The 2007 WC Final

This time of the year there is no real rugby items so we have to put up a serial of WC Finals since 1991.   So I wretched the game again     There has been so much written about that Final - but some real issues must still be raised, 

The following onservations must be stated clearly:-

*   The Springboks did very well in line-outs and won 6  line-outs from England throw-ins, one of which was very poor and ended a further line-out 5 meters forward with the English gaining a throw-in.   However the driving mauls  of the English was much more effective than that of the Springboks.

*    The scrumming of the Springboks wee substandard  wit the Springboks with very rare exceptions going backwards and the number 8 and the scrummie getting poor balls from scrums.

*    There was a serial problem in the game - relieving kicks only find touch rarely and most such kicks resulted in counter-kicks.   On the who le the commentator asked why the Springboks did not kick to find touch bearibng in min their superiority  in the line-outs>

*    There were too many cases where the players were poor under the high ball. 

*    Steyn made two good carries and his long range penalty was a real pleasure to watch,   However,  he did miss 4 tackles and his defense was questionable.   

The Springboks after all won the match - but there was some serious deficiencies noticeable, which have provided a serious indication that things could go wrong in the 2011 WC.          

The team would have beaten the All Blacks in the 2007 world cup.  

One of the All Black coaches even said at the time that the 2007 Boks were one of the best rugby teams he had ever seen. Not just a bok team, but from all teams ever.

Frans Steyn was at his best at this stage, probably only around 21 years old. When he replaced the injured Jean Devilliers at inside centre- combined with Eddie Jones coaching the Bok backline looked great. 

Traditional Bok power rugby combined with the right mix of 15 man rugby. 

SB

I summarized what I saw in reality in that final and fact is he team was not very effective in the final.   Sure the Springboks won the WC - but the fact is the team was effective in the Round robin stage - bar a poor game against Tonga (which they won nevertheless).   

There were real problems in the final as outlined,   As stated above Steyn was really looking good in two line breaks - but his defense even at that stage was not really up to standard.   The missed tackle on Tait - that nearly resulted in a English try was very poor,   By 2012 the whole scenario unraveled insofar as Steyn is concerned.   He became worse and worse and the promising 20 year old became a headache,     

Dofdoos

Just think about it carefully - I refer to some deficiencies in players that became chronic by 2011 -  the performances in the Round Robin stage was  pathetic in 2011.   But they may have been better if White stayed on as coach,  . 

But who stabbed White in the back?   The main problem were the Bulls and the Free State members serving on the SARU Board - who wanted White replaced by Meyer and that little scheme did flop in the end.    Working with Cheeky Watson was a fatal mistake, not so?

Anyway history is always a factual science and fact is there were deficiencies in the team noticeable in 2007 - which became evident after 2010  already and by 2015 was chronically bad. In 2007 players like Matfield were in their prime - by 2015 they were real BS. 

I will grant you that  White was a good enough coach when and if he got a real backline coach to help out in that component of the game.   All three his successors were chronically poor insofar as coaching is concerned and that includes Meyer,   Most of the 2007 players where way past their sell-by dates and in fact retired from test rugby - when Meyer forced them back into test rugby and they were the main reason for his own demise.    

The jury is out insofar as Erasmus is concerned - we will have to see what happens next year,  There are some problems still - especially as to the loosie problem  as well as the center selections.   But for the rest the situation looks positive, despite the quota issue.          

Frans Steyn was superb at the 07 word cup.

He had everything going for him ... a young man with Superstar written all over him ... and then the wheels fell off ... and he became what we see today ... another wasted talent.

CC

His teeth and consequently his stomach got in the way and destroyed his promising career,    

Mike, many of those kicks that failed to find touch were made under extreme pressure, often off the weaker foot. 

Again, you are trapped inside one way of thinking. 

A relieving kick from the 22 doesn't HAVE TO go to touch. It often doesn't relieve pressure at all since it results in a lineout just outside ones own 22 anyway. Now the opposition have a set piece and you're under more pressure.

What happened instead was that the ball was punted up field and the Boks brought the  English runner down around the halfway or 10m line. A vastly preferential situation.

