Springbok legends?
Springbok euphoria was replaced by simmering resentment in the aftermath of their series win over the British and Irish Lions.
The world champions had expected to receive accolades and congratulations after beating the tourists for the first time in 19 years.
Instead, the final week of the tour was dominated by discussions about eye gouging, suspensions and the bad luck of the Lions.
This, allied with a thumping 28-9 defeat, explained why skipper John Smit looked so glum as he fielded questions at the end of the third Test.
With the dust now settled on the series, it seems a good time to evaluate this Boks team.
Morne du Plessis - who faced the Lions as a player in 1974 and as captain in 1980 before managing the Springboks when they won the World Cup in 1995 - says this side should go down in history as one of South Africa's greatest.
"It's always dangerous to compare eras, but this is certainly one of the best Springbok teams of all time," Du Plessis told me.
"First of all, it is a magnificent achievement to add a winning Lions series to a World Cup win. I also think great teams are the ones who can pull something out of the bag when things aren't going their way. That's certainly what they have done in this series.
"The tide was turning against them in the first Test, but they regrouped and held on for victory. And for 74 minutes of the second Test, I just couldn't see them winning. Sheer will to win and individual brilliance pulled them through."
The Boks are also blessed with several world-class players capable of turning a game with a moment of brilliance, argues Du Plessis.
"The tries they have scored in the series have been excellent and they have so many players who can create something magical. Look at Bryan Habana, JP Pietersen, Jean de Villiers and Fourie du Preez, each of whom has been a match breaker against the Lions."
Although the Lions have argued they could have won the series, you could also make a case for saying the Boks should have won the first two Tests even more convincingly.
They were superb for the first hour in Durban, blowing the Lions away with a combination of pace, power and fierce intensity. Then coach Peter de Villiers made seven changes in the final 25 minutes - including captain Smit after 65 minutes, talisman Bakkies Botha after 57 and midfield fulcrum De Villiers after 57 - and the momentum swung the way of the Lions.
Only the reintroduction of Smit, with three minutes to go, settled South African nerves.
In the second Test in Pretoria, the sin binning of Schalk Burger after 30 seconds seemed to unsettle the world champions and the Lions took a decisive lead.
The Boks' desire then came to the fore again and they were relentless in the final quarter, although it did take a long-range penalty from Morne Steyn to clinch the series victory.
So how many South African players have emerged from the series with their reputations enhanced? Fourie du Preez has certainly augmented his status as the finest scrum-half in world rugby after being a thorn in the side of the Lions throughout the three games.
The 27-year-old Blue Bulls player is fast, physical and has the creative skills of a 10.
Botha and Matfield were imperious in the line-out and ferocious in the tight and must be the best second-row partnership in the game, while hooker Bismarck du Plessis emphasised what a physical, athletic player he is.
Habana looked back near his devastating best, and on the other wing Pietersen proved solid in defence and impressive in attack, when he got his hands on the ball. Others failed to convince. Number eight Pierre Spies, who looked a superstar in the making during the Super 14 competition, had a limited impact against the Lions.
And the Boks have yet to find a fly-half who truly convinces. Ruan Pienaar produced a fine all-round display behind a dominant pack in the first Test, but when the Lions were on top in Pretoria he struggled to control the game and was shaky in front of goal.
Morne Steyn showed an icy nerve to kick the series-winning penalty after replacing Pienaar at Loftus Versfeld before struggling as a starter at Ellis Park a week later. Elsewhere, centre Jean de Villiers and flanker Juan Smith, who are both normally world class, were slightly below their stunning best.
Doubts also remain about the style of play that best suits the Boks. When appointed, De Villiers vowed to unleash the attacking instincts of Habana and co. Eighteen months on, this has not happened and it was revealing that Pienaar passed the ball only three times during the game in Durban.
There are also lingering doubts about De Villiers himself. He was heavily criticised for making so many substitutions in Durban and his dealings with the media have been fractious.
Now the Boks have 10 days off before resuming training ahead of their Tri-Nations opener against New Zealand. Smit is adamant the best is yet to come from the side.
"There is so much more to come from this team," he said. "This side is young enough to go through to the next World Cup and with the talent we have, we would be naïve not to think we can win the Tri Nations."
Young hopefuls Zane Kirchner, Jongi Nokwe and Ryan Kankowski disappointed in the first Test though, which must lead to concerns about some of the established stars moving to Europe.
Frans Steyn has already agreed to join Racing Metro, De Villiers is strongly linked with Munster and Fourie with Clermont Auvergne. Other stars, like Matfield, turned down lucrative offers abroad only because they were so desperate to face the Lions.
The two players the Boks can least afford to lose are probably captain Smit and lock Botha. Smit admitted his side sorely missed Botha in the third Test. "We need to fill the gaps which a guy like Bakkies leaves behind," he said.
As for the skipper himself, who is on the verge of becoming the most capped international captain of all time, De Villiers said: "His aura makes him irreplaceable as a leader.
"We have to keep him part of the set-up for as long as possible."
