All 18 points: Morne Steyn
Related links
Teams
Also see
Morné Steyn kicked all of South Africa's points as they beat New Zealand 18-5 in Saturday's Tri-Nations clash in Port Elizabeth.
The All Blacks scored the only try of the game, but were outmuscled up front by their hosts. The whole Bok team tackled their hearts out and Steyn's strong tactical kicking, especially in the second half, allowed them to keep the visitors pinned back.
As has become the norm in clashes between these sides, the All Blacks looked the more dangerous side with ball in hand, but the Springboks can count themselves deserved winners and will take encouragement from their improvement in defence and at scrum time in their final game before the World Cup.
It was South Africa's best performance of the year - by some margin - but the Springbok management will continue to be concerned by their team's inability to cross the try line. (Peter de Villiers' team have scored just three tries this year - all by hookers John Smit and Chiliboy Ralepelle.)
By contrast, Graham Henry's task of picking his backs for the World Cup was made no easier by strong performances by Israel Dagg, Isaia Toeava and Hosea Gear. However Adam Thomson's hopes of making the starting XV on September 9 took a step backwards as his overeagerness cost his side a number of penalties.
Just how much can be read into this result is debatable as it would be overly harsh to judge New Zealand on the performance of a make-shift side.
New Zealand did most of the playing in the first quarter but it was the hosts who held a 12-0 lead after half-an-hour as their charged-up pack forced the All Blacks to infringe at the rucks and at scrum time.
Steyn moved the Boks further ahead with a neat drop-goal but it was the men in black who would cross the whitewash for the game's only try, courtesy of Richard Kahui, who muscled his way past three defenders after Gear had cut through the Boks' defensive curtain with a searing run.
South Africa led 15-5 at half time with Steyn's fifth penalty the only points of the second period.
Man of the match: The home side's cover defence saved their bacon on a number of occasions with Jaque Fourie coming to the rescue two or three times. But we'll go for Morné Steyn who not only scored all the hosts' points, but generally controlled the game.
Moment of the match: With the All Blacks trailing by ten points, Jimmy Cowan's disallowed try will be subject of debate for a long time to come. Dagg's final pass was certainly forward... and television match official Johann Meuwesen made sure referee George Clancy knew about it.
Villain of the match: It wasn't tiddlywinks but no one deserves a mention.
The scorers:
For South Africa:
Pens: Steyn 5
Drop: Steyn
For New Zealand:
Try: Kahui
South Africa: 15 Pat Lambie, 14 JP Pietersen, 13 Jaque Fourie, 12 Jean de Villiers, 11 Bryan Habana, 10 Morné Steyn, 9 Fourie du Preez, 8 Pierre Spies, 7 Willem Alberts, 6 Heinrich Brüssow, 5 Victor Matfield, 4 Bakkies Botha, 3 Jannie du Plessis, 2 Bismarck du Plessis, 1 Gurthrö Steenkamp.
Replacements: 16 John Smit, 17 Tendai Mtawarira, 18 CJ van der Linde, 19 Danie Rossouw, 20 Ashley Johnson, 21 Francois Hougaard, 22 Butch James.
New Zealand: 15 Israel Dagg, 14 Isaia Toeava, 13 Richard Kahui, 12 Sonny Bill Williams, 11 Hosea Gear, 10 Colin Slade, 9 Jimmy Cowan, 8 Liam Messam, 7 Adam Thomson, 6 Jerome Kaino, 5 Ali Williams, 4 Samuel Whitelock, 3 John Afoa, 2 Keven Mealamu (capt) 1 Tony Woodcock.
Replacements: 16 Andrew Hore, 17 Ben Franks, 18 Jarrad Hoeata, 19 Victor Vito, 20 Andy Ellis, 21 Piri Weepu, 22 Cory Jane.
Venue: Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium, Port Elizabeth
Referee: George Clancy (Ireland)
Comments
montyRN says...
Huge amount of comments so apologise if anything been done to death before this post - thoughts:
1. NZ have a couple of issues with a Carter replacement - Slade showed some great plays but also (dare I say it) a "Donald-esque" tendency to let concentration lapse - not going 10 off the kick off etc. I say it a lot, but with Carter, NZ look unbeatable, without him, they still are favourites but are vulnerable.
2. Importance of a fetcher (Eng take note) - Brussow was World Class. McCaw was missed, Thompson just not as good, unsurprising considering he's a "generalist" loosie - a much better Haskell if you will - does anyone else think that Matt Todd (Crusaders 7) should have made the 3N squad to see if he could make test level?
