Rob du Preez’s Sharks team turned in a credible performance in Bloemfontein on Saturday afternoon to record a 38-30 win over the Cheetahs in Super Rugby – a win that was perhaps more emphatic than the final score line would suggest.
On a day when the Sharks forwards were well on top of the contest and the tackle point intensity so missing from the dour outing against the Kings was back in full force, it’s in fact incredible to think that, but for a later defensive turnover, the Sharks may only have won this game by a single point. The Cheetahs, as we know, are a team more than capable of living off scraps and the Sharks, despite their dominance, simply handed far too many of these morsels the way of their opponents.
An early penalty goal to Fred Zeilinga aside, the Sharks dominated the opening period, with wings Lwazi Mvovo and Kobus van Wyk scoring tries inside 25 minutes to open up a handy 15-3 lead. That second score came after Oupa Mohoje had been sin-binned for repeated high tackles and with the Sharks on a roll and playing against 14, one felt that a very big victory may have been on the cards.
Never a side to apply pressure once they have their foot on the proverbial jugular, though, the Sharks somehow, unbelievably and amazingly, conspired to concede two tries themselves within 10 minutes and go into the half time break trailing 15-20. First, a regulation tackle miss just wide of a ruck allowed Francois Venter to stroll over, then just minutes later, after Coenie Oosthuizen had been shown a yellow card of his own, JW Jonker finished off in the right hand corner to hand the Cheetahs the lead.
Zeilinga extended the lead just after the restart, but the Sharks again started to take control of the match,, winning possession and territory and heaping pressure on their hosts at every opportunity. Van Wyk again turned ace try-poacher as he seized a spilled ball in the Cheetahs’ 22 to score his second, with Curwin Bosch stepping up as the match winner to slot a penalty shortly after to take back the lead. That lead was extended further when Daniel du Preez scored off a rolling maul, but once again, at 32-23 up and with the their tails in the air, the Sharks inexplicably balked at an easy kill – and a potential bonus point. Two further penalties were sent through the uprights by Bosch, but one feels that the braver decision would have been to aim one or both of those at the corner flag in the hopes of scoring a fifth try. Sniffing blood in the final minutes, it was the Cheetahs who controlled matters, closing the gap via a try to Raymond Rhule and pushing hard for another when the Sharks denied them at the death.
Cheetahs (30): Tries Venter, Jonker, Rhule. Converions Zeilinga (3). Penalties Zeilinga (3).
Sharks (38): Tries Mvovo, van Wyk (2), D du Preez. Conversions Bosch (3). Penalties Bosch (4).
Tweet
Great write-up!
Two concerns:
1. Defensive lapses in an otherwise impressive defensive display
2. Lack of belief in our ability to get a bonus point
Don’t know how this display makes me feel about the Lions game. If we can tighten up defense even further, dominate with our forwards again and have Curwin running things with that boot of his we could really disrupt their favoured style of play and have a decent chance.
Heard the scrum contests went mostly in favour of the Cheetahs?
Brilliantly done by the Sharks. The Cheetahs are our bogey team and we dominated.
Some defensive lapses which we need to fix and we need to keep pressure on and dominate teams when we are in the lead.
Now a comment on the Super Rugby format:
Sharks are on 17 points. Normal table we would lie 6th overall, but we will miss out on Quarters as it stands.
Brumbies are on 11 points, would be 8th overall but are now 3rd.
Blues are on 11 points, would be 9th overall and would miss out on the Quarters, but now make it in because of the Australasian Conference system.
That is the reason fans are turning away from Super Rugby.
@StevieS (Comment 3) : It’s a bogus format and I believe it’s one of the reasons some of the stadiums are as empty as they are, to some people it’s over complicated and to most people it doesn’t make any sense(to have teams qualify with lower points than others). Understanding the format of any sports tournament is key to attracting new viewers.
@KingCheetah (Comment 2) : Didn’t see every scrum but distinctly recall a monster scrum from the Cheetahs in the second half. Hopefully someone else can answer your question.
I know a lot is being said about the Sharks not going for the kill and going for the bonus point try but what I find encouraging is that we are not arrogant enough to think we have a win in the bag (ala the Kings game). I’m glad our team don’t think they’re world beaters and realise we can lose games. That , to me, makes for a team that know they have to play well to win and no games are a given.
@KingCheetah (Comment 2) : Coenie at th will always favour the opposition at scrum time. Moving him to hooker will make more sense than having him at th.
Things came right when Adriaanse and Thomas came on.
@vanmartin (Comment 1) : although the Kings were never a match for the Lions, it was very clear that Kriel, Whiteley and Ackerman did not like the aggressive rucking and contesting of Cloete and Ntsila. Another aggressive display by the forwards will go a very long way in setting the tone. The loosies will have a massive job and even just getting parity with their counterparts could be the turning point. Ettas has to start as he the best at disrupting mauls in the pack and this is a key platform for the Lions. Lions were also very vulnerable to attacks around the ruck pillars.
Coetzee and Skosaan ran everything back so Sharks kicking and chasing will have to be on point as they look for an offload in every tackle and created most of their opportunities this way but also resulted in opportunities for counter rucking and attacking as loads of space was left on the park.
Sharks will be huge underdogs but would we like it any other way?
@Hulk (Comment 6) : Right after the first game against the Reds when we failed to close out the game, we have made sure we have won the next three thats good enough for me.
@KingCheetah (Comment 2) : mostly yes, but I wouldn’t say they were rampant in this area, or anything. Sharks certainly have improved a lot here if we compare to the games against the Cheetahs last year.
@Hulk (Comment 6) : That’s a very fair counter-point.
@Kabouter (Comment 8) : (Last year) The Canes dismantled the Lions with some smart tactical play, by slowing down their ball at rucks and a solid defense in general. We’re capable of doing all those things in my opinion. Agreed, Ettas will have to start and I reckon Curwin would have to run things from flyhalf for this game. I do however also agee with the thinking of others that we should be careful of dumping too much responsibility on Curwin too quickly. It’s a bit of catch-22 but I think Curwin at flyhalf is vital for this game. Finally, we’d have to tighten up our pillar defense. Lions would love running at those gaps.
@KingCheetah (Comment 2) : Not entirely, Cheetahs nailed the Sharks once and the Sharks totally destroyed the Tahs once and then there was one beauty when the Tahs couldnt budge a 7 man Sharks scrum. I hope you get a chance to watch the game, I would like your honest opinion of how you think Peyeper blew the game and the scrums in particular.
@Kabouter (Comment 8) : Ettienne is a machine, always first to do the dirty work – a 4 lock through and through.
Rucks and Mauls is his bread and butter…..very few players enjoy defending those these days, he is one of a very few to love it, and excel at it. Sadly, Bok rugby is too slow to realise this, and therefore won’t select him – they prefer ball carrying locks, loosies, hookers, props and backs.
@Quintin (Comment 4) : I have spoken to so many friends who have just simply stopped watching rugby. They were put off by the format and the weaker teams.
I remember watching every game when I was younger. Now I watch the Sharks and will pick and choose very selectively from other games.
we’re likely to have Philip and Franco back this week…. that’s a big advantage for us, I’d say
@robdylan (Comment 10) : Cool thanks Rob. I expected us to get trounced in the lineouts. I was a bit surprised that the Sharks turned over so much ball, maybe they should put Boom back at 6.
@robdylan (Comment 15) : Didn’t he have a fractured cheek? Does it only take 2 weeks for a cheek to heal?
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 12) : Unlikely! I disconnected my Dstv a while back, and internet connection too dodge to stream. I know their was some controversy around the yellow to Cornie, but according to some journalists it was according to the law. The controversy was probably more about the TMo being overruled. I don’t think Peyper was biased, in fact many seem to think he generally favour a the Sharks. Moot point anyway, as it’s something I can’t control.
@KingCheetah (Comment 18) : Peyper initially said that the stadium screen wasn’t very clear, so he couldn’t see exactly what happened – then proceeded to tell the TMO that he saw it differently to what the TMO suggested.
Seems the stadium screen miraculously became clearer after the TMO told Peyper what happened.
@KingCheetah (Comment 18) : My issue with Coenies card was Peyer watched the big screen then asked the TMO saysing he couldn’t make out the footage clearly but does he agree that Coenie made contact with the head and it’s a yellow. TMO then says no clear footage of contact with the head so only a yellow. Peyper then over