I'm a sports news reporter and write about most sports, but especially football, rugby union and cricket. I'll try and give you some insight into the stories setting the agenda in this blog. You can also follow me on 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~34~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Good article Simon
You describe very well the strengths and frailties in the Springbok setup. Certainly, Smit is key in keeping the players focussed and motivated. My concern is when is he going to lose patience with the coach and selection criteria?
Morne du Plessis is correct in that this is a very good Springbok squad, but for how long can they take such abuse. I fear we may lose many players to Europe, and could you blame them?
I believe a full merit Springbok team in the hands of Heyneke Meyer would be an awesome prospect!
Complain about this comment
The telling point for me is, as stated in the article, that several players played below their best, and the young prospects did not debut well - but the Boks still won.
In other words, they are a better all-round team than this article seems to credit them with being.
I've said since the start of the Super14 that SA would be the team to beat this year, and that is proving correct. That they lost the 3rd Lions test was no surprise, given the number of changes/experiments SA made for that game - plus the Lions hunger to retrieve something from their tour.
But when it comes to what I regard as the real crunch - the Tri-Nations - frankly I can't see the ABs (let alone the Wallabies) seriously threatening a Bok team firing on all cylinders. And (sob) I'm a kiwi!
Complain about this comment
Lions fan.
The Boks play a pretty conservative brand of rugby but they do it very well. There isn't a stronger more physical team in rugby. They have good first phase ball, including a superb lineout. They kick well and do the basics well, and squeeze the life out of you. They tackle well.
There are somewhat hamstrung by their political player selection. Brussouw is a definite find and makes their back row far more balanced.
Spies reminds me of alot of college NFL players who get drafted high based on incredible physical performance tests (sprints, vertical jump, bench press etc..) and then are complete busts because they cannot play
Spies is an incredible athelete but not a grat TEST MATCH rugby player. Maybe he would be better suited to WWF.
Complain about this comment
The Springboks contributed fully to a high quality and entertaining series. Their "win at all costs" ruthlessness is something that British sides should perhaps aspire to. However, it should not be overlooked that in the 240 minutes of quality rugby, Lions played the better of it for the majority of them and resoundingly won the series 72-61 ;-)
Were it not for a couple of dubious refereeing decisions in favour of the home side, Lions would also be boasting a 3-0 series win.
Full credit to the Saffas though, when the margin between victory and defeat was so narrow, they were strong and resilient and did what they needed to, to prevail.
Complain about this comment
The Springboks have strenght in depth, their 7's side won this years championship, as did the Under 19's
While agreeing with all said before one wonders what the Boks "are" capable of given total political freedom, I am sure most Lions fans are unaware of the nonsense that goes on in South African rugby, read Jake Whites book to get an insight of what he went through
Complain about this comment
I think you give the Boks a bit too much credit for winning the first two tests.
I don't think they would have had the lead they did in the first test had it not been for the relentless penalising of Vickery in the scrum. I don't think the raft of changes had much of an effect (it certainly didn't yesterday), it was the simple fact that the Lions achieved parity in the scrum that allowed them to fight back into the game.
In the 2nd test they were fortunate that the Lions lost both props and both centres just as they were turning the screw, which took away the Lions attacking weapon in the scrum, and removed their most important defensive backs (which led directly to Habana's try, when Jamie Roberts could only tackle with one hand and Brian O'Driscoll was concussed).
Put another way, I think the Boks can count themselves very lucky not to have lost the series, and they could have gone down 3-0. I would say they are a very long way off a world class team, and the Tri-nations will show whether I'm right or wrong!
Complain about this comment
You only have to look at the Wimbledon final yesterday to realise that great champions always find a way of winning in the toughest moments. John Smit also has to be a legend in his own right.
Thanks to the Lions for a great series! The fans at the grounds were just superb, the handling skills in the last game was sublime and the series on a whole (bar a few big moments of madness) was a great display of rugby at the absolute highest level. Long live the Lions!!
Complain about this comment
Enjoy watching a quality SA team while it lasts. With the exodous of rugby talent to the N hemisphere I fear for the health of SA sport (cricket is probably being hit even harder). The state of the domestic game is in decline: Retired internationals are lured away from SA as well good honest professionals who are not quite good enough to play international rugby / cricket (ironic that the lions complained about the poor quality of midweek opposition when so many of the would - be opponents are strengthening the domestic leagues in Eng, Wales, Ire and France!). Please can SA rugby find a way to keep these players together for the next world cup!