3. The Boks play very, very good knock out rugby - hit your pens, hit your drop goals, defend like lunatics. Whilst not as polished as 03, reminds me a lot of the Eng performances of 03 and 07. Not a high standard of entertaining rugby - just belligerent, win at all costs stuff.
4. Dagg looked classy, as did Isa Toaeava, think Gear may not have done enough to oust the other wingers.
5. No idea if Henry will take 3 or 4 centres - who'd you leave out? SBW or Kahui? thought SBW was subdued and Kahui looked classy.
6. The "non" try from Cowan - the rules state the TMO shouldn't have mentioned the forward pass. He did, it was the correct decision, in spite of being against the rules - cheesy phrase, but I think "rugby was the winner" on that one (in League the TMO tends to go back for about 30s and rules on in front of kicker, blocks in build up, knocked on high ball etc - I think it's much better)
7. Thought Messam looked like a second choice 8 - good, but not great
8. Spies doesn't pass, Danie Roussow has to be a second row replacement (not a loosie) Fourie was a class act all game.
9. Smit has to be left out of the starting 15, surely?
Posted 08:26 22nd August 2011
mana says...
Aaron Cruden would probably be abetter replacement for D.Carter come WC.
Posted 07:29 22nd August 2011
KiwiKev says...
@ JayStarr
Glad you are still around! Missed the other posts...
I don't always agree with your posts but I enjoy your insights nonetheless...
18 days!!!!
Posted 07:10 22nd August 2011
Ripzy007 says...
From this game I have hopes for the Boks to have a good showing at the WC and may even win it...However, the ABs B/C/D team (whichever way you see it) looks good...its still not a WC and I also see and bet that they most likely will lose the Tri Nations decider with this team....Great to finally have a Trinations decider unlike past years where the ABs have dominated the Competition....Bring on the Rugby WC
Posted 02:54 22nd August 2011
StunTheMullet says...
Firstly, congratulations to the Boks.
My my the AB knockers are out in force at the sniff of an opportunity. Try to bear in mind there was an AB backline that had never played together before, a 23 year old first five starting first big game (and just back from 2 broken jaws), 5 players first test after injury (Toeava, Dagg, Kahui, Woodcock, Afoa), experiment with No 7 cover, RWC cover player trial etc .
So no wonder combinations were off and had a few passes stuck and they took their opportunities in the first half then they could easily have won.
Meanwhile that was the Boks best team playing at home, they didn¿t look remotely look like scoring a try and same 10 man rugby tactics indulged by a referee who thinks advantage is reserved for tennis.
Oh and good to see all the people out in support of forward pass justice from the referee and home town TMO (what are those touch judges for again?). Only shame was that they were not following the laws of the game (not saying the laws are right) but you just can¿t make it up as you go along.
Where was your support when it was needed 4 years ago after a certain Cardiff RWC QF game in 2007?
Posted 00:50 22nd August 2011
Sasquatch says...
Most people, like Tahi, keep going on about how badly this Bok team performed against the AB's as well as the Wallabies the week before. 29 missed tackles sure; no tries sure.
So do we agree that the Boks were poor in both games?
And yet they lost by 5 playing absolutely rubbish rugby to a full strength Wallaby outfit who had played 3 games together already (the Bok 1st team had none), and they beat the AB's (and don't call it a B team when only 8 players were left out) by 13, EVEN THOUGH THEY MISSED 29 TACKLES AND DIDN'T SCORE ANY TRIES.
Am I the only one who sees the glaring irony in all of the criticism?
Posted 00:08 22nd August 2011
seedbag says...
Paddy O'Brian is making a big deal out of it because thanks to this cheating S.A TMO we now are gonna need neutral TMO's for all internationals we cant have TMO's sifting through footage trying to find reasons why his team cant be scored against.The camera angles we first got from behind and the side the pass didn't look foward which is why the touchee didnt call it, It wasnt till the TMO after seeing the ball been clearly grounded put up the front and top views that the pass did look foward.
Posted 00:03 22nd August 2011
DutchWing says...
"rugbylover11 says...
i feel for u all black fans!!!!!!! rugby in NZ is a religion !!! your national pride will one day destroy u. "
And now take a look at all the Springbok supporters that suddenly reply on PR when finally the Boks get a win.
Posted 23:54 21st August 2011
HeyZeus says...
