Wales disappointed, Scotland destroyed

After yesterday's matches Wales as a whole will be disappointed. South Africa, the world champions remember, were there for the taking. If Stephen Jones had kicked his goals, if James Hook hadn't thrown that pass, if any of the three/four chinks that Wales made in the South African defence had turned into tries (and at least two of them could have been on a different day) then Wales would have scored a historic second-ever win over South Africa, and you would have to say would have thoroughly deserved it - in most facets of the game (lineout being an obvious exception) Wales were better on the day. 20-15 the other way would have been a fairer score.

Whilst it is disappointing, it is also good news. Playing South Africa down there, albeit with a much weakened team, Wales were destroyed this summer. In a few months they turned that around and almost took the win. Being the number 6 team in the world and losing to the number 2 team is not a disgrace. Most of the new boys worked very well - in fact most commentators have Andy Powell winning his first cap as the man of the match: personally I would have put Lee Byrne there, but Andy Powell did play a blinder. Lee Halfpenny lined up against Habana and looked comfortable too.

Whilst Wales are disappointed, they have more than enough positives to move forwards. They have a reasonable chance to take Australia you'd have thought after this performance, particularly given how close Italy pushed the Australians.

Scotland on the other hand have no such positives to take out. They fielded probably their best team against what is probably the weakest All Black team (at least on paper) I've ever seen - including mid-week matches when they were played on tour. The back row had 5 caps or something stupid like that between them. One of the props was coming back off injury, the other was winning his first cap. Rockococo is hardly a bad player, but he was coming back off a long injury lay off. 13, 14, 15 were either debutantes or had a cap or two at most. Boric at 5 was winning his 5th (I think) cap, maybe fewer, but certainly less than 10. Even Stephen Donald at 10 is relatively new to the international stage.

Now, of course, being picked to play for New Zealand means they're pretty good. All Black teams might be, as this one was, weak on experience but they're not weak on talent. The players went out and looked like an All Black team. They hammered into the tackles, they hit the break-downs and stole ball when they could, disrupted the other side's ball most of the time when they couldn't steal. By and large they didn't really create that much direct scoring, but they were, in true New Zealand style, devastating off turn over ball, and they created the turn overs too. When running they ran in support and were there for the offloads, the pop-up passes and so on. Their new prop was really the only player that looked to struggle, and he didn't look bad really, just he was struggling against someone who is currently one of the better props in Europe on recent form.

What positives are there for Scotland? Well they scored first. They didn't concede 100 points which against the top-flight choices you would have to say they could have done.

There are times when you would have to say the best test rugby in the world is the NZ Probables v the NZ Possibles. Currently New Zealand aren't quite that dominant in depth - particularly at lock and prop. But that New Zealand B team looked good enough that I'd put a penny or two on them against any of the Northern Hemisphere sides.

I'd also like to comment, again, on Wayne Barnes. Is he the most unsympathetic referee in the world? He pinged people for not rolling away a lot. One of the more memorable occasions the tackler released the person he tackled and put his hands flat on the floor. It's true he didn't roll away. It's also the case that the tackled player was lying across his head and shoulders and he did as much as any reasonable person might expect to NOT interfere with the play of the ball - which is, explicitly, the reason they're expected to roll away. Stupid, stupid penalty to blow for. Apparently Mr. Barnes also interprets "must not go to ground" as "must not be driven to ground by the actions of another player" which seems really harsh. There are laws that say "if you're on the ground, you can't play the ball" and it says you must not fall on or dive over the ball or another player, but not that you can't be driven off your feet. Now, he penalised both sides for this, but for crying out loud, it's not in the rule book, it's a bizarre interpretation of the laws.

It would be fair, I think, to say, that despite the hand-rubbing glee of some commentators, New Zealand adjusted better than Scotland to the whistle-happy Mr. Barnes. South Africa actually adjusted badly to a much more reasonable referee and are likely to be in worse trouble when they have an English referee. But those same commentators saying "Oh, Northern Hemisphere referees are much tougher and will blow the SH teams off the park" need to remove their blinkers. English referees are being stupid about it. Referees from elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere are much closer to the Southern Hemisphere interpretation of the "off your feet" laws than the English referees are. The only difference is that what the NH still considers a penalty offence because of some bizarre belief they "earn" a kick at goal, the SH still gives as a free kick and encourages flowing play - and more tries as a consequence.