Complain about this comment
I have to say that I disagree with du Plessis in his assesment of the Boks side. In terms of the refereeing I saw some unbelievable things in the first 2 tests, and at crucial times. No one is talking about this anymore but the video ref not being able to communicate effectively with the ref on the pitch in the first test to rule on one of the times the Lions crossed the Boks try line is only one example.The very fact that the lions crossed the Bok try line three times but the attempts were not awarded tells its own story. Smit being allowed back onto the pitch in the later stages, and the series of penalties against Vickery in the first half of the 1st test which gave the Boks an almost unassailable lead....In the second test, yet another very close decision to award a try in the corner for the Boks as they came back late in the game, and of course the decision to award the penalty against ROG that cost the match and the series. Nobody can say that the penalty was clear cut, and yet it was awarded in the last minute with the whole series dependant on it. I am not saying that the Boks are not a great side, they are tremendously physical and have really great players in some positions (scrum half wings, full back, second row), but there are real weaknesses too, and I am not sure how they will fare against the Aussies and AB's. They really lack a great Fly half for example, and they ran the ball relatively few times. They have great forwards but when you have a real strong referee who is able to ensure the game is played to the rules they begin to look more ordinary. Their line out was fantastic all the way through, but it was more of a mixed story in the scrum and only the introduction (because of Lions injuries)of uncontested scrums in the second test prevented them being exposed in the front row by the Wales front row of Jenkins, Rees and Jones.
I can well understand Smit being glum after the match last Saturday. This was the only game of the 3 tests that was decisively won, and the only match without major controversy in the refereeing dept (only one real decision about the late try attempt by the Boks which could have gone either way, but it was too little too late by that stage), and it was convincingly won by the Lions. That fact alone again tells its own story...
To cap it all, they have a coach who has diplayed less than impressive tactical and /or diplomatic skills, and this cannot but have some negative consequences down the line.
On paper the Lions leave SA with a 2-1 series loss but have covered themselves in glory. In contrast the Springboks are left with more questions than answers.
Complain about this comment
The Lions are a credit to Britian. They bring something new to the party in terms of great spirit and great rugger comaraderie. I was at the Emerging Bok game and loved the "noise" made by the Lions.
As for the Springboks: I read an article in the Times after the boks lost 53-3 to England. It spoke about bok fans demanding Superheroes in green. It is very true, expectations are high and we expect victory every time they play...a little unrealistic but there you are.
This bok team is bristling with talent. BUT we will not win the tri-nations this year or any year because the Aussies and/or Kiwis will be able to show up the cracks which the management is currently papering over. John Smit - retire as captain - we need you as our coach boet!
Complain about this comment
pascot
You say
In contrast the Springboks are left with more questions than answers.
Why? History will say they won the series 2-1 If the Boks go to sleep for the rest of the year the Lions series is in the bag. Thats more important than the Tri Nations.
Your posting is full of what if's why and if only
You fail to mention who was cited in the last test? The Boks selection policy for the third game was shocking, A 3-0 whitewash would have stopped all the harping, bitching and maoning thats going on
Complain about this comment
A Springbok Fan
Fair play to the Lions for the win on Saturday, they deserved some rewards from this tour and Saturday's test was an accurate result of the match. The Springboks were outplayed, largely because of problems within the SA back row caused by the absence of some key players and a real weakness in the FH position.
The tour as a whole has been a success for the Lions.
The Spingbok team has the right players and great depth back into the supporting players and second strings. Our problem lies in management, De Villers is a liability and without Dick Muir as his sidekick we would be horribly exposed.
John Smit is a fantastic captain, and surely ranks with the greatest captains of recent years. I enjoy comparing him to Sean Fitzpatrick, as a real leader and role model both on and off the field, exceptionally hard and tough but always fair.
Complain about this comment
The Springboks are a great team. But they are not playing like World Champions. In 1995, they rode their luck in winning the world cup. From, 1996-1997, The All Blacks showed they were the best team in the World. In 2000-2001, Australia showed they were the best team in the world. When you win the world cup, you play like world champions after a winning the cup. The Boks did not show that last year, and judging by their performance against the British, they are not a world champion team, but they do have world champion players.
I question Peter De Villers as a coach and a tactician of the game. Making many changes with 20 mins to go in the first test shows he does not know the opposition at all.
I am a very objective in my view as I am a die-hard Springbok fan. I have seen them push Australia in Australia in 1993, to being hammered by the All Blacks in 1994 & 2003, and winning the world cup in 1995 and 2007.
I suggest SARFU re-appoint Jake White or give the talented Rassie Erasmusa go.
Ben I
Complain about this comment
I still don't think you could call this a great bok side.. not yet at least. Ok, they won a home series against the lions but they haven't won the tri-nations since 2004 and their away record in that competition is dismal.... 4 wins in 30 matches in the competitions 12 years.
When England won the RWC03 they put together a winning streak of 14 consecutive victories over all 3 tri-nations teams, home and away. South Africa needs to start to match records like that and those of the 97-98 boks who won 17 games in a row to be called a great team.
Thye won the world cup in 07 yes, but the only notable teams they played to win were Argentina and England.... who were ranked 7th in the world at the time. You can't choose who you play but the tournament was heavily weighted on one side at the knock-out stage with Australia, England, France and New Zealand all competiting for one place.
The other teams SA were fighting for the one place in the RWC07 final was Fiji, Argentina and Scotland. Not exactly the same calibre (no disrespect intended) as the other half.
They had the easiest run in of any RWC champions and didn't have to fight like they did in 95 when they beat Australia, France and New Zealand.
Nevertheless put a string of tri-nations victories together and regularly beat the major sides away from home up to the RWC11 and yeah I would call them a great side.
