In the end, there was no fulfilment of the most unlikely dream and no searing
climax to this magnificent tournament. In a final in which faint hearts were
run clean out of town, in a match of the most biting intensity in which the
collisions were brutal, it was South Africa who came through, with their
strong arms and hearts, with their power in the contact areas and with their
composure.
It is true to say that they never mounted more than one really dangerous
attack and they were beaten for possession and territory by an England side
that, with their limitations showing, played with typical heroism. The truth
is that South Africa deserved to win, that they held out in great comfort as
England attacked desperately in the last 15 minutes to try to retain their
world title.
Just once, at the very start of the second half, did an England attacking
machine that has misfired throughout the tournament, crank itself into life.
Mathew Tait, the young centre, swivelled and set off on a startling run,
past several South African defenders and although he was tackled by the
marvellous Bok lock, Victor Matfield, England recycled the ball and Jonny
Wilkinson sent Mark Cueto diving for the corner.
The England wing grounded the ball as Danie Rossouw desperately tried to drag
his legs into touch. Cueto’s left leg from his knee down to his boot was
clearly over the touchline, but was any part of the leg grounded before the
touchdown? The decision was referred to the television match official with
the statutory instruction that he must award a try unless there is any
compelling reason not to. From all the replays from all the angles available
to Stuart Dickinson, the Australian TMO, there did not seem to be one which
conclusively ruled out a try. Freeze framing not available at the time
suggested, on balance, that Cueto may have struck the touchline, but on the
facts and on the procedures, and especially on the similar incidents so far
this tournament, England were unfortunate not to be awarded the try that
would have put them one Wilkinson conversion away from taking the lead.
England had to settle simply for the penalty, awarded for an horrendous kill
of the ball by Schalk Burger, after the Tait break.
Yet this was to be the only time in which England really threatened. Until the
arrival of the powerful Dan Hipkiss late on, England simply had no focal
point in their backs outside Andy Gomarsall at scrum-half, nobody to hold up
the ball, to absorb contact and nobody to play off.
So the final came down to England’s attempts to smash their way to victory up
front and against a team like South Africa, with all their weight and all
their weight of forward history, it was never going to happen. South
Africa’s port in a storm was their lineout, where Matfield and his
supporting cast were quite magnificent.
Although Andrew Sheridan and company gave it a fearful lash, England never
gained proper dominance. They were also affected in terms of morale and
personnel when the great Jason Robinson, their one wild card, had to leave
the field early in the second half, bringing down the curtain on a
stupendous career; and when the battered Phil Vickery had to leave the match
at half-time.
South Africa were well served by Percy Montgomery at full-back, and not just
because he kicked so well. Their own midfield was no more impressive than
that of England’s and it was obvious throughout that, in a sense, this match
did not sit easily on the shoulders of the rest of the event because here,
even though we were watching two of the best three teams in the tournament,
we were not watching great teams. Given the stupendous performance of
Argentina on Friday, you wondered how the Pumas were coping with the
knowledge that because of their one weak game against the Springboks in the
semi-final, they may well have thrown away the crown.
Talking of weak performances, we once again had a World Cup final of poor
officiating, and this is even if you adhere to the rather shaky evidence
that the TMO was correct to disallow England’s try.
The match was decided, in the end, when Mr Rolland ignored a obstructing run
by the Boks in midfield which you could have spotted from Calais or
Perpignan with equal facility; and then soon afterwards, he penalised Ben
Kay for what he thought was a similar offence, when in fact Kay did very
little bar move out of the way of his own player.
England’s lineout problems were already acute when South Africa took the lead.
Tait was caught in around three different minds when giving the ball in his
own 22. He compounded matters by falling over, referee Rolland compounded
them further by allowing Francois Steyn to dive crudely over the top, and
after Tait was penalised it was Montgomery who kicked the first points.
Yet JP Pietersen then dropped a high kick out on the right wing, and when
South Africa killed with Paul Sackey in possession, Wilkinson put them level.
The officials did not spot an horrendous flying head-butt from Bakkies Botha
in a ruck – the game’s authorities must act to the taking out of defenceless
players in rucks. But considering that England had found some sort of shape,
it was aggravating that they went behind after Lewis Moody flicked out a
boot to trip Butch James and it was 6-3.
The Boks then hammered away from close range and England eventually conceded a
penalty after a controversial scrum turnover, and Montgomery made no mistake
to take England in at 9-3 down.
They reemerged without Vickery, but after Tait’s run and Cueto’s dive, they
seemed to be slap-bang back in the match. But the try was ruled out and
after that England did not look likely winners. Toby Flood was lucky not to
receive a yellow card when shoving Montgomery over an advertising hoarding
and into a television camera.