Congrats to the Boks, well played and well deserved win. Brussow was huge in that game a true warrior. For the AB's this is the game they needed to lose and the type of game they needed to lose. They will be better for it as this is the type of game that wins world cups and if they can't adapt to it, then they won't win it. As for the try and TMO ruling, let it go, we lost move on.The Boks deserved the win and deserve to celebrate without all the constant bleating about the TMO and refs decision.
Posted 23:48 21st August 2011
Green_Machine says...
Its a bit of a shame the SA won. I was hoping NZ would have gone undefeated into the WC, as a bigger probability they will then choke on the big stage when it actually counts if they are over confident.
Posted 23:01 21st August 2011
zambokke says...
@Tahi, We aren't getting carried away, just as you didn't when you beat our 'B' team. As for winning in Aukland - the reason that we can't remember winning there is because we have only played there once in the last ten years, for some reason Aukland is no longer a regular fixture; you love to have your home legs further south - more wind and rain for us to contend with!!!
Posted 22:59 21st August 2011
Rugbynut says...
Typical Kiwi moaning! Where is your sense of honesty and integrity? Do you really want to win a match by cheating? If the 4th official pointed out the blatant forward pass then he saved the integrity of the game and all involved. Pity he couldn't point out the obvious cheating by the AB's at the breakdown and in broken play. What happened to honesty and sportmanship in NZ?
Come on you bokkies, you can win RWC 2011!
Posted 22:55 21st August 2011
tuffnut says...
Well done SA for the win.
Boks should be happy with their forward display especially in the scrums and lose play. All their forwards played well but it was Brussouw who stood out the most for me. Fourie & Habana were my pick of the backs with Habana's high work rate in defense making a major impact on the game. Must be a bit concerning that their back line didn't threaten much though, but with the near flawless boot of Morné Steyn maybe that'll be enough to defend their WC crown.
As for the All Blacks... rusty & too many errors but still exciting flashes of brilliance at times. SBW made errors but defense was solid and importantly set up a number of line breaks. Dagg's exciting breaks undone by a number of poor decisions which turned over possession. The AB scrum stopped backpedaling once Afoa left the field then coincidentally started going backwards again when he came back on. I don't think he should be in the WC squad. Colin Slade won't be happy with his obvious errors but still had some positives to take away. A bit more game time surrounded by senior players in the early stages of the world cup should help his confidence develop, although saying that, things felt much more stable when the experienced head of Piri Weepu came on at 10. Playing out of his preferred position Thompson tried too hard at times, but accompanied by several rusty forwards of whom many slow in support play, should make a greater impact surrounded by a stronger & more match fit pack. Kaino put in a solid performance.
All in all, compared to the 12th world ranked Fiji game where the so called "first choice" experienced players looked similarly out of place, I think yesterday's AB side did well given their fired up 2/3rd world ranked opposition & will show their class when slotted in next to experienced teammates.
A good game to watch unfold despite NZ not managing to steal an upset.
Posted 20:57 21st August 2011
JayStarr says...
As a footnote to my previous post:
Head of SA Referees, André Watson - in stark contrast to Paddy O'Brien's response - said the following regarding this TMO incident:
"What we want is the right decision. It was clear that the pass was forward and if the try had been allowed we (referees) would have looked like a bunch of fools.
Protocols are important and we should try and stick to them, but they are essentially guidelines and I'd rather apologise for what happned than get the wrong answer.
The protocol is not part of the Laws of the Game, just a regulation of a process of applying the laws".
If only André Watson was the IRB head of referees... he obviously still remembers why laws (and referees) are there.
Paddy-O must go!
Posted 19:06 21st August 2011
InternationalXV says...
@TheOracle
I don't think New Zealand will have any concerns with a Bok semi. Wales will beat them in pool play and go through as top dogs. The question remains as to whether SA will even qualify for the knock out matches.
Posted 18:55 21st August 2011
Ramage says...
@jay starr what you are suggesting in your argument about the TMO is that he is allowed to point out things that are not in his brief therefore not within the laws of the game at this stage. The fact is as we all know the law can be an ass and whilst I agree with you that the TMO should be allowed to be consulted on more, at the moment he cant so the South African TMO was wrong. Please note I am not asking for tries from forward passes be allowed but if both the referee and touch judge miss it the TMO does not have the right under law at this stage to point out to a referee he has missed it. It is unfortunate that this decision was made by a South African referee and I know some people on here would raise this matter as being biased. I only suggest he commented on law that he did not have the right to do so. If he can ignore law and Clancy accepts that breach of law does little to stop the accusations that appear on here from time to time. It is not over to any referee or assistant or TMO to referee any way than in line with the law as written . Once they work outside that framework we are in deep trouble.It is bad enough that referees miss play on the field but It is better than ignoring the law as written. As for Paddy O'Brien he must on behalf of the IRB ask for a please explain from South African referees for their TMOs incredible call and obviously censure Clancy for accepting the interference.Yes it would have been wrong for the try to be scored but in law it had to be allowed.
@spiffed You need to acquaint yourself with how referees deal with errors on the field. Forward passes are not flagged only foul pay is flagged. Referees are in contact with each other and can talk to the ref by calling it as forward or as is done with the knock on or forward pass signal. If the ref has called the forward pass there is no need for an assistant to do anything.
Posted 18:32 21st August 2011
ruggaluva says...
I see that a few ( not all) of our Kiwi pals just haven't realized what the deal is with tournament rugby and why the Boks play this style of game - even if it is annoyingly one dimensional. The Boks back themselves to make it thru to the knockout phases where the real pressure starts to tell and playing that fluid rugby just often results in failure, because although the ABs play in fith gear at all times you need to find a sixth to get that mad scramble defense.
So yeah you broke the line.... well done - Now get it over the whitewash - in BIG games this is more than hard and thats why although you guys can look great all year long, winning serious pressure games is an art unto itself. It just doesnt look pretty....
having said that Carter taking drop potshots against the Aussies means that maybe the penny has dropped and that taking any points available is a good idea that and the ABs defense is looking watertight does bode very well for them which is why you have been served by this timely reminder that you shld be very nervous of teams who can defend like the Boks or heaven forbid outpace and outwit u like the French.
The trophy isn't yours yet.
Posted 18:29 21st August 2011
Trackstar says...
Why don't referees know not only the rules of the game but the rules of what they are allowed to adjudicate on ? the disallowed try was a classic cock up! Was the pass forward ? bollocks ! theres 1 replay from above the play that can clearly show everyone that it wasn't anything more than a flat pass, no other replay can show you that,.
After; being told about the so called forward pass, ref Clancy should have told the other plonker upstairs that he can't tell him about forward passes and just given the try.
And a question. Was the tmo a south african ? sounds like it to me with that name and what his voice sounded like.If Im right then why isn't every single person officiating the match neutral? One does wonder how someone can possibly remain unbiased when your own nation maybe conceiding a try. If it was south africa going for a comeback try then what are the chances that pass would have been ruled flat and the tmo doesn't mention it ? sounds mean but a from my experience and rational mind, and some would argue my comment, i assure you, that you can't remain unbias.
Posted 18:28 21st August 2011
JayStarr says...
@ KiwiKev: I dealt with my ungraceful return earlier... Have you seen the other rugby website's discussion boards!? If you have you'd understand. I've decided to rather just ignore Richard Anderson articles from now on..!
Posted 18:28 21st August 2011
JayStarr says...
@ joyce1bro: Laws, rules - it's the same damn thing. God himself did not come down from heaven and handed stone slabs over to Paddy O'Brien... They were written by rugby people and are regularly changed and adapted. Referees (and fans like you) often forget that the laws are not an end in themselves - they are a means to an end. Rugby laws (and referees) are there for one reason only - to ensure fair play.
An example: two packs engage early at exactly the same time - the ref blows his whistle and says "early engagement - both". Stupid! The law is there to ensure a fair contest at scrum-time by preventing one team from getting an early hit. If both teams engage at exactly the same time after they crouched, touched and paused, then what is the problem!? What does it matter whether it was half a second before the ref said "engage"? The purpose of the law was achieved!
If you want to be technical and argue "but that is the law!", then you are making the laws an end in themselves and missing the reason of why they exist in the first place.
But if you insist on arguing from that point: one of the oldest and most fundamental laws of rugby is that you are not allowed to pass the ball forward! Just because the ref didn't ask whether there was a forward pass, doesn't mean the TMO should turn a blind eye to such an obvious error. If he did, it would've unfairly benefited NZ and been detrimental to SA. However, by offering this information he ensured that fair play prevailed - and therefore that the ultimate purpose of rugby laws were met.
He should be praised by his boss for good ajudicating, not rapped over the knuckles. Paddy O'Brien's response (and lack thereof regarding the match official's horrorshow) just highlights his incompetence as the head of referees - he's forgetting why they are there. Under his watch refereeing has become a farce.
Posted 18:23 21st August 2011