Complain about this comment
Hi SJB,
I think if you ask your own Springbok side what is more important now, its the upcoming series the Tri-nations. You are right I didn't mention Shaw's citing. To be honest I did not see any malice in this challenge, it was certainly not in the same category as Botha's çhallenge on Jones resulting in a dislocated shoulder. Botha was able to stay on the pitch, whilst Shaw was sin binned. But we can dicsuss these things for ever, each with a different view. The point is; how do we evaluate the Boks for the future and I stick to my evaluation above. Only time will tell who is right, and we shall see how the Boks match up to the Aussies and AB's. My money is not on the Boks!
Complain about this comment
As a SA based Lion's supporter I was chuffed with Saturday's result and, despite the series result, enjoyed the whole tour hugely (went to the two Durban games). However, whilst the South African team is undoubtedly very strong, I have a problem with those touting this as a "great" Bok side.
In last year's Tri-Nations they were were last and had it not been for one piece of individual brilliance by January would have been even more firmly rooted to the bottom of the table. More importantly though is that I can't help feeling that the title of "world champions" should not equate to the "best" team.
Yes, you can only beat what is put in front of you (excuse the cliche) but I firmly believe that not having to play France, New Zealand or Australia throughout the whole tournament makes the victory slightly hollow. Beating England (twice) and Argentina is hardly a major acheivement (prior to the tournament ranked 7th and 6th respectively) and whilst not changing the fact they are the world champions it does mean that, by winning the tournament, they are not automatically the world's best or a great side.
Great series, disappointing result (from my perspective anyway) but let's not get ahead of ourselves here.
Complain about this comment
The Boks are a good team, but a great team would've beat the Lions 3-0. I can't help but feel that we'll be brutally exposed by an attacking All Black team. The Lions are a good unit & they play superb rugby, but rugby in the southern hemisphere more of a real test of character & ability. I for one, don't think that the boks will win the Tri-Nations. The wallabies are playing some exciting rugby at the moment too. The Lions can really feel proud for there awesome display on saturday. Both teams ringed in the changes so the match should've been an even contest, not so, the lions completely out-played the boks in all aspects. Over the years the boks were the only team to consistently beat or even compete with the All Blacks. All Blacks will win the Tri-Nations!
Complain about this comment
I think they are a great Bok team in terms of the results they have achieved, certainly John Smit's record would be the envy of any rugby player.
And the team also contains a handful of players who would vie for a place in the greatest Bok team ever - Matfield, Du Preez, Habana being top of the list.
But heck, even me as a massive Bok fan feels a little there's something not quite right about conferring "greatness" on this side so soon after a rather patchy series victory over the Lions. But a lot of this unfortunately has to do with Pieter de Villiers, who has failed in his own aspirations of taking this Bok side to another level.
Jake White picked up a ragged squad in the wake of the Straeuli debacle and turned it into a very durable unit for four years. The squad that arrived in France 2007 was undoubtedly the best prepared outfit at the RWC. But a great team - and most of the '07 winning team was either entering its prime or in it already - would have done more since. We were average in the Tri-nations last year, and I've little confidence that we can make an impression this year against the ABs who routinely beat us and the Aussies who have the best coach on the planet.
Great teams perform better than what we have seen from SA since the RWC; at least I feel they ought to, especially when there is a clutch of absolutely top quality talent.
Complain about this comment
Lads, the springboks have won two world cups, they have just now won a series victory against the Lions, they are the only side to consistenly beat an AB team with as much foreigners in the side (every single island in their vicinity has a rep in their side)as local lads....when will we give them credit? If this had been the AB's then of course, they must be the best because of the results...not so for Saffers...why I wonder? Is it because of our past...possibly I think! Forget about all that other nonsense and let's focus on the results...surely, that is the only way that we can judge a side??? And that from a supporter who knows that the boks could be some much better if we also just ignored all the politics!!
Complain about this comment
Gentlemen
It does not really matter how much you analyse the draw of the 07 WC. If NZ or Aus or France wanted to play and beat the Boks they should have made the final. The Boks were the only unbeaten side, and one of their strengths is the ability to focus purely on who is in front of them.
Winning the WC requires nerve, stamina and luck. The Springboks have what it takes. Don't underestimate the powerhouse that England became as the tournament progressed! And the strength of Argentina (I don't care much for rankings and neither do the Boks). You play and beat the team in front of you on the day. Simple and ' business as usual'.
I challenge any other rugby nation to deal with what the Boks have to deal with (coach,politics etc), and still field a winning side. Yes, they may not do well in the 3N but so what. Some good may come from that, ie a new coach perhaps?
After the Autumn internationals, there was much criticism of the strength of the Boks. Result in the record books: 4-0
I know our Welsh fans felt they should have won having 70% possession, but the Boks can and do win with only 30%. That's what makes them formidable at times.
Come the next WC, I know the All Blacks must start as favourites at home but let me assure you they will dread facing the Boks (and England and France).
