, lesson learned. Do Aussie play them in SA?

nope, that's it - the only time they'll play this year unless they meet int he World Cup.

 

[SomeOke]

I don't think Pollard is the answer right now. Lambie?
If Coetzee is seriously injured that's a giant kick to the nads.
Conversely, I don't think Matfield was missed and that Lood de Jaeger had a big game
Agree with those who've been questioning Le Roux's presence at full-back - he's magical but unreliable. What's the options there?
I was led to believe JdP should be put down, yet on the basis of that game it should be the sub front row taken out back with the shotgun en masse. What gives, Saffas?

I'm willing to give Pollard a chance, I thought he had a much improved game, if you take the first 20 minutes out of it he actually had a strong game. Lambie is fine but doesn't do anything particularly well.
Coetzee injury sucks but apparently it was just a contact wound (according to his twitter it was just a "lummy" which is a SA word for bruise, kinda) and additionally loose trio is one of the few areas where our depth is good.
Agree about Matfield, de Lager was much better than Matfield in general play but we did lose a few line-outs after he left the field.
Also agree about Willie, but frankly I think the the benefits out weigh the mistakes, apart from one terrible kick that lead to the Aussies first try I thought he was pretty good this week on attack and defense, his kicking was pretty poor I'll admit. The only other realistic options at FB are Lambie and J Kriel (he played there throughout Super Rugby).
JdP did have a fantastic game, the reason why the public was up in arms about him was his general laziness around the part, poor tackling and mediocre scrummaging (in Super Rugby) however I agree none of those perceived weaknesses were there last night and the replacement front row was much poorer. The scrummaging question could also be due to the introduction of Horwil, Sio, and Holmes as much as the substitution of our starting front row but it's hard to say. I'm also not to sure about Frans Malherbe (preferring Vincent Koch) and was unconvinced by Heinke vdM as well.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Well, here's my take on the game.

I'm not disappointed in the loss. Our experiment didn't come off as well as we would've liked, and those early injuries in the game surely did have an impact on the flow of our team. Seems like whenever we lose our Captain early in a game, we lose, maybe because of a lack of leadership being shown by the experienced players who are left on the field.

This was the first time that Ruan Pienaar was acting as a captain for the Boks. Maybe some calls made by him on the field wasn't correct, and his kicking was aimless at times. But I think our problem wasn't the kicking, but rather the chasing of the ball after it was kicked. And here I'm going to single out JP Pietersen, he looked slow and unwilling to go the extra mile.

For me it felt like we were winning every facet of the game apart from the scoreboard and the aerial contests. And I thought the subs let us down tremendously, apart from Lood De Jager.

Our experiments:
1. Heinke van der Merwe - Scrummed well, but gave away a silly penalty to give Australia a chance to kick at goal.
7. Teboho Mohoje - It feels like he can only tackle, and doesn't have the skills to do much more than that.
8. Schalk Burger - He did very well IMO. He showed that we have more than 2 options in this position for the World Cup apart from Vermeulen and Whiteley.
13. Jesse Kriel - he was brilliant in attack, but I thought Kuridrani got the better of him in defence, and someone else had to come and help out at times, opening more space for the Wallabies to run.

For some strange reason, Jannie Du Plessis had a very good game. It could just be because of the poor scrummaging by the Aussies, but he looked hungry to contribute.

Just like Nick Mallet, Naas Botha and Bobby Skinstad, I can only see positives from this game. Our Defence is starting to work very well, something that will be very important at the world cup. Jesse Kriel is an option for us at 13. Schalla is an option at 8.

Congrats Australia, while I do think that the last try wasn't grounded, I still think Oz deserved the win, even if it's just for that gutsy call in the end to kick for touch rather than for goal.