South Africa extended their lead with two penalties, one of them deeply
controversial, and the Boks were able to hold out in some comfort.
All that remained at the end was one of those silly ceremonies in which every
Tom, Dick and bottle washer was allowed to go up to claim a medal. The
players deserved them for their utter selflessness, and South Africa’s
deserved theirs more.
Star man: Victor Matfield (South Africa)
England: J Robinson (unattached, D Hipkiss (Leicester) 47min); P Sackey
(Wasps), M Tait (Newcastle), M Catt (London Irish, T Flood (Newcastle)
51min), M Cueto (Sale); J Wilkinson (Newcastle), A Gomarsall (Harlequins); A
Sheridan (Sale), M Regan (Bristol, G Chuter (Leicester) 63min), P Vickery
(capt, Wasps, M Stevens (Bath) h-t), S Shaw (Wasps), B Kay (Leicester), M
Corry (Leicester), N Easter (Harlequins, L Dallaglio (Wasps) 65min), L Moody
(Leicester, J Worsley (Wasps) 63min, P Richards (London Irish) 71min)
South Africa: P Montgomery (Sharks); JP Pietersen (Sharks), J Fourie
(Lions), F Steyn (Sharks), B Habana (Bulls); B James (Sharks), F du Preez
(Bulls); O du Randt (Cheetahs), J Smit (capt, Sharks, B du Plessis
(Cheetahs) 72-77min), CJ van der Linde (Cheetahs), B Botha (Bulls), V
Matfield (Bulls), S Burger (Stormers), D Rossouw (Bulls, W van Heerden
(Bulls) 72min), J Smith (Cheetahs)
Well Stephen you concede South Africa were better but then go on to make 8 comments and disagreements ( I make it although one may be counted twice) about poor refereeing decisions against England. So negative about a great game. England were very worthy and exciting opponents.
Malcolm a neutral Oz fan
Malcolm, Sydney, Australia
It was as most finals are a tale of the two teams tight five players. The South Africans were massive up front and simply out muscled the English pack. Most probably the best five games England have played in four years and they played their hearts out in this final. The Boks were by far the most impressive side I have watched at a RWC in ages. Their ability to adapt showed the rest of the world what rugby and winning a cup is about. They scored the most points, the most tries and as a result of an incredible defence to boot run out as a team unequalled this year. Watch the Puma's and the Pacific Island sides next RWC.
John, Auckland, NZ
Best analysis of what actually happened in the match so far....
Well done to RSA in minimising the number of mistakes made in their half and for their excellent defence but it's not a game that they should be proud of.....and there was very, very littel between the two teams
England are as sportsmanlike as ever - especially wrt the comical TMO fiasco - but that's what we are known for..!
I've lost track of the number of comments I've read that say that RSA were the best team overall throughout the the competition [which they were] and therefore they deserved to win - no, the team which gets to and wins the final deserves to win - no matter how they win it - end of story.
Well done RSA!
Neil Watkinson, Ipswich, Suffolk
It is understandable that English supporters will find many reasons why they didn't take the cup and most of the reasons will be directed at the ref.
If SA had lost I can guarantee that all the mistakes the referee made in favour of England would be identified by SA supporters, and trust me when I say there were quite a few!!
If the try was awarded to Cueto then granted the game would heave a totally different outcome, but do you really think that SA would not have stepped up a gear by not carrying on with the goal kicking but rather go for lineouts near tryline and go for the 7 pointer?
Who's to say by England scoring would not have opened a flood gate of tries from SA with the likes of Habana and co. in retaliation?
You can see the author of this article tried his best not to vent his utter disappointment in what was actually a very good and physical encounter, but as the article got flowing so did his bitterness at all things 'unfair'!!
Good game to BOTH sides!!!
Gareth, Pretoria, SA
OK, so England fell at the final hurdle, but they played to their strengths and did far better than expected. They certainly did better than the ABs, for whom France is now a sort of hoodoo team. I suspect NZ will never beat France in a World Cup match until they have a 40 point lead at half time.
Bouquet to England's captain, Phil Vickery, in his post-match interview. Though surely disappointed, he refused to blame the match officials, accepted the result and congratulated the 'boks. There's a sportsman.
G Henderson, Auckland, New Zealand
Bakkies Botha is a disgrace. Dives in to rucks head first a lot. He probably thinks its macho to attack a defenceless player. More of Matfield less of Botha please. The referee was mediocre at best
Gavin, Newport , Wales
You are just one bitter, heartbroken,tearful and a sore loser.Why don't you give credit where it's due and stop whining.You were only watching the Pommies play and forgot about the strengths of Die Bokke (the only team that never lost a match).You can say what ever you want to but today when watching the re-broadcast of the game you will see where you and the Queen's boys faltered.See you in New Zealand 2011 maybe there you'll receive more rugby lessons from the CHAMPS yet again...VICTORY-DRUNK-PATRIOT
Petros , JOhannesburg, Bokland (SA)
After the AB v France game there was no coment about the refereeing decisions that cost the AB's so why mention them today...
Well Stephen Jones fancy that a team who plays in those weak competitions (Super 14 & Tri Nations) wins the World Cup again, how is this possible?
In the last 2 weeks there have been some desperate Times articles about why England won their last two games. There was a sudden about face from Mr Jones and his mates; the N Hemisphere comps were now much better at preparing teams for pressure, forward power etc. I found it amusing that the difference between England being written up as heros or being vilified for being hopeless was nothing that the English players controlled but that a Sterling Mortlock penalty goal 2 weeks ago in the 78th min missed. In future Mr Jones watch the game and voice less of your inferiority complex about Sth Hem rugby comps they are clearly not as bad as you want to believe because thats where the Boks play.
David, London.
David Fannon, London,
That's right blame the refs, TMO whoever. Go join your All Black mates and snivel over "cruel" decisions.
Truth is England struggled to score tries throughout the tournament; perhaps just perhaps, the better team won?
Graeme Green, Milton Keynes,
Mr Jones complaining about refereeing what a joke, after his diatribe of 2 weeks ago. Let the facts speak for themselves view the stats of the France v All Blacks and there has to be questions asked by any but the most biased, that was poor officiating, and the why should be investigated. Though I doubt an English journalist is up to it if they are of the same mould as Mr Jones, I would hope this was no sot. South Africa are the ultimate beneficiaries and the IRB coffers. Another poor refereeing display featured in their 1995 win in the their game against France. Lucky South Africa?
Ian, London, UK
If only Jason Robinson or Paul Sackey could have been on the wing to finish from Taits break in the second half, It could have turned out to be a very different game and result for England
Patrick, Dudley,
If only Jason Robinson or Paul Sackey had been on the wing to finish from Taits break in the second half, the game and the result could have been very different for England
Patrick, Dudley,
moan moan moan
'unfortunate not to be awarded the try'. rubbish, the decision was correct, great officiating, end of story
'horrendous kill of the ball by Schalk Burger'. less obvious then england on their try line just before half time
'final of poor officiating'. only in your blinkered eyes
'ignored a obstructing run by the Boks in midfield'. once again you are incorrect, no player was obstructed from making a tackle
'and then soon afterwards, he penalised Ben Kay for what he thought was a similar offence, when in fact Kay did very little bar move out of the way of his own player'. open your eyes, Kay clearly obstructed Os from tackling the ball carrier.'
'The officials did not spot an horrendous flying head-butt from Bakkies Botha in a ruck'. he merely hit a ruck ferrociously.
'controversial scrum turnover' it wheeled about 180 !
'Toby Flood was lucky not to receive a yellow card'. percy was in the way what he mean't to do ?
and no i'm not a safa
Paul Macdonald, London,
Abolsutely so. Those incidents did happen, and were pretty much clear from the beginning. French television looked at the supposed try many times, and his foot looked to be in touch, before he crosses the lines, never mind when he grounded the ball. The Smit incident was another, Montgomery was clearly pushed into the camera while chasing the ball, and the indicent was barely commented on. But whose counting. Only the sour English comments. The referees made the decisions, and thats that. South Africa won. Live with it, until next time.
Rod Sack, La Gacilly, France
the most one sided article ever. firstly you only highlight the spots where you "think" england were cheated, but forget the spots where the boks were ripped off by the ref, and there were loads. englands penalty where the england player ran into john smit was called obstruction, where the rules determine he was allowed to stand his ground. percy het pushed over cameras. england players tripping, playing excessive hands in the ruck and entering from the side even. and with the try. it was out. his foot clearly touched the line before lifting, and before he scored. no debate there. and steyn never dived over that ball, watch the replay, he is allowed to try rip the ball away if he stays afoot, which he did, england didnt release, penalty. and wich penalty was so controversial???and yes, to you saying it werent the best 2 teams playing in the final. Well, a team doesnt have to play beautifull to be the best, wich england showed this world cup. south africa didnt try anything smart
a worried supporter, SA, SA