The Lions tour was something special! I have concerns about the influence of the media in the future of sport. As Smit said: If one thing must remain, it is the B&I Lions.
Complain about this comment
i disagree with several points made in this blog. Firstly Austin claims you could argue for heavier defeats to the lions in each of the first two tests. Granted they were outplayed in Durban and only got back in the game after the inept Peter de Villiers took off Smit and Botha unsettling the Boks. However, I don't think anyone would have begrudged the lions atleast a draw in the Loftus Varsfeld test. The Lions were outstanding for the first fifty minutes, the injuries which the rocked the lions around this time (to both props and the hugely influential Roberts and O'Driscoll) were probably the turning point of the series. South Africa never found a way to neutralize the duo and didn't look like doing so. Without getting into an arguement of Fourie's try I find the inconsistancy in refereeing on this tour bizarre. Certainly Ndundane must feel hard done by after his try was ruled out when there was a much clearer view. But having said that the Boks cannot control the seeming constant confusion between referees and the video referees.
Onto your points regarding several South African players. You state that Habana was "back near his devastating best", other than his superb line for his second test try (although the try was made by Du Preez) I cannot remember any other occasion when he looked to cause the lions serious damage. Granted he was always secure in defense but no more spark in attack than Pieterson, Fitzgerald or Bowe. The battle was fought up front and whoever was dominating that was making headway at the time. By the time the Lions had a foothold in the breakdown they started to look dangerous. Also Heinrich Broussouw who caused the lions so many problems for the Golden Lions and for the Boks in the first test, was figured out by the third test (probably by the inclusion of Martyn Williams), and this gave the lions even quicker ball which, along with good handling, allowed both of Williams' tries. No winger greatly enhanced their reputation except Bowe who had his best test in the centre.
You made a point about Morne Steyn at flyhalf, that he was ice cool under pressure in the second test' climax which foes without saying. However I thought he was one of South Afica's few calm performers in the final test. Although he still had du Preez inside him (first half) the quality of ball he was getting was not of the standard of the second test and yet he did what he had to do with minimal fuss and struck the ball beautifully. Also in defense his tackle on Monye in Durban, which proved to be decisive in the series, was of the highest order. I couldn't imagine Pienaar making that hit. He looks far less erratic and susceptible to pressure than Peinaar and his performances throughout the super 14 were outstanding. I'll be watching the trinations with interest to see how he matches up to Gitaeu and Carter but I think South Africa have a gem in Morne Steyn.
Finally, i agree with your comments about du Preez, he was quality throughout the series and may well be the world's finest player at this moment. I thought Phillips was maybe closer to du Preez than you gave him credit for and was probably the lions man of the series. Of Kirschner and Kankowski, they are quality players although not ready for this side yet.
Complain about this comment
"10. At 08:23am on 06 Jul 2009, Ratsbok wrote:
The Lions are a credit to Britian. They bring something new to the party in terms of great spirit and great rugger comaraderie. I was at the Emerging Bok game and loved the "noise" made by the Lions."
firstly I understand that this is a "British" website but generally speaking the beeb gives a good and mostly unbiased accont of sports from around the world and does not get too caught up in the mega hype that other british media do. But not enough has been said about the Irish lads on the tour and what they have brought to the Lions. Currently we have Irish champion's of the Magner's League Heineken Cup and Grand Slam Winners (even London Irish are getting better)and i almost forgot our churchill cup winners ......Irish Rugby is in its greatest era of the modern game after all the hype of Eddie O Sullivan golden boys of Drico and co it took messers Kidney 1 year to finally come good.
The Irish boys have done amazing Drico back to his best, Rob Kearney looked like he could juggle 4 balls in the 2nd test and Heaslip looking to be the best No8 in the northern hemisphere if not the world. Tommy bowe showed Ugo that it aint all about brawn (as for O'Gara best to quickly skip over his tour) and o connell finally came good as captain i had my doubts.
We are two years away from a world cup and surley the best chance at the moment of a northen hemisphere team has to lie in the Irish Camp tho i will concide we do not tend to win down there but dont write these lads of just yet
Complain about this comment
theguv316 wrote 'Heaslip looking to be the best No8 in the northern hemisphere if not the world'
Heaslip is a good player and has improved immensely other the past year but Parisse, despite his recent eight week ban, has proved over the last few years to be the out standing eight in world rugby.
South Africa need to sort out their problems at 10; Steyn is superb but is not yet experienced enough to be given full control, a few more bench apperances are needed, Peinaar is to suseptible to pressure especially in the big games, James is solid in defense, handles the pressure and is inventive in attack but is injuryed ... they don't seem to have any other options.
Complain about this comment
They are OK but not great.
There were many occasions when the BOKS defense was exposed as weak, and attacking-wise not so special either. The Lions should have scored at least two more of the chances that were presented to them in the 1st test and if the clock could be wound forward to now then I think they would have done just that. However, I think the BOKS just shaded the 1st test for me due to a very good first hour.