 

[Dale91]

Calling shift in the back row
Calling number of changes for wallabies
Horwill n Simmons 2nd row
Poey hooper and McCalman backrow
Genia gits 10 or 12 and either foley or toomua.
Kurindrani Tomane AAC and Folau

 

[smartcooky]

Just like Nick Mallet, Naas Botha and Bobby Skinstad, I can only see positives from this game. Our Defence is starting to work very well, something that will be very important at the world cup. Jesse Kriel is an option for us at 13. Schalla is an option at 8.

Congrats Australia, while I do think that the last try wasn't grounded, I still think Oz deserved the win, even if it's just for that gutsy call in the end to kick for touch rather than for goal.

Last try was fine, it was the second to last try that should never have happened. The 5m scrum that was awarded when Hooper forced Burger into in-goal should not have been awarded. Hooper was already unbound from the scrum when the ball came out... it should have been a penalty to South Africa.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Last try was fine, it was the second to last try that should never have happened. The 5m scrum that was awarded when Hooper forced Burger into in-goal should not have been awarded. Hooper was already unbound from the scrum when the ball came out... it should have been a penalty to South Africa.

Yeah I thought Nigel Owens was a bit quick on the draw with some of the calls. Schalk even pleaded with him that Hooper was unbound.

Oh well, the Boks have now had 2games under the belt with NH refs and I think by the time they reach the World Cup, they will be well prepared for the difference in interpretation of some refs.

 

[Dale91]

If schalk pleaded it must be correct...

 

[goodNumber10]

Last try was fine, it was the second to last try that should never have happened. The 5m scrum that was awarded when Hooper forced Burger into in-goal should not have been awarded. Hooper was already unbound from the scrum when the ball came out... it should have been a penalty to South Africa.

do you not think Burger had broken his bind by the time Hooper broke his? it was a pretty quick heel as SA were under pressure.

 

[Sker]

If schalk pleaded it must be correct...

That's not what Heineken said nor implied buddy

I'm not too unhappy either, obviously would have been awesome if we won that but overall I think this was still a positive result. I'm sure HM will see what went wrong and try to rectify it, he's not stupid.

The aimless kicking was definitely a planned tactic that didn't work at all. It was also pretty stupid doing that against Folau. The only other gripe I have is De Allende, great player but the team should allow JPP to give him a solid kick in the balls. Guy needs to pass the ball.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I'll admit I'm still a bit fithy about the loss as I felt that penalty for selaing off was a tad arsh and then, habing gone that route Owens wouldn't penalise Aus for sealing off as well while going at it for the last try (which I do belive is a try).

Still, I can't deny Aus just wanted it more or at least looked lke wanting it more. After the Kriel try SA just seemd to become.. mechanical. No more rugby in them. Jst happy to kcik back and defend. That is something that has plagued our rugby on every level for a while now. It just felt too much like looking at a Stormers game. That and our kicking was simply attrocious. I do believe Pollard is our future but he is simply too green in his game mnagement to lead a RWC campaign IMO. I've been backing Lambie since the middle of SR. Reinach and Le Roux's kicking displays (and that one from Bismarck LOL) didn't help. Pollard's defence also let him down. Strange because that used to be a huge strength of his though maybe he is just taking his time to adapt to senior level rugby. The lad is bearly a tween for crying out loud.

The positives though are numerous though I still think this RWC is 2 years too early/too late for SA. Lood de Jager and Etzebeth were immense in defense nd Etzebeth is getting back to form, With PSdT on the mend post Bakkies/Matfield/Rossouw is set. We've been playing without our best loose trio for a while now and have been doing well enough. Mohoje thouh showed he shoudnt be there IMO. I was surprised by Sio dominating Malherbe though. I am still reeling from the fact that Jannie du Plessis will probably now feature for us going forward still. Our backline is very young and I belive the game management will come with experience. This RWC is too early for us but most of these guys are 22 too 24 and already showing heaps of potential. Give them 4 years as a core group and we should see a good team develop around them.

