SA 53 - 8 Australia

Another case of what a difference a week makes - and again at Australia's expense.

Australia did, I think, play a bit worse than last week. Not really badly, although there were poor patches, but never really well either. Quite a lot of that must go down the Boks who played their socks off. You could be critical and point out that there were several really good try scoring opportunities that Boks butchered at various points in the game - they could have been into the 70's if everything had gone to hand. That said, every player is entitled to the odd mistake and that was really what they were, rather than anyone having a bad game. Butch James might be the exception - he had a rather poor kicking game but played well in the other aspects of the game.

This game might paper over the cracks that PdV is causing in SARU, or rather between SARU, the players and the fans. A resounding victory tends to do that after all. It was, however worth noting that the PdV game plan went out the window. Whether that's what he decided, or what the players decided or what isn't clear, but this Bok side played like the sides of old. They kicked the ball in defence. They quite often (at times probably too often) kicked the ball in attack for territory. They hit the breakdown in numbers and cleared the Wallabies out. Bekker and the whole front row carried the ball close, hard and on a few occasions wider and faster, but never really wide: there was always someone (or several) with pace further out. The back row were all over the place doing all the things they're meant to do. (Matfield tackled well, but didn't appreciably carry the ball often, but with the rest of the forwards doing that he wasn't missed in that role.) Although the points were largely scored out wide, the gaps were made because of the tight, close play sucking in the defenders rather than any real attempt to play the ball wide at all costs.

This is setting up an interesting conflict in a fortnight. Australia have really only played well twice in this Tri-Nations, but both times it's been at home. The All Blacks have played well both at home and away, but can they play well in Australia in two weeks time, can Australia play well at home again? It's a winner-takes-all encounter in which, in the unlikely event of a draw, the ABs have the edge.

On a different note: I've seen a fair bit of the ANZ cup coverage. There have been a lot of commentators saying OMG NZ Rugby is in a terrible state with retirements and people moving away to play overseas. Whilst it is true that there are a lot of potential ABs elsewhere in the world (at one count there was a possible entire first choice team not available for selection recently, certainly an immensely strong AB Possibles to play against the incumbents) the ANZ Cup is, as usual, demonstrating that NZ Rugby has a really pretty healthy system underneath its top layers (that's the ABs and Super-14s I guess) to bring new players through. Whilst some of those may never make it all the way, there is some depth appearing again, even in "problem" positions like Lock.

Who will PdV blame this time?

Australia won 27-15. South Africa really only played for about 20 minutes, and that was actually only to an average standard, it's just they were so poor for the rest of the game that it looked good.

Australia didn't really play that well, but they didn't have to. I'm not sure how many times the Boks knocked on (it was quite a few), how many times their line out misfired (several) and how many turnovers Smith, Palu, Elsom and, for a few minutes, Waugh created (quite a lot) but they just dominated possession and territory because of that. In fact, I suspect when they look back on it, they will consider it a failure because they were dominant enough they should have scored at least four tries but they didn't manage to.

I suspect PdV will wield the selectorial axe and blame his players. Obviously a team that is largely comprised of players who won the RWC 9 months ago is now staffed with incompetents... I didn't know you could go from hero to zero quite like that - at least not in a strategic, game after game after game way. Form is temporary and class is permanent and all that? PdV may be a political favourite of SARU's board, but how long can they stand by him if he continues to lose like this? He might want his team to play expansive, attractive rugby - but his players don't buy into what he's trying to sell them. There was an absolutely spectacular example of this about half way through the second half where the Boks got a turn over and the player that grabbed the ball took off down the field. He was supported by the scrum half, so just before he was tackled he passed to his support player. That player, and probably the 4 or 5 in the ruck which produces the turn over have an excuse for not supporting the counter attack. But why were there about 5 Australians there before the second Bok arrived? I'm sure it won't surprise you to hear that the attack petered out when Australia won the ball and cleared their lines. Under Jake White if the same thing had happened the players would have charged in to form a ruck and get the ball back. It's probable that two Aussies would still have been there first, it's possible that would have been enough for them to win it back, but it would have looked like the Boks cared and were trying.

And that, I think, is the problem. The players and the coach don't trust each other. In particular, it looks as if the players don't believe that PdV can do the job, and this lack of belief manifests itself as confusion on the field of play, hence all the turn overs and generally poor play - as individuals they mostly execute their skills reasonably well most of the time, but it is in the interaction and the teamwork, particularly in the support play where it all goes to pieces because, I think, they're not quite sure what they're meant to do in the current scheme to support the play.

Will Peter de Villiers last?

When Australia beat New Zealand PdV was, for him strangely, silent. Graham Henry pointed the blame squarely (and you would have to say fairly) at mistakes by his players - particularly a run of dropping the ball and not competing at breakdowns. A week later (when SA's next big match is against NZ) when NZ win by dominating the line out, the scrum, the breakdown and basically don't turn the ball over (well not often) PdV discovers a string of refereeing errors. Graham Henry might be forgiven for missing them, but Robbie Deans didn't take that popular route of blaming the referee, he blamed his own team for poor execution. There may have been mistakes of refereeing in there of course, but outside of PdV I don't think anyone thinks there were consistent or even many such errors.

Then, this weekend just gone, PdV thinks that the referee is to blame for his side being penalised all the time. I don't remember noticing a single occasion where I thought the penalty/free kick was not given for a real offence - that's one thing. From the TV isn't pretty hard to tell if there are odd little offences on the floor unless they get a lucky camera angle. There were probably some of those that got missed, but unless PdV is omnipresent how did he see them?

In fact Paddy O'Brien, the boss of the IRB's referees is going to tear a strip off PdV and Matfield for their abusive comments about the referee. If you read his press release about it he seems, quite strongly, to suggest that the referees mistake was "not escalating the penalties appropriately" - which if you read my match report and read between the lines about the number of long-arm penalties against the Boks suggests O'Brien thinks some of the Boks should have been sent to the sin bin (in fact there were about 5 "last warnings" all to the Boks... so he might very well have a case, although you can bet it's a case PdV won't like).

Now, I'm not saying that referees are perfect - read back in this blog if you think I might even think that. There are, undoubtedly, situations when refereeing mistakes cost the team that deserves to win (AB v France in the RWC quarterfinal anyone?) but, however painful it is and however long the memory lingers it's not that common.

If, as a coach, you continuously blame the referee can I ask how you expect to motivate and develop your team? If it's all the referee's fault why should they try to improve? How do you get them to improve? How do you get them to invest in your game plan when the referee obviously doesn't want them to play that way? (Game plans that involve throwing a hand-grenade into the opponents changing rooms are frowned on after all!)

With the possible exception of Dan Carter against the Lions in the second test in 2005, no one has a perfect game. (John Eales might count in there too, given the reason for his nickname of "Nobody.") Surely part of being a coach, at any level, is to identify weaknesses in your players and in your team (in the interactions between players and the game plan) and work on ways to reduce or neutralise those weaknesses whilst looking for ways you can exploit weakness you see in the opposition. Think back to the first paragraph: in one match the ABs fail to produce at line-out, breakdown and cough up lots of simple mistakes. In the following match, against the same opposition, they beat them hands down in all those phases and in the match. They also change the game plan quite a bit. You would guess that, apart from the change in personnel, the coaches spent rather a lot of time working on the skills that had let the ABs down the previous week - and if you believe in judging with the evidence of your own eyes, you'd assume that's exactly what happened, along with the change of game plan.

If PdV continuously blames the referee, how long will it take for the Boks to slide right down the world ratings? They're down to 2nd and if Australia win this weekend, they'll be down to 3rd. Shades of England after 2003 anyone? SCW might have walked (possibly before he was pushed), Robinson couldn't reverse the decline, Ashton wasn't really given a decent run, nor the power to choose his own backroom staff. Getting the final papered over a lot of cracks in England's structure - cracks that the Six Nations earlier this year bought into harsh relief (much to Wales' glory). Will SA go the same way?

AB nil Boks at home

A match that's 5-0 after about 60 minutes doesn't sound that exciting. It certainly wasn't an advert for high-scoring rugby which many detractors think that the ELVs are all about.

However, and it's a big however, what the ELVs do is generate attacking chances if you play precisely, and put an emphasis on defending as well, because of that. To that end, the game was a roaring success and perhaps because the scores were close it was exciting. Much of the game was played within one of the 22's or the other. There were long periods of attack met by equally resolute defence - from both sides it should be said.

The difference? The All Blacks played with fewer mistakes, many fewer mistakes. At the end of the first half Kaino dropped a ball forward that stopped an attack within a few metres of the try line. It was pretty much his only mistake of the game. Muliaina knocked a ball on in the second half (in pretty much neutral territory) and it was his only mistake of the game. I don't remember Smith, Nonu, etc. making a mistake all game.

Ironically, the biggest "disaster" of all was the place kicking. Both Carter and Monty, both hugely experienced international kickers (both with over 800 test points by the end of the game) had an awful day with the boot from hand. No one seems to be sure why, and Carter had his majestic tactical kicking operating to it's inch-perfect best throughout the match, just not from hand. Given how often the Boks were penalised at the breakdown - and often long-arm penalties for deliberate offences - they never really deserved a look-in.

The AB scrum creaked a bit, but not badly, more surprisingly the Bok line out creaked rather badly - whatever Henry and his staff are doing there is obviously working.

There's really only one candidate for man of the match, despite the low error count from all of the ABs. That would be McCaw who played the whole game, beat all 5 of the back row players that the Boks put up against him to just about every breakdown, turned the ball over numerous times, slowed it down every other time and although he may or may not have been the leading tackler, every time you really needed a tackle to stop the attack there was black 7 making it.

What a difference a week makes

Last week's fiasco seems to have escaped my blogging. Perhaps because it was so painful - the match was incredibly flat because for the most part the ABs looked, frankly, inept.

Australia comfortably won every significant element of game play except the scrum, where they lost on points but never convincingly enough to matter. The ABs couldn't or wouldn't use the ball they got smartly, when they tried they coughed it up, and although there should have been a penalty try that was missed (and later apologised for) which would have made the result closer, Australia thoroughly deserved the win.

This week... well 39-10 tells the story really in a way that sometimes the result doesn't. A couple of other stats help too - the ABs dominated everywhere (Australia worked hard for their try, and probably just about deserved it on balance) but perhaps unusually they really dominated in the line out. They won MORE line outs where Australia were throwing in than line outs where they were - 8-7 in the end - and yet they didn't lose a single line out on their own throw!

There were several changes in the team. Woodcock, Hore and Somerville made a far better front row that Woodcock, Hore and Afoa - propping is one of those places where experience counts probably more than anything else and Somerville has that in spades, whereas Afoa (who might well be the real thing come the 2011 RWC) is still learning his trade.

Last week's makeshift loose forward trio was totally rejigged. McCaw completely ruled the breakdown. Kaino did the dirty work, and So'oialo was exemplary in every facet of play. On this performance you would have to say they could well be the best 3 in the world at their positions, and certainly you'd have to say if they continue to play like this, they're the top unit in the world by some distance. Thompson looks good too, whether playing with MacCaw or as a replacement. McCaw has done it before, regularly, but a side that last week lost the breakdown comprehensively to just Smith, this week won it convincingly against Smith and Waugh. That's not solely thanks to McCaw, but in a large part it was his work at each and every breakdown that did the damage.

You also have to wonder about Andy Ellis's future as an AB. Cowan just looked so much better than Ellis ever has. Now, this was, in my opinion, Cowan best game by some margin, and if you watch them in the Super-14s you would say Ellis is the better player, but if Cowan can keep this up, he will cement his place quickly. The 8, 9, 10 axis worked very nicely despite them all being from different Super-14 clubs AND Cowan having a short training session this week with his injury.

The future is in the ABs hand now - they have 2 games remaining, away in SA and away in Australia, whilst SA and Australia each have 3 games. However, if the ABs win both with a bonus point in each they've won the Tri-Nations (again) and are probably back to world #1. Win 1, lose 1 becomes more tense, lose both and they're scuppered. One thing I think this week has shown, which isn't really a shock to anyone, is that the ABs are looking a bit thin in some places. They more or less lost half a squad to retirement, injury and the lure of money playing overseas. There are replacements coming through - Afoa will be good, Thompson is a bit raw but good, Kahui looks pretty good too, Boric might well fit in nicely. Hore looks likely to keep Meealamu on the bench for a while to come but the process is slower than perhaps it should be just because so many players in so many positions have gone. That said, there's still three years to build experience and depth and although last week's loss might have been a tactical error it might also have shown Henry et al. where they need work in the months to come - and for the first time in some time there's someone that is plausible as a replacement for McCaw when he finally has to hang up his boots.