Whereas the BOKS nearly lost the 1st test due to poor (crazy) substitution, the Lions DID lose the 2nd because of poor selection for and substitution off the bench. Apart from the highly unusual circumstance of losing both props (a circumstance that really could not be foreseen), there was totally inadequate cover for the backs. Why wasn't Hook there waiting in the wings as he can cover 10, 12, 13 and 15? And as already mentioned somewhere on these blogs, why was AWJ brought off the bench instead of M. Williams during the time of uncontested scrums? Fair play to the BOKS for coming back at us, but that really shouldn't have happened.
The Lion's management redeemed themselves in the 3rd test though with some good selections and shrewd substitutions - it looked like they had learned the lessons.
The two memorable tries scored by the BOKS came in the 2nd test when their two fastest men found themselves in open space from rehearsed set-piece moves, note from set-piece and not created from open play.
The BOKS can consider themselves lucky that the other tri-nation sides are struggling themselves, which means that they will probably be competitive in the forthcoming tournament. The NZ team of 2005/2006 were far superior to the current set of BOKS and any other side of recent years in all honesty.
Complain about this comment
Is this Springbok side a 'great' team? I'm afraid not. To set the standard we need only look back to the 'Blackwash' of the last Lions tour to New Zealand in 2005, when the Lions were beaten 21-3, 48-18 and 38-19, as well as losing to the Maori.
The rugby played in those Tests was simply a level above anything seen on this tour.
We can give the Springboks credit for having achieved a great deal, certainly. They have produced good results without playing good rugby, and that is the sign of good professional side. But they are a long, long way from being a great rugby team.
Complain about this comment
Ruck Maker
I was not fortunate enough to see the 2005 games. How did that Lions team compare to this one? Would you say this was a good Lions team?
Complain about this comment
Firstly congratulations to the boks on winning the series, it could have gone either way but the better team (just!) won in the end. People seem to be under-estimating both the boks and the lions. SA are the only southern hemisphere team who would have won a series against these lions on the form they displayed this tour.
It seems to me that this boks unit tends to `pace` themselves. For example they were focused on the lions series so their tri-nations form last year suffered. In the AI`s they played poorly until they got to England, a team they clearly wanted to thrash. So it seems while they are not consistent in terms of win percentage, they seem to be intent on picking up prizes and winning the big games. Will be interesting to see if SA approach the tri-nations with the same intensity as the lions series. I fancy Oz to take it this year, but wouldn`t bet against SA cementing their legacy with a back-to-back WC in 2011.
Complain about this comment
DavidLeigh:
The 2005 Lions side was poor and the 2005 all blacks were very good. There was a large gulf between the sides and the Lions got a hammering. There were not "what ifs" on that tour!
The 2009 Lions side is a far better side than the 2005 version, while I would say the 2009 Boks are a formidable opponent, but not quite as "high octane" as the 2005 all Blacks. It is hard to compare the 2009 Boks to the 2005 Blacks because they play a different style...
Complain about this comment
#10 How exactly are The Lions a credit to Britain?
To the best of my knowledge the likes of Brian O'Driscoll, Paul O'Connell, Luke Fitzgerald, Ronan O'Gara, Gordon D'Arcy, John Hayes, Jaimie Heaslip, Donncha, O'Callaghan and David Wallace don't qualify as British.
Or better yet look at the name of the team "British & Irish Lions"
Complain about this comment
It is interesting to look at the current Boks. They do play a very conservative brand of rugby, just like England did when they were world champions, and they were criticised in many quarters. The Boks, as England did, spend a lot of time kicking and getting territory rather than keeping the ball in hand. I think very few would disagree that the majority of the rugby in this series was played by the Lions, but the Boks were more clinical when they had to be. The Boks do attack well but I find it difficult to describe them as a great side in their current guise. I bet if you asked many Saffas if they thought the 03 England side was a great one, they'd say no.
It is surprising that they call themselves a great side, though they happily describe NH rugby as fairly poor. So why does a great side struggle to beat a selection of players from "weak nations"?
Though to caveat this, a series win is a series win despite their coach who is clearly out of his depth and drowning rapidly. Maybe once this clown has gone they can prove what they say they are capable of.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I have read many posts on different sites stating that the Bok side is the best ever and are the best world champions ever...if so how come they came last in the last tri nations...the all blacks and aussies will have watched the series with interest and will have seen a scratch side come within a couple of refs decisions of winning the series and beating the weakest world champions since the competition started...tri nations wooden spoon i think again this year
Complain about this comment
The thing that makes this Bok team a really good side is that they can be outplayed but still be in the game within a sniff of winning.
Even in the third test they were outplayed but still in it until Ndungane's try was (rightfully imo) disallowed.
They're a very good side at the moment. You dont hold a Lions scalp, s14 title, world cup and sevens circuit champions without being pretty damned good.
I just dont think they're actually playing well enough to be considered great. I really think this side is under-performing a little bit... but if they can hit their straps they could yet be considered great.
Imho opinion John Smit is pretty close to attaining greatness status all by himself and will surely go donw in history as a great captain.
A fantastic series and full credit to the Lions for bringing it all plus a little more.