1 Kitshoff (23)
3 Koch/Malherbe/MvdM (25/24/24)
4 Etzebeth (23)
5 PSdT/De Jager (both 22)
6 Coetzee (24)
9 Reinach (25)
10 Pollard/Lambie (21/24)
12 De Allende (23)
13 Kriel/Serfontein (21/22)
15 Le Roux (25)

Add to these up and coming players and there is big potential. Arno Botha, Siya Kolisi and Jaco Kriel also ~24. Some of the more promising loosies are even younger so we shouldn't do too poorly post Alberts/Vermeulen/Flouw. Hell, we've been going without those three all fit for the last 2 years in any case. Hookers we'll have to go from scratch but there are good young hookers bubbling under. Bismarck and Strauss woulld probably still be in squad for another 2 or so years. If none of the promising youngsters step up Akker van der Merwe (24) is good enought o step in even if he is probably not in the same class of Bissie.

 

[Larksea]

entertaining game to watch as a neutral, I admit I dont normally watch these games.

Aussie I think Phips > Genia that all important ball delivery.
They got to start pocock, he's too good.
Skelton probably better as an impact player than starting.
I don't know what to do with Quade cooper but there must be better options for Aussie.

SA IMO were actually the stronger side. Probably got a bit comfortable, I think the Aussie bench through Phips, pocock and toomoa made an impact while the SA pack lost its edge and seemed to tyre a bit... But all an all considering the home advantage and all that's what got Aussie home.

The game seemed a bit frantic at times, both teams losing some structure and composure going for impact and physicality.

 

[nzlizard]

Tried to stay awake, but was so tired, woke up at 81mins to watch the winning try, was pretty intense last 30 seconds.

 

[smartcooky]

do you not think Burger had broken his bind by the time Hooper broke his? it was a pretty quick heel as SA were under pressure.

IIRC, Burger was playing No.8; the only player in the scrum entitled to break his bind before the ball is out (provided of course that he is the hindmost player and the ball is at his feet). His unbinding ends the scrum - Law 20.10 (c). I honestly cannot remember if he was still packing at No. 8 by then, and whether he picked up the ball or not. in any case, Hooper was unbound well before the ball was out, and gained a comparatively big advantage by only holding on with his hand, which allows him to be a lot closer to Burger than he otherwise would have been.

 

[austingtir]

IIRC, Burger was playing No.8; the only player in the scrum entitled to break his bind before the ball is out (provided of course that he is the hindmost player and the ball is at his feet). His unbinding ends the scrum - Law 20.10 (c). I honestly cannot remember if he was still packing at No. 8 by then, and whether he picked up the ball or not. in any case, Hooper was unbound well before the ball was out, and gained a comparatively big advantage by only holding on with his hand, which allows him to be a lot closer to Burger than he otherwise would have been.

I agree and its a bloody important call. I mean refs can give them some leeway on the halfway line but when a teams backed up on their try line calls like this need to be handled correctly that was basically a win or loose play that happened there... Hooper was clearly stepping over the line with this play imo. But as they say he got away with it and you cant really blame him.

Whats really annoying is the lack of a replay or whatever as the SA captain asked the Ref about the call and that should hold some sway with an incredibly important decision such as that.

 

[goodNumber10]

IIRC, Burger was playing No.8; the only player in the scrum entitled to break his bind before the ball is out (provided of course that he is the hindmost player and the ball is at his feet). His unbinding ends the scrum - Law 20.10 (c). I honestly cannot remember if he was still packing at No. 8 by then, and whether he picked up the ball or not. in any case, Hooper was unbound well before the ball was out, and gained a comparatively big advantage by only holding on with his hand, which allows him to be a lot closer to Burger than he otherwise would have been.

i understand that SC, but there is a reverse angle where you can see (i feel) Hooper still bound as burger puts his hands on the ball although he is certainly sliding up the prop and his bind isn't tight I feel his shoulder is still engaged.... I guess my question is is he allowed to slide up the props back like that? pretty much all the opensides in the NH do that.