Kicking to touch from your own 22, especially when the kicker is rushed, is just as unsuccessful as what it is successful. It does depend on who your opposition are but it's by no means a clear cut advantage to always go for touch.

There are a ton of reasons why you might choose to keep the ball in field. That is, unless your reading from SA's favorite "Yellow, Orange, Red" textbook.

Also, the Bok scrums appeared weaker because England were habitually pushing early. That was clearly visible. When the ref called resets England had already pushed SA 2m backward.

PS Matfield had a cracking game.

Plum

There are cases when long kicks downfield is preferable to kicking for touch - but those kicks should not be habitual and consequently easily covered by opposition players,   The result is that it allows for counter-attacks or return kicks putting the Springboks under pressure,   That on the day also resulted in problems, namely -

*   although the first tackles were frequently made near the half-way line, the English retained the ball and continued with their counter-attacks ending often enough in the Springboks 22;

*   such kicks have a major problem - it disrupts the defensive line and the English did not optimize that opportunity - the few times they did the defense was pretty ordinary - nothing to write home about;

*   the Springboks line-out work were supreme and  they had a better chance of regaining  the line-out balls than they had otherwise.

The English was guilty of pushing early in scrums and in the case of the present rules they would have been penalized endlessly,   However, even when the scrum started correctly the Springbok scrum even on own throw was problematic and most went back a meter or even two when the Springboks did recover the ball,   

Yes - the Springboks won and yes Matfield deserved to be MOM - but I still maintain that the wheels started  coming off in 2010 and since then it got progressively worse.  There were too many world cup veterans who overstayed their welcome - yet they continued until 2015 and the result was obvious..    . 

Frans Steyn played his best rugby in or around 2009...at fullback. 

Steyn was a magical player when I first saw him playing for the Sharks at FULL BACK.

After that the wheels started to come off when 

*    White after the injury of Jean de Villiers in the 2007 WC campaign moved him to center, where he showed the same strength in ball carries - but his defense became a problem;

*    Steyn was at times used at flyhalf - where he was not a success because of slow decision-making  and way too often making the wrong decisions;

*    when he was tried at wing - where his pace was just not up to standard.

He went to play for Racing Metro and mostly played at center for them in the period 2009 to 2012.   I saw him playing for RM and was shocked to see how slow he was and how ineffective he became.   There was no indication  that RM tried to renew his contract when it transpired in 2012 and it became apparent that there were not clubs in France paying him what he was paid by RM.   

The end result was that he returned to SA in 2012 and signed a contract for three with SARU with him being allocated to the Sharks.    He played five tests for the Springboks  in 2012 and it soon became apparent  that he was in a shocking physical condition.   He was grossly overweight (SB even claimed that he weighed at that stage weighed 135 kgs).   He was slow and apparently not really fit enough.

Early in the 2013 Super Rugby series  Plumtree played him for four games at center and he was shockingly poor.   What was transpired was that Plumtree told Steyn to get his weight ubnder control and reduce it.    Plumtree claimed that -

*    he instructed Steyn to reduce his weight from 118 kgs to 105 to 107 kgs - and that he did not manage to do so  over a two month period; and

*    Steyn was no center at all.

In 2013 after the Plumtree announcement he used Steyn on the bench for a few games - he played in a few games as the bench full back.    The Sharks was hit by a  huge injury problem and when played Plumtree for one game in which he got  a compression injury to his leg.  For the rest Steyn did not play any further games for the Sharks in 2013.

When Jake White was appointed as coach of the Sharks it threw a lifeline to Steyn and he was back in the Sharks team as a fixture playing at center or flyhalf with mixed results - mainly because of the weight problem and pace deficiency.    In June 2014 Meyer called him up to the Springbok team - but on the Tuesday before the first test was to be played Steyn stormed out of the camp.   He claimed  that SARU owed him some money, which they claimed they did pay, but the real story was that Meyer told him he was going to be on the bench and not starting  with the result that he stormed out of the camp.

2015 was a real disaster for Steyn - he got banned for five weeks due to a red card incident - and in the rest of the Super Rugby season he did play rather poorly for the Sharks.   SARU was not interested in extending their contract with him and he went off to  Japan until White was appointed as Montpellier coach and he was contracted to play for Montpellier where he still is.

Montpellier played him at flyhalf a  few games and Serfontein became their inside center.   Recently over the last five games he was used as a full back and he had some really remarkable performances in those five games.

 To my mind  there are two reasons for him not living up to his promise he showed as a player and those were -

*    the coaches  using him in positions all over the backline - iro which he was not really suited to play in; and

*    his personal neglect of his physical condition and serious overweight problems over the past decade.

It is unfortunately too late to save his reputation as a test player - sadly so, 

No Mozart

I was at the Tonga match in Lille and I nearly had a seizure - up to the last ten minutes of the game it was touch and go.    

If you really look at the final game objectively the only superiority in the pack was confined to the line-outs - for the rest the Springbok pack was really not dominant at all and they struggled in scrumming and in maul situations.   The English driving mauls were superior to those of the Springboks.   

The team was largely retained together until 2011 - but by then the steam ran out of most of the senior players and the results in the round robin stage of the WC tournament was unconvincing and there was no chance the team would get past the quarters.    Maybe Jake would have helped - but he was stabbed in the back by the Bulls and Free State reps in SARU who aligned themselves with Watson to get rid of White - hoping to get Meyer appointed as coach.  

So the result was three poor and failing coaches in a row after the departure of White.          

Well - I never  - th is guy is mixed up totally and I mean totally.   I referred to the Round Robin game played in Lens (I was wrong when I wrote Lille)  against Tonga om 22 September 2007 and he goes bananas.   Was there such a game or not?   The final score was 30-25 after the Springboks trailed for a long time.   

Sorry Mozart   but as per normal you went off the rails. .   

No Mozart

Allow me to quote your statement:-

"We won all our matches up to the final with ease with a 300 points to 83 lead. We beat the same Pom team in the pool games by 36 points to zero."

First of all - the Tonga game was a shocker - not won with ease,

Secondly I was at the English game at Stade Francais - sure we had a brilliant all-round game and the win was thoroughly deserved.   However, in the final it was an idiotic game we could easily have lost,   Taking on the English with that kind of game plan was basically stupid.   We did not have forward domination at all other than in line-outs,   

In fact the  English enjoyed it to play a game plan designed by themselves and not one designed by the Springboks.   It fitted them to a "t".   They had forward domination in scrums and in breakdown play,   On two occasions the Springboks were attacking the English on their line and kept the ball amongst the forwards - with break line players like Steyn, Habana and Pietersen standing around in the backline,  On both occasions the Springboks tried to force their way through in a process where the English in fact had superiority.   In both cases the Springboks lost possession and NOTHING came from their efforts.

If the Springboks had in fact forward domination they could play that game plan - but line -out domination did not entail total forward domination.   However, that was a game plan designed by White for the advantage of England..           

Why are you still dribbling on about The 2007 WC  Final?

LOL

SMH

Coming from Mozart - he will have company in the loony bin.

Oom Mike, did you watch the game with Smits' commentary.

Really interesting piece about the line outs and how the team k new all of some of the oppositions calls.

We went into that competition with a lot of confidence ... our self belief was at n high, as it should be ... not like it is now.

We had a plan ... a well drilled, highly capped squad ... Eddie Jones ... and of course our theme song was "Thunderstruck" by ACDC. Our boys were even seen dressed as the Incredible Hulk. There was a sense of excitement ... and there was no way that we were coming away empty handed.

Things are totally different now.

We had an on fire Montgomery at 15 ... this year we have an over rated dweeb in Willie ...

We had Habana at 11 and Pietersen at 14 ... this year we have Nkosi and Dyantyi, both inexperienced ... both still trying to find their feet ... both with a handful of caps under their belt.

We had Jaque Fourie and an on fire Frans Steyn at 12, banging everything over from his own half ... this year we have De Allende and Jesse Kriel ... lol!!!!!!!

We had an on form Butch, playing his best rugby in years ... with one of the best scrummies of all time imo ... Fourie Du Preez. This year we have Pollard who seems to have found some form and ... Faff.

Schalk Burger in stead of Kolisi ... haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaa ... Juan and Danie Roussouw made up the back row. This year we have the elderly and tired Vermeulen at 8 ... with the only class act in the back row, Pieter Steff Du Toit.