Unfortuantely the Lions were beaten by probably a less-talented, but in the end more determined and better drilled, Bok side.
My favourite game of the tour - watching a completely uncapped side draw with the Lions second-stringers at Newlands - now those boys have the opportunity to be greats in the years ahead.
A wonderful series which will hopefully be remembered for the rugby played and not the media and Bok coach side-show.
Complain about this comment
32. At 1:12pm on 07 Jul 2009, splendidrugbyfan wrote:
To be fair I dont think anybody is claiming this Bok side to be the greatest to ever play the game. That would be ridiclous.
What I have heard guys say is that this is one of the greatest South African sides ever.
And I have to say I sort of agree with that - and the trophy collection is surely testament to that.
Complain about this comment
I'm amazed Heinrich Brussow isn't mentioned in this article. Or even, as far as ctrl+F tells me, in any of the comments! For me, he was the unexpected star turn for the Bokke this series. I'm sure if you looked at the number of turnovers conceded by the Lions you'd find he was involved in the majority - and he wasn't even on the field half the time! Truly a thorn in our side.
That said, I'm afraid I still don't find this Springboks side all that interesting to watch. They're a brilliant side, of course - World Cup victory etc testifies to that, and I'm certainly not denying their talent - but they just don't seem to play much rugby. All too often their wins come from maybe 15 minutes of possession in a match - a statistic that shows the greatness of their defence, maybe, but it would be nice to see a team of this ability play with ball in hand more often, rather than just kicking it away.
Of course, it's results that count, and I know International Test rugby is a different kettle of fish to the club version. And I also accept that most of what I've said can apply just as easily to the England side of '03. But when NZ can be the best team in the world and still play exciting, free-flowing attacking rugby, well, it just makes you wonder what these Saffas could really be capable of...
Complain about this comment
"I bet if you asked many Saffas if they thought the 03 England side was a great one, they'd say no."
I'll take that bet! England in 2003 were the dominant force in world rugby. I've heard Aussies say that they thought the England pack was "poetry in motion" after the 25-14 defeat of the Wallabies and you know how much our southern cousins like to praise the Poms. I also disagree about the comparative styles of England '03 and the current Boks. England played with ball in-hand more but it was often kept tight in the forwards. The Boks kick for territory because their lineout and defence is so good. Also, it's natural part of the game in the rarified atmosphere of the high veldt. England actually had 55% of the ball in the 2007 final (same % as 2003) but the Boks' defence was better than the Wallabies.
Complain about this comment
" But when NZ can be the best team in the world and still play exciting, free-flowing attacking rugby, well, it just makes you wonder what these Saffas could really be capable of..."
Biggest myth in the game.
Go watch them play - they're the most clinical of the lot but, because of McCaw, also get a lot of ball.
Oz and France are the only truly running teams in the game.
Complain about this comment
As a avid Bokke supporters I was pleased with the attitude of the team and determination shown in the second test, to come back from near certain defeat showed real strength of character and depth within the squad.
In my view these are the stand out qualities that make this squad of players one of the all time greats.
Bring on the tri-Nations!!!!!
Complain about this comment
Some of the comments here about South Africa been undeserving of their series win are unfair. The Lions can take credit for their performance in the final test but it has to be remembered that this match was a dead rubber and the series was already decided. In the first match South Africa seemed to be heading for a very large margin of victory before they substituted their key players. In the second game the Lions had the best of the first half & the boks of the second, this game was very tight and could have went either way but the boks won despite missing a few kicks. Some people point to the series aggregate score & try count but this is pointless, how many people remember when South Africa lost the 1997 series they actually won the try count 9 to 3 & won the aggregate score by 7 points.
Complain about this comment
I'm also a huge Bok supporter, and I must admit, can also be a huge critic at times.
Trouble is, reading the article above, I'm not sure whether the team is great with a few average players thrown in, or average with a few great players thrown in. In the case of this Lions tour, regardless of the results and how they were achieved, the managment of the SA team has left serious doubts in my mind as to how good this team will be able to get in their control.
What is my problem?
Well for starters, the Boks were "rested" and not allowed to represent their provinces against the Lions. In some cases, the 100% non test record would surely have been harder to achieve had the Boks been allowed to play. Lets not forget that the Lions are a squad of experienced internationals - ALL of them, and their "thrown together" is a far cry from a provincial "thrown together" team. Hey, don't the Barbarian teams usually blow established teams away? There must be lessons to learn by facing your opposite number in a game of little consequence rather than cold turkey in a test match?? PDV, worried about your players getting injured? Why not coach ballet rather?
No idea how the Boks prepared, but 1 trial type game against Namibia doesn't strike me as the greatest warm up, especially if you don't even play your actual test team. So managment left themselves no choice but to test out combinations and new players within a Lions test series! That's where the stupid idea of changing the side so far from the end in the first test came from, and why the Boks were so aimless in the last. Lets not forget that the Lions had 7 warm up games to our 1 and our last competitive match was November 2008. Clever.
