South Africa’s semifinal opponents, France, have power and flair, but they don’t always seem able to use these
RUGBY: Jon Swift
IN many ways the World Cup semifinal facing South Africa on Saturday will be something of a relief. Against the French at Kings Park in Durban there is the first real chance, since the emotion-filled victory at Newlands which signalled the demise of Australia as world champions, of showing just how far the game has come.
This tournament, the French have resembled for all the world a case of mixed and unlabled wine. Sometimes you get the sparkle of a vintage Bordeaux, at others the disappointment of a cultured claret turned to vinegar.
In delivering the death knell to the Irish with a 36-12 win in last Saturday’s quarterfinal in Durban, the French delivered some very mixed messages. There remains the disturbingly complex thought that they can neither be taken lightly nor seriously.
Adopting the latter train of thought is not likely for South African coach Kitch Christie, his captain Francois Pienaar or the troops remaining at their disposal in the aftermath of the Canadian combat zone and the head-high onslaught of the West Samoans.
The French have a pack which has justifiably earned a reputation for strength, skill and a mobility not often collectively given to eight men of such large proportions. Acting in concert they can be devastating. Certainly they were too much for the Irish.
But there was a stutter and start about the French which kept Terry Kingston’s mixed bag of Ulstermen and holders of Republican passports right in it until Philippe Saint- Andre’s Tricolors moved into a nine-point lead with little more than 10 minutes remaining.
It was the French pack Thierry Lacroix thanked for providing the platform for him to kick the 26 points which made the French that much better on the day. In this he was right. But the lingering question remains. Why did the Tricolor pack take so long to do it? And why for a nation so proud of the language they communicate in, do the forwards and backs seem to have such problems understanding one another? Perhaps some of this can can be laid at the off-target feet of flyhalf Christophe Deylaud.
One wonders whether coach Pierre Berbizier would have been better advised to ignore the bitter clashes of recent history and include the brilliant and unfettered talents of Alain Penaud, so pivotal in the French series win here in
One also wonders just how enviously Berbizier must look at the talents of Joel Stransky and Hennie le Roux that Christie has to call on. Radically different players in many ways both have shown they have what it takes to swing the balance at top level. And equally, both have fitted the Christie pattern to near perfection.
But clearly, Christie will have some late nights trying to overlay his particularly incisive brand of rugby logic on the seemingly illogical patterns woven by his French opposite number.
It cannot be an enviable task. Losing Andre Joubert to some kamikaze defence from Samoan fullback Mike Umaga could not come at a worse time for South Africa. The elegant running patterns and educated boot of the South African fullback can be match winners.
With two pins in the broken bones at the joint of his left thumb, Joubert can hardly be expected to be 100 percent for either the meeting with the French or for a final against either England or the All Blacks, who meet in the other semifinal at Newlands.
Gavin Johnson, who switched from wing to fullback when Joubert went off against Western Samoa, is as big an enigma for Christie as the French themselves.
Brilliant on his day, Johnson has looked hesitant and unsure of himself throughout the tournament thus far and the boob with the boot in almost screwing the first penalty of the quarterfinal into the crowd must surely rate as the worst kick of the World Cup.
Among the backline though, South Africa can — in most eventualities — count themselves equal to the bubbling flair that the French can show. Especially as this genius for improvisation has struggled to break surface in this
In sharp contrast, South Africa’s wings have sometimes been inspirational. Pieter Hendricks showed it by contemptuously running around David Campese in the opening salvo of the campaign. Chester Williams showed it again by running in four sparkling tries against the headhunters of Samoa.
In the explosive talents of James Small, back from a hamstring tweak, there is perhaps the most devastating weapon of all. There are arguably no better finishers close to the line than Small. He is something for the French to think about.
It is at forward — or more partiuclarly at line-out — that the nagging doubts about the South African ability to go all the way begin to surface.
Admittedly in sinkng the hopes of the Samoans in the quarterfinals, the South Africa tight five showed just how much development has ben done in fine-tuning the engine room of this country’s scrum.
In the Tricolors twin towers, the Olivers Roumat and Merle, though, there lies a stiffer examination than was the case against Lio Falaniko and Saini Lemamea last weekend.
Perhaps the French locks did not always find it easy going against he Irish pairing of Neil Francis and young Gabriel Fulcherin in the quarterfinals, but it must not be forgotten that the French dominated the ;ine-out to an almost ridiculous degree in their winning efforts against this country.
True, the team has traveled apace since then and has become a far more cohesive outfit under the coaching of Christie and the imposition of the “one team, one country” ethos than has been the case since our rude awakening to the changes in the game of rugby on South Africa’s readmission in 1992.
But the line-out remains a problem; the one area where we have continued to lag behind the rest of the world’s major rugby-playing nations.
Neither England nor the All Blacks — South Africa’s potential final oppenents should they successfully see off the French — showed any deficiencies in this department. Indeed, both teams base much of their strategy on the restart from the touchline
It can prove a telling edge at this stage of the 16-nation tournament when makeing a prediction on a winner is surely a lottery.
A snap drop goal such as that Rob Andrew landed deep into injury time to send the Aussies packing or an intercept try such as the one Emile N’tamack pouched to run the length of the field to cnclusively take the shine out of Irish eyes in the 84th minute of their quarterfinal, can make all the
France, though, are not without injury problems of their own. They have lost both scrumhalf Guy Accoceberry and flanker Phillippe Benetton with broken arms. Of the two, perhaps Benetton is the more serious blow, so much of the French play spun off him in the tight loose before his
It has only added to the French look of indecision on the field and seeming confusion off it about how they have got this far playing as they have. Berbizier’s comments about is charges playing just well enough — “a level above” is his phrase — to outpint the opposition just doesn’t hold
South Africa should surely go into this contest as favourites — albeit slightly — and on their current form should pave their way to the final.
But the Fench have a habit of surprising the sides who do not take them seriously. The history of South Africa’s attempts to grasp the Gallic nettle in the path have had some very painful consequences.