We had Bakkies and Victor at lock. A pair that had played together for many years. This year we have Eben and ... well ... anyone of three choices ... Mostert, Lood and Snyman. Not much of a relationship among any of them.

Our front row saw the likes of Os Du Rant (arguably one of the best loosehead props to walk the planet) ... John Smit (a highly experienced and natural leader) ... and vd Linde ... with Bismarck and Janie as cover on the bench. This year we have the quota Beast as a possible starter, old and tired ... Marx and Malherbe who in all honesty is technically flawed. Their cover is the midget Bongi (another undeserving quota), Kitshoff and any of  number of choices in Koch, Louw, Trevor, Tank and maybe even Dreyer.

We had Johann Muller, Wikus, Ruan Pienaar, Pretorius and Olivier as additional bench warmers. This year we'll have Papier, Jantjies, Am and perhaps Willemse as cover on the bench.

We have a coach/director (who I might add, is rather keen to vacate his coaching role as soon as possible) ... as well as another incompetent, undeserving quota in Stick as an assistant.

CC

What I wrote at the time was from memory and what actually happened,   I was very happy about the 2007 squad and went to France - travelling all over Europe during the week when there were no games.   The escapade cost me at the time more than R250 000 and in the end I was glad I did it.

The situation in the final was not ideal - looking at it in retrospect.   For some reason or another White decided to play the English according to a game plan suiting the English and not the Springboks - which put the Springboks under pressure,    They should have beaten the English with ease - bearing in mind the 36-0 drubbing they gave them in the pool game - but because of the changed strategy the guidelines provided by Jones was ignored and the English were played using the strategy they preferred,    

I agree their are weaknesses in the present Springbok squad - but is the situation with the other squads really that much better,   The AB's have their own weaknesses, the Wallabies are disastrous and so is the English when it comes down to the true situation.     The only team really better than their 2007 squad this year is likely to be Ireland,   I think in fact that Ireland should win the WC title - but??????????????????              

Mike ... the English side we faced in the final was a completely different side to the one we surprised during the pool stages. 

They were divided as a team and struggled with an incompetent coach who couldn't unite them .

Self belief, attitude, determination and focus changed them into an tough opponent.

Thrashing them for a second time was never going to happen ... especially in a final of that nature.

It had nothing to do with our game plan changing. We faced a formidable foe and came away the victors.   

Don't write the Poms off just yet. They have Jones in their corner and if history has shown us anything, he's going to come into this comp with a plan ... and his boys are going to be well prepared. He's no fool. 

The All Blacks ... you can expect them to come with an improved intensity, especially as defending champions,

My money's on them taking it again.

No CC

We hardly used our backline players and the game plan was changed - I firmly believe that,   bringing in the ancients by England hardly improved the team.    

Anyway you look at it Mike, England was never going to be the same side that showed up earlier in the competition and got that beating from the Springboks.

Even if the exact same sides were chosen, the embarrassment that England felt after that 36-0 hiding from the Boks, would have ensured that a totally  different England side was going to play that final

My problem remains - was it necessary to change the game plan to eliminate backlin play by the Springboks the way the test was played,    The change benefitted the English to a "t" and if that try were scored in the corner then what next - a loss in the final?   

Smit after the game said they would have had to find a way to score a try themselves.   Was the way not to be applied from the start of the game - especially when it became clear we were not on top in scrumming and on the ground in breakdown  play?

It is really no good to write about that final - it is not even worth anything - so lets forget about the way it went and remember not to repeat it in future,     

"It is really no good to write about that final - it is not even worth anything - so lets forget about the way it went and remember not to repeat it in future"     

I agree Mike

Not sure why you even brought it up tp be honest..... the game was 11 years ago

Could have..... should have..... would have..... spring to mind

You are the author of this thread, Mike ... now you don't wanna talk about it?

You really are a strange man.

Lol Ceradyne

I was bored and there was a rerun of the game on TV.   So I thought  to write something on site.  In any event the normal birdbrains sprung onto my comments and CC made some valid points - but there is still no dispute about the way White changed the game for the final - even Smit implied it in his comments after the ma tch.

However, the bird brains do not comment on that.   So maybe we should just give this thread a bye