PDV is a lucky man. He inherrited a world cup winning team which is still fairly intact so his results sheet at the wheel doesn't seem too bad. However, I think it's just a matter of time before the cracks take on enough water to sink him - if SA politics will allow....
Tri Nations kicks off soon and I still don't believe we've done enough to be prepared for that, let alone the Lions tests just past. Keep the team together and let them play. If a great player is available, don't be stupid and ask him to wear a blazer and watch from the stands, PLAY HIM. Subs are not starters and starters are not spectators! You talk about killer instinct, well "build" in your own time, tests are there to win.
Complain about this comment
Good blog,
Only thing is I think you missed out probably the player of the series from the Springboks point of view, Heinrich Brussow.
He is a world class player and should be in the springbok side for years to come. Notice how the Springboks started to get on top when he came on in the second test? Its a minor miracle that he has only just come into the forefront of the selector's minds.
Also Fourie Du Preez proved himself to be world class in this series.
and Francios steyn had a stormer
Complain about this comment
Forget all the ifs & buts and the would be, could be, should be's... bottom line... This Springbok team won the IRB Rugby World Cup and topped it with a Lions series win. Let's see what they do in Tri-Nations, if they win it (which they by all means should) then let's ask the same question.
Complain about this comment
firstly i would like to say that as a south african fan i am not convinced that all the lions fans can do after losing the series is say "oh but, we got more points over all and but we were so close and we lost key players" it just goes to show how physically tough the springboks are and that the lions cannot cope, dont get me wrong i think the lions are a fantastic team and i respect players like O'driscoll but the springboks are not given enough credit!!! their world class nature got them through what were without a doubt three amazing tests, but at the end of the day south africa won no matter how close the scores...lions fans just have to face the fact that they lost and that south africa are undoubtly the better team. they will prove their greatness in the Tri-nations. dont forget we have one 2 world cups!!!
common BOKKE!!!
Complain about this comment
Springbok supporter.
I read many comments about how proud everyone is of the Lions. I think therein lies the UK's single biggest problem. You guys are always proud of your losers. Let's be honest, whether it's rugby, cricket, football & most other sports, the UK doesn't exactly dominate the world although the occassional success occurs. Unfortunately, losing at sport is one of the things that the UK is good at. Like I said, therein lies your problem. You celebrate losers. I don't mean losers in a horrible sense but by the fact that you lost the game. You keep telling your losers how proud you are of them and how fantastically well they performed. If you're so proud of them losing no wonder they don't have that hunger to win. It is so dissappointing to read how "the Lions could have/should have/deserved to win, scored more points on average" etc. It beggars believe that people talk like that. What if the Springboks had done this or what if the Springboks had done that? Maybe the Springboks would have beaten the Lions by 40 points!! You can't deal in "maybe's". You field your team and you accept the result.
My personal opinion is that the Lions were gifted the opportunity to get even as close as they did. The Lions preparation was light years ahead of an ill-prepared & rusty Springbok squad. Although not much is said about it these days, SA still suffer a racist (albeit reversed) selection policy with far too much governmental interference. Believe me, many South Africans believed we would never win another world cup with the current political selection policies - and don't msiunderstand us - most SA's would enthusiastically support an entirely black squad if they were the best could we could put together. Add to that a coach who is clearly out of his dept, SA tried its best to give the Lions the best opportunity to win. Add to this the fact that you had the luxury of selecting the best players from four different countries - and you STILL didn't win!! Our errors were errors of management. No preparation, substituting almost have the team 25 mins before the end of a game and fielding our "B" team for the final match.
Now given the racial selection policies we struggle with everyday, the lack of preparation, the idiot we have in charge, the exodus of our best players overseas, the Springboks still beat the Lions. I loathe listing all these "excuses" because we just want to get on & play rugby. So here they are for the record but the next time the Springboks lose a game it will be because the other team was better on the day - enough with all the excuses!!
Divide it any way you like - we truly have a team to be proud of & so we should be 'cos WE WON!! End of story!!
Complain about this comment
Well I was there for tests 2 & 3. The atmosphere at Loftus for the first half of T2 was as intense as any I have experienced and I have been to Rangers v Celtic and other big sporting events. Flat as a pancacke afterwards for us Brits and Irish though. T3, well we deserved that win. Overall inpression? The saffers seemed to enjoy us being out there. I saw a punch up at T3 but the SA fan who lost it was subdued by other SA fans.
The rugby was great. The grounds were good but £200 for a ticket with England Rugby Travel compared to a ticket price on the day of £12! A lot of folk go on about this being the perfect prep compaed to 2005 but, my view is, the money men, in the Lions planning, ruined some of the fun. We were too corporate, too greedy. For Suid Afrika the politics of selection are scandelous. The best players should play. And your coach lacks grace. I know many of you agree.
Finally. ZA thanks for being such good hosts. With all the carping about refs, citations, trys scored, overall points etc well 90% of you Saffers were great company. So, for you Saffers I have sparred with in the last few weeks.... My boy has a new rugby jersey and we both have a new team to support once Scotland, Ireland or the Lions are out of a competition. Ons Vir Jou Zuid Afrika.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS