0
Time to dock points from drop goals
Spiro Zavos
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
On Monday of last week, I was walking up to the shops when a neighbour called out to me: "I thought you'd be in South Africa for the Wallabies Test?" "I don't do funerals," I replied.
There was no real thought behind the response, except the premonition, shared by any number of rugby people I talked to in the days before the first Tri Nations Test, that the Wallabies were in for a hiding.
Later in the week, though, another acquaintance surprised me by suggesting the Wallabies would beat the Springboks. When I asked him how he could be so optimistic, he told me: "A friend close to the Springboks camp says that South African rugby is in turmoil, and he's predicting the Springboks will be beaten."
As it happened, the predictions didn't quite work out the way we thought they might. The Springboks got their victory, in a close-run affair, by the typical South African method of drop-kicking goals. In the 1999 World Cup, a South African victory over England in the quarter-finals was achieved with five drop goals.
The three points for a drop goal is the last remaining anachronism of the original point-scoring system that rugby adopted in the 1860s. Those of us of a certain age remember playing rugby in the days when the drop goal, a fossil of the original point-scoring system, was worth four points. The drop goal is now worth three points, and there is a strong case for it to be reduced significantly in value. The thing about the drop goal, as Frans Steyn showed on Saturday night, is that if it is executed properly, it is impossible to defend against.
I wrote in my notebook after about 20 minutes of the Test: "The Wallabies are hanging on by their fingernails." The fingernail grip held, however. And the Springboks were forced to drop kick their way to victory. The key to the tenacious, furious and accurate Wallabies defence was the tackling of George Smith in the forwards and Stephen Larkham in the backs.
It's sometimes forgotten that Larkham is a great defensive player. In the 1999 World Cup, where the victorious Wallabies conceded only one try, Larkham had the highest tackle count of any back. And on Saturday night there he was throwing himself into the fray with the enthusiasm of a youngster and the hard shoulders of a veteran.
Smith was similarly impressive and courageous with his tackling. So it was a surprise when he was replaced by Phil Waugh, who missed a couple of tackles, and the Springboks were able to get back into the Wallabies' half for Steyn to unleash his mighty boot.
You presume that the game plan drawn up by the selectors called for Smith, the "fetcher" (as the South Africans call the openside breakaway), to be replaced with fresh legs in the form of Waugh. But this was a clear case of the game plan needing to be changed. George Gregan, rightly, was not replaced. Nor was Matt Dunning, who played his best Test. Smith should have stayed on with them.
The other outstanding forward for Australia was Dan Vickerman, who won the duel with Victor Matfield in the lineout and around the field, until Adam Freier came on for Stephen Moore.
When Chris Latham returns from his injury he should give the Wallabies more attack from fullback than Julian Huxley. However, John Connolly has always preferred kicking five-eighths and fullbacks, and he may try to turn Latham into this type of player. Let's hope not.
Yesterday, I ran into my neighbour again. "They should reduce the drop goal to one point," he told me. If only…
spiro@theroar.com.au
Reply With Quote
Was the wait worth it - Ya betta baby 
Originally Posted by Burgs
