‘Weather a great leveller’
Ian McGeechan believes the inclement weather at Newlands suited the Emerging Boks and was a vital factor in them achieving a draw.
Newlands was pelted with wind and driving rain, while it also hailed at times. Springbok assistant coach Dick Muir, who was in charge of the Emerging XV, believed the tourists were more used to these conditions, but McGeechan didn’t feel the same.
He was happy to get away with the 13-all draw after leading 13-6 heading into the final minute.
‘I’m not disappointed,’ McGeechan told keo.co.za. ‘That was a potential banana skin we got through and our attitude was superb. The conditions were a great leveller and there wasn’t much rugby played. We missed one or two scores that cost us the win, but we didn’t lose either – which was very important.
‘We got through it, but it was a million miles from where we want to be on Saturday [for the second Test].’
Although the Emerging Boks were made up of non-capped players who would have enjoyed a hard dry surface to play expansively, McGeechan said he was more disappointed his side didn’t get better conditions.
‘You don’t need Test players to produce a result in a monsoon,’ McGeechan said in light of the Boks’ performance. ‘I feel sorry for our players, who really wanted to push for Test spots. Possibly, we played too much rugby in the second half, which gave them inroads.’
Muir admitted the stalemate felt like a moral victory – not only for this side but also for the senior outfit.
‘In the end, that felt like a win,’ said Muir. ’It was a game of two halves and we got the ascendancy in the second, while they had it in the first. The pride and character shown by the boys was very important and shows they can go on to better things.
‘Especially seeing as those conditions were more suited to their players than ours.’
After the final quarter of the first Test was dominated by the Lions, Muir feels this result was crucial in breaking the momentum of the tourists.
‘From a Lions perspective, they finished the Test well and I think we turned that around. That was always an aim of ours to stop that, and we stemmed that tide to a certain extent.’
Captain on the night Ronan O’Gara was one player wanting to push for a Test spot and he was disappointed they didn’t have a dry evening to do that.
‘We wanted to express ourselves, but didn’t get the chance to do that – the conditions were difficult. They were right up there with what I’ve had to deal with in Limerick, but not the worst.
‘I feel sorry for the guys, who wanted to push for Test spots, but we didn’t get that.’
By Grant Ball, at Newlands
June 24th, 2009 at 9:21 am
#48 WakaNathan: are you mad?
Drop goals should be one point?
another mad kiwi
#49 katman:
June 24th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Weather certainly was a leveler. Imagine the hiding they would’ve copped from the e-Boks if it was dry & sunny.
June 24th, 2009 at 9:24 am
#50 WakaNathan: easy now O’Neil
we couldnt give a toss what you think of Drop goals actually.
they are part of the game like lineouts etc and require skill.
you just keep on losing beautifully because you refuse to take that option eh?
June 24th, 2009 at 9:26 am
#48 WakaNathan: If DGs are so easy why can’t the ABs score them?
It’s a skill and part of the game of rugby. Don’t like it? Go watch league!
June 24th, 2009 at 9:32 am
#50 WakaNathan: wakacracka i gotta go.
catch you on the flip side eh?
p.s. you sure you arent actually an aussie?
June 24th, 2009 at 9:51 am
#38 Sharksgirl: yes the weather is like that in the winter, but I think the style McGeechan’s team played on this tour has been a running style so maybe that’s what he’s getting at.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:01 am
#56 Big Hit: ah okai, ’cause the forward pack was even bigger than ours, which the weather should’ve helped, but I guess the weather did not help any running rugby!
Next year we were hoping to come to the UK! Have to see Scotland been on my wish list for ever, when is the best time to come, bearing in mind that I am from Natal so love the heat not keen on freezing my limbs off
June 24th, 2009 at 10:50 am
#53 rangerman:
Oh, I get it now. Youre referring to the RWC loss to France. Again. Again. I suppose since thats the only thing SA has over NZ, then a little repetition goes a long way (not forgetting that it was France the ABs lost to, but I digress…..).
Hey Einstein, if I was voting against the DG as 3-pts on the basis of the RWC loss, that would be a bit THICK wouldnt it ? The ABs lost by 2pts, remember. So making the DG worth 1-pt would be like a turkey voting for Christmas.
No, if it was 1-pt instead then it would mean a DG was not an option and that playing for a Try or a Penalty (which Barnes was never going to give) was the only option for victory.
Maybe its just my opinion, but isnt winning a rugby match via Tries or Defending a Try is what the game is all about ?
June 24th, 2009 at 11:04 am
The weather suited the emerging boks when the B&I Lions play in that sort of weather quite often throughout their season.
Nice excuse, but at least he isn’t talking about mechanics or playing an overweight out of form scrum half.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I actually think the weather suited the Lions, the emerging bok pack was nearly 80kgs lighter, thats 10kg per player, with better weather they would have been able to shift their pack around much more, the e-boks loosies were phenomenal.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:18 am
#58 WakaNathan: You can’t just work the elements that you’re poor at out of the game, Wankathon. Rather become skilled at the entire range of scoring options available and use them to your advantage.
Next you’re probably going to campaign against overly aggressive ruck clean-outs, the rolling maul and the rush defense.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:56 am
#61 katman:
How pathetic. So youre argument is that you would have to become less-skilled because its worth less ? That just sounds dumb to me.
Au contraire, I say bring back rucking, with boots on, and long live the maul. Id rather watch a maul than some idiot taking pot-shots all day. Actually Ive read plenty of criticism of F.Steyn here by the locals to know that Im not alone.
And lets not confuse the point here. Im all FOR the DG, just not at its current value.
All this dicking around with silly rules and ELVs could easily have been resolved with making the Try worth more and DGs worth less. I want to see RUNNING with the ball and the confrontation spent trying to prevent it.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
#62 WakaNathan: No Wankathon. My argument is that YOU want to make them worth less BECAUSE your lot don’t have the necessary skills to execute them properly. How you got to that silly conclusion in your first paragraph is a bit mystifying and I’m not at all surprised that it sounds dumb to you, because it is.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
#63 katman:
sILLY HUH ? oh, says the one who resorts to childish name-calling.
NZ has had some of the greatest DG-exponents the game has ever seen. G.Fox and N.Botha were virtually the same players in their skillsets.
D.Carter is a superb kicker off either foot. Of course he was already injured in the RWC QterF 2ndH when the ABs needed a DG.
Even F.Steyn takes about 10 pots before he gets 1. Borrrrrrrrring, run the farken thing ! Got to Aussie Rules or football if that gives you a thrill.
Anyway, for want of repetition, Im all for the DG. Just not games dictated by them. Id rather see tries.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
#64 WakaNathan:
I wonder what you would have said if Mehrtens had succeeded with that field goal he so narrowly missed in WC final 1995…
I say make a drop goal should also count for 5 points, it is one of the finer arts in rugby, I can’t get enough of watching those sail through the posts!
June 24th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
fk the poms come up with every excuse , if they loose at Loftus it will be due to the altitude or some other shite excuse.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
WakaNathan
i have to say i find dropgoals to be quite entertaining, much more entertaining than say a penalty kick. it takes alot more skill to put over a dropgoal than place the ball, so should a place kick then be half a point?
i find games with dropgoals quite interesting. it doesnt happen often that that there are any dropgoals in a game, and games dominated by DG’s happen every 2 to 3 years.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
#65 Pietman:
the scores were tied at the time 12-12, so it wouldnt have made any difference if the DG was worth 1 pt or 10. As it was Stransky kept his nerve better and won SA the RWC. Absolutely no problem with that whatsoever. DGs – my opinion – are there to split tied scores and prevent games going to AET or stupid kickoffs (Cardiff Blues, Heineken Cup Semis). It keeps defences honest which means the DG is only but ONE option.
I hope yr joking about
#66 byoboy:
if altitude wasnt an issue, I wonder why the SARU scheduled the final 2, and deciding matches, at altitude ? No other country holds this geographical advantage. Its often quoted as a reason why Boks lost in ‘97, ie that they didNT play more than 1 Test at altitude.
Obviously its not insurmountable. The ABs won the Series at Loftus in ‘96. But, without a doubt, its an advatage whether small or large. In matches that are so close as the 1st Test, any small advan is a good one.
Personaly I like the whole altitude thing. It adds another challenge, a different one. And variety is the spice of life as they say. But lets not ignore the fact that it is an advantage to the home team.
#67 yoda:
Yeah, I find DGs a wonderful part of the game too. But they shouldnt dictate games, which they can when theyre worth 3pts.
Pen kicks are obviously there for a reason. But pen kicks are usually earned by way of a team effort. For DGs you just have to be near the posts for a snap kick. It was immense, then, to see Engl earn that field position in the 2003 RWC Final. And lets not ignore fact that pens can be wholly subjective at the whim of 1 ref which might be ignored, nay given the other way, by a different ref.
No, I like DGs. But they always seem to be a kind of acknowledgement that the team isnt good enough to score points any other way. I pay to see Tries and Defence thereof, not F.Steyn taking ridiculous pot-shots all day.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
#65 Pietman:
“I hope youre joking about”…..them being worth 5pts. Presume youre just trying to make yr point.
You’ll be resulting to abuse and namecalling like BokFan1 next. I just like discussing the game and its wonderful intricacies to be honest.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
“BIG HIT”
In regards to your rebuttal to yesterdays comment, you would have understood the point I was making if you concentrated on reading my ‘opinion’ which requires you to STOP thinking about your own (for just half a second big guy).
The Lions are a magnificent side who toss the ball around and everyone is playing for a pass or offload on attack. The hard ground in the republic is ideal for your superior midfield backs and solid loosies to create opportunity.
What frustrates me is that the 4 home nations, who’s team culture is probably alot more serious than that of the multi-cultural Lions, seem to play far less expansive rugby as a mindset. For example they miss surprise opportunities when one guy actually does make a break, the finishing isnt always there. But it is with the Lions buddy. Thats why I like them.
At no stage did i mention France in yesterdays post and if you would like to start talking about the All Blacks well, lets just say you wouldnt want to start me up! In summary, stick to the point dikhead.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
#70 NZMaori: you’re talking nonsense. You said NH nations, of which France are one. Anyway, Wales and Ireland as a rule in this decade play expansive rugby, Scotland move it when they can and England scored 16 tries through their backs during the 6N. Think before you speak or endeavour to do your research before you post.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
#71 Big Hit:
yes, well, “endeavor to do your research’ might also save you a few embarrassing moments in future, Mr Spoutyourmouthoffbeforethinking !
#70 NZMaori:
this guy is too busy with singing Die Stem and refuelling his NZ-vendetta to know anything about a balanced opinion.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Would you agree that a more expansive style on a team level behind a solid tight five is better rugby? That would be what we try and do down here mate. You guys invented the 10 man game that professionalism has left behind.
As for those 16 tries, well you got 10 in two games, france didnt turn up as they sometimes dont at Twikenham and we’ll get 10 against Italy this Saturday, mark my words.
Cant argue with Irelands flair coming to fruition. They are playing magnificent rugby, but I wouldnnt go as far as saying its a rule of thumb for the last decade.
We are not going to always agree big man but my final comment on the matter is this. What i see in the Lions reminds me of supporting some of the All Black selection era’s over the years. When you rate every guys ability in your team and they throw it around, you witness sublime peices of rugby. Much like the Babarians of 78 some teams are full of greats and achieve great feats. England 03, Springboks 09, NZ 96. That Lions backline is the best going around at the moment in world rugby. They have the ability to turn this series if they get the platform. 9 through to 15 deserve the Lions 09 to be remembered, but like many generations of All Black players over recent years, they will only be remembered for their results.
Good luck against the Springboks this Saturday.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
#73 NZMaori: Well you have shown me you have some knowledge of NH rugby.
I don’t really agree with the ‘France didn’t turn up’ line however, they haven’t beaten us in the 6N since 2006 home or away and were knocked out of the World Cup in Paris.
I don’t agree that professionalism has left 10 man rugby behind either. Argentina played 10 man rugby and reached the RWC semis whereas NZ and Aus went out in the quarters.
You seem to have a preference for running rugby, no harm in that, but in my opinion it’s the clash of styles which makes rugby interesting, if every team was a runaround team then it becomes as boring as if every team was a 10 man rugby side.
Variety of styles is key in my opinion, a good example was Boks v Lions last weekend. Great stuff.
Agree that the Lions can take this but if they don’t it will have been fun watching them play.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Yip agree
Ka Kite
June 24th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
#73 NZMaori:
Im not sure about the Lions having the ‘best backline’ altho I would go as far as saying ‘best midfield’, Roberts and BOD are a complementary combination and were superb last w/e. Phillips played well but tends to be slow getting his pass away, perhaps its because he’s quite big and it is not whippy because he’ll take a step first to get some leverage. Has a game quite similar to a young Justin Marshall. I also think S.Jones tends to crab across field a bit instead of playing heads-up and committing flankers away from midfield. If Hook was a better kicker he would give even more options in midfield and outside backs. O’Gara is simply woeful, doesnt commit any D whether with ball in hand or otherwise. The wingers ? Well please dont tell me Monye rates on the scale because he commits schoolboy errors (incl same 1 twice !) and looks some way off this level. Bowe and Byrne are both lovely players and I reckon they should try and involve Kearney because he seems to make it all look so easy.
I watched the 1974 Series doco recently and Phil Bennett was absolutely sublime throughout. This current backline would be supreme if they had a flyhalf like that.
Boks backline is superb too, lets hope they use it instead of obsessing in the fwds. It seems a crime to see Habana without any pill.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Yeah I imagine the rain helped the emerging Boks more after all the BIL Lions probably never play in the rain.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
#77 DEE DAH:
Have seen enough deluges in both CT and Durban to know that its not entirely unfamiliar conditions for the locals either.
To be fair, its more the freezing cold and damp and lack of light in UK over their Winter. Complete heavy downpours like that dont happen frequently, more of a constant drizzle (for days…..weeks….). Those conditions looked more like what we get in NZ or even Queensland.