Never the twain shall meet
We can all agree on one thing about rugby: we do not like how the other lot play, PLUS: a quick and incomplete wrap of a big weekend.
Oh, North is North, and South is South, and never the twain shall meet...
With apologies to Rudyard Kipling, whose compass points I have bastardised for my own ends, there was something of The Ballad of North and South1 about the long weekend’s semifinals.
That Kipling was a noted Imperialist only adds to the aptness of the reference.
At one point during Sunday morning’s semifinal between England and South Africa, I had this text exchange with a mate who is the type of code-head that can find beauty in most things rugby. It was succinct.
Turns out I jumped the gun by a few minutes. The final 11 minutes of the match had a redeeming feature: a knife-edge scoreboard, but the rugby didn’t actually improve.
Think about how the Boks extricated themselves from a 6-15 deficit: scrum penalty, kick to touch, lineout drive, try and conversion; scrum penalty, long-range Handre Pollard three-pointer.
All perfectly legitimate, but not the type of rugby to write movies about2, even if the last couple of minutes had a Carry On Up the Khyber slapstick quality as England tried to organise themselves into something vaguely resembling an attacking mindset.
Game mercifully out of the way, I sat back and waited for the analysis to wash over me. Even the most contrarian part of me didn’t expect quite such diametrically opposed viewpoints.
My first reference point was Stephen Jones ($) in the Sunday Times (the emphasis, as always, is mine):
“An absolutely incredible match was undeservedly won by South Africa with almost the last kick of the game after a magnificent England performance, probably one of the best three or four in their history, in which they completely overturned the form book, banished every memory of their mediocre recent performances and played like the true England.
“Pre-match reports of England’s complete demise were so far spectacularly wide of the mark and the England contingent in what was otherwise a rather subdued crowd, began to lap it up.
“England deserve medals throughout the team, their organisation and planning was superb and their hearts were massive. South Africa were profoundly fortunate to get through, they were shaken to their core and the sight of them in retreat will give encouragement to New Zealand in the final.
“They have never been popular in the general rugby world, they made silly replacements to try to make us think they had some kind of scientific evidence. All there was in the end was one penalty, struck from miles out by Pollard, and it was scarcely deserved.”
Jonathan Liew in the Guardian:
“England played the game of their lives. England came with the clearer plan and the better execution. England dominated long periods and looked mentally stronger. England made fewer errors and more turnovers. Meanwhile, South Africa won and will play the World Cup final on Saturday.”3
“England were shattered by this result, with good reason. They were heroic and committed and smart and precise for most of a rain-soaked semi-final, until the Springboks snatched victory from under their noses.
“The better team did not prevail. England won just about every contest in the air and on the floor, until South Africa sent on Ox Nche to ransack their scrum and turn the tide.”
I turned to podcasts, in the first instance BBC’s Rugby Union Daily.
Bobby Skinstad: “What a match to be part of… I’m emotionally exhausted. It was an amazing match.”
Chris Jones: “The game on Friday night [NZ v Argentina] was a non-event, but that was a World Cup semifinal, wasn’t it Matt?”
Matt Dawson: “Cor, just a bit.”
To Dawson’s credit, he then said perhaps the truest thing all night.
“It was one of those games better to listen to on the radio than watch.”
I spent my hours scrolling and listening with the distinct feeling I was either horribly wrong - New Zealanders are renowned for being arrogant and myopic when it comes to their views on how rugby should be played - or being horribly gaslit.
And then came the reviews from down south…
Gregor Paul in the NZ Herald ($):
“The England versus South Africa semifinal was Frankenstein’s monster created by the refereeing of the early rounds – and also the decade-long failure to stamp out the seeping cynicism of time wasting.”
Phil Gifford under the same masthead ($):
“South Africa’s 16-15 victory over England in the second semifinal had a heart-stopping last 12 minutes that shouldn’t conceal the fact the rest of the match was so boring it felt like The Game They Play in Hell. If you hated rugby and wanted to make sure someone who had never seen the sport was forever turned off by it, then a video of the first half, when England (four penalty goals) led the Springboks (two penalty goals) 12-6, would be the perfect vehicle to use.
“British critics have lauded England’s performance as “wondrous”, “skilful” and “heroic”. In fact, England actually reduced a game where running with the ball in your hands was the original, and still most important, point of difference with football, to a gruesome kick-fest.”
Paul Lewis under the same masthead ($):
“Now I know why Ian Foster, after the All Blacks had dismantled Argentina, said: “I don’t care who wins” about the other semifinal to find their foe in the World Cup final. I stopped caring too. It was the choice between boring and dull; monotonous meets tedious, while the entire southern hemisphere rugby diaspora wonders why the northern hemisphere is in charge of the game they are slowly strangling.
“The only vestige of excitement came from the intensity and closeness of the score. No one could score a try before RG Snyman’s in the 70th minute - 70 minutes of high kicks, long kicks, penalty kicks, free kicks, ooh... look - grubber kicks - and drop kicks. You really do get your kicks when you watch this kind of rugby, even forgiving them the wet conditions.”
“Memo to World Rugby: sort out this mess. The second semifinal was a dire example of test rugby, to the point that it is hard to recall anything actually happening in the first half. The match turned into a classic thanks to below-par South Africa’s unlikely fightback, but the game’s authorities should not forget what went on for the first 70 minutes or so.”
“The World Cup semifinal in Paris on Sunday morning (NZT) could have been described as absorbing, and may have pleased the minority who enjoy the sight of big lumps of British and South African beef shifting between rucks or watching the ball flying back and forward as if tied to the end of an invisible pendulum, but World Rugby may not have been so cheerful.
“It was a terrible advertisement for the sport.”
Patrick McKendry on 1news.co.nz:
“Owen Farrell’s utter refusal to pass the ball to his midfield was almost admirable in its doggedness. The England skipper and first-five had been given a game plan and he was determined to stick to it through hell or high water. But what appeared to be a blessing became a curse.
“England’s only points came via his penalties and an outstanding dropped goal from nearly 50m – the latter was the only score his side made in the second half – and when they were forced to chase the game for the final two minutes the men in white looked genuinely confused about how to go about it.”
“To get to a thrilling finish that saw the Springboks pip England, we had to sit through over an hour of the most turgid rugby ever played.”
Fairly uniform condemnation then.
This is my favourite stat/s from the second semifinal.
Damian de Allende (9m) and Jesse Kriel (0m), the Springbok starting centres, made 9 metres between them with ball in hand.
Manu Tuilagi (3m) and Joe Marchant (6m), England’s starting centres made 9m with ball in hand.
Think about what that says about that match for a second. Lucio Cinti, Argentina’s starting No13 in a heavily defeated side in a much-maligned match, ran for 32m on his own in the midfield.
Ultimately, it is fair to surmise that if you had skin in the game - that is to say you were South African or English - you would have found that match tense and possibly even interesting. We all tend to find our own children delightful, after all.
If you weren’t, you probably thought it was an abomination.
Never the twain shall meet and all that.
***
Bongi Mbonambi’s alleged racial slur to England’s Tom Curry is a potentially ugly story that could have serious ramifications for the Springboks ahead of the final, or could it simply be lost in translation?
Per Daily Mail:
Some supporters in South Africa believe Mbonambi had been misheard and may have been speaking in Afrikaans. The Springboks often speak Afrikaans to hide their plans from opponents. Their fans suggest the hooker may have been saying “wit kant” - which translates to “white side” - indicating the colour England were playing in on the day.
Adding to the belief Mbonambi might have been misinterpreted is that the c-word is not popularly used as an insult in South Africa like it is in England - apparently.
***
WXV 1 kicked off in Wellington this weekend and was predictably lost in the mix. It was a decent game but the thought that jarred in my head was a recurring one: there’s no worse looking major stadium in the world than the Cake Tin when it’s empty.
Those yellow seats are a televisual disaster, while the Black Ferns’ jerseys were a fashion faux pas.
Per Stuff:
It was an unusual sight to see the Black Ferns produce an error-ridden display and lose given their recent run of results, but it was an even bigger surprise to see the team run out in white jerseys at home.
In the immediate aftermath, some Black Ferns’ fans took to social media and jokingly blamed the result on the curse of the away kit.
It was a reference to one of the All Blacks’ most infamous defeats, when they wore grey jerseys and suffered a shock defeat to France in the quarterfinals of the 2007 men’s World Cup.
But the colour change could not be blamed for throwing an intercept pass, slipping off easy tackles and a costly moment of ill-discipline which resulted in [Chryss] Viliko’s 63rd-minute red card.
***
The best rugby of the weekend was the NPC final, but I would say that, wouldn’t I?
It was also the least covered game of footy in the weekend, which is understandable and a reflection of where the NPC is at, even when the good guys win.
There’s a certain irony in the famously difficult Sir Ben Ainslie calling Blair Tuke arrogant, but regarding this particular incident, could he have a point.
Per Stuff:
The New Zealand boat was seeking to finish ahead of the United States to qualify for the SailGP podium race in Cadiz and looked likely to do so, until turning into the path of the Great Britain yacht, which was still sailing towards the final turn.
Instead of allowing New Zealand to pass ahead of them, skipper Ainslie used an aggressive tactic to put the Kiwis in trouble that led to a penalty and them eventually missing out on a place in the podium race by one place.
“That’s bullshit ... you’re not even in our race,” said New Zealand wing trimmer Tuke.
“Why do you think you’re so special?” Ainslie asked after the race. “Just because you’ve won two America’s Cups, so what? So arrogant, you’re so friggin’ arrogant.”
My spies in the arena tell me that was a cracking comeback from the Silver Ferns, who struggled against Australia for three quarters before running over the top of them late.
The series ended at a heartening 2-2, though Australia retained the Constellation Cup via netball’s version of the boundary countback.
Imagine a shootout, all seven players that finished the game, with one shot each from the edge of the circle. I’d pay to watch that and, hey, we’re in the entertainment business.
Like most everything else, the league got a little lost in cavernous Eden Park (that would have looked a good crowd at Mt Smart), but the Kiwis will be happy enough with their effort against Samoa.
The Kiwis couldn’t have got their international campaign off to a better start than the 50-0 win over Samoa at Eden Park on Saturday, but next comes a tougher examination, two tests against Australia.
Kiwis coach Michael Maguire has been able to seamlessly introduce new players into a squad that lost narrowly to the Kangaroos at last year’s World Cup final, as the team held an opposition scoreless for the first time in 22 years.
But the measure for any international team in league is how they go against Australia and they’ll get two bites of the cherry over the next fortnight, facing off against them in Melbourne on Saturday, then again the following week in Hamilton in the final of the Pacific Championships.
Perhaps it is an indication of international league’s status, or maybe just my own biases, but Andrew Webster’s contract extension felt like bigger news.
[Webster] was initially signed at the Warriors for three years, but as the 2023 season wore on, pressure mounted to secure him for longer.
One of the club's biggest mistakes in its history was letting Ivan Cleary slip through its fingers, after he guided the Warriors to the 2011 Grand Final. He has since won three championships with the Panthers.
Webster's holistic style has seen him compared to popular TV supercoach Ted Lasso, an American football guru hired to manage the fictional AFC Richmond soccer team in the English Premier League.
Under Webster's influence, several veterans produced the best form of their careers to power the Warriors campaign. Halfback Shaun Johnson, who had considered retirement, finished one vote short of the Dally M Medal for NRL Player of the Year, while Johnson, prop Addin Fonua-Blake and winger Dallin Watene-Zelezniak were also named in the Team of the Year.
Lydia Ko didn’t get back in the winner’s circle, but she showed there’s still life in her game with a season-high finish.
There’s a lot happening in the cricket world, so much so that it will get its own newsletter in midweek, but I feel compelled to note a couple of things. Some rooster on The BYC picked an upset between Afghanistan and Pakistan!
And a shout out for Greg Hay, the 39-year-old CD opener who started another Plunket Shield season with a century. It was his 17th first-class ton and as far as I can make out, Ces Dacre, who played his final first-class match in 1936, is the only other New Zealander to have scored more first-class centuries (24) without playing a test.
Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!
Okay, okay, Invictus was a movie about a tryless game of rugby. You win.
Liew took a wider-angled lens to the state of English rugby the following day, noting among other things: “Should a team this lavishly funded be content to play a game this limited, unambitious, unappealing on the eye? England set themselves the lowest of bars in France and just about cleared it.”
One area where the NZ rugby fan is exceedingly short-changed is Sky TVs so-called “experts” panel whose job is to provide comments and analysis on each RWC game, or so it should be. The threesome Sky Sports NZ had in their studio for both semi-finals offered next to nothing of good, well-articulated in-depth analysis of what we were witnessing – at half time – and what had just transpired – at fulltime
The three of them, led by ex ABs Israel Dagg, appear to be cloned from the same school as Jeff Wilson and Mils Muliaina, which means we, the viewer, will miss out on clever insight into what happened. Why? Because none of these people go deep into the reasons why, for example, one front row is getting the better of the other, or why some bomb-kicks to certain wingers are more successful, or where precisely, is one team winning the collisions and why? Examples of commentator value-add, including excellent referee interpretations, used to be provided by Justin Marshall, but we, the NZ fan, always lacked for good post-match analysis. Now we get neither. Instead, these poorly-trained talking heads will spend most of their time on platitudes, banal comments and cliches leaving the thinking rugby fan wondering why they bother listening to such inane people, even if they are well-meaning.
By comparison, UKTV’s ITV1+ offers just the very insight rugby fans like me crave. It helps to have genuine and articulate rugby nous on the panel. For example, the panel offering comment on SF1, AG vs NZ, comprised an anchor who didn’t attempt to hog the limelight, and guest commentators: Sean Fitzpatrick, Brian O’Driscoll and George Gregan in the studio and Lawrence Dallaglio, and Maggie Alphonsi on the pitch. For SF2, SA vs EN, the same unobtrusive anchor hosted Sir Clive Woodward, Bryan Habana and Jonny Wilkinson, whilst track-side comments came from the likes of Sam Warburton and Jamie Roberts.
I watch ITV1+ for all RWC games and flick over to Sky Sports One when the ads are on. I see enough to know just how lucky I am to be able to source ITV1+. Cmon Sky Sports NZ, surely it is time you revamped your rugby broadcast and analysis into the current century! And don’t even start me on “The Breakdown”!!!
As a kiwi and avid ABs fan, I watched both semi-finals and have to say that SF2, due to it being a genuine contest, had me on the edge of my seat, SF1 did not. England, a team beaten by France by 50-odd at Twickenham in this year's six-nations, only had one hope: play to the conditions and make it as risk-free as possible. Given the limitations of their team, their tactics were spot on. They put the Boks under genuine pressure. Was it nice to watch? Apart from high-brow Kiwis, who cares? England was playing in a sudden-death knock-out game. They came with a plan best suited to them and the prevailing conditions and by and large, it worked. That some commentators south of the equator labeled it boring is totally irrelevant. England very nearly pulled it off. Credit to them and to SA for coming back at the finish. It was a genuine contest played in miserable conditions.
C'mon Kiwis, get off your self-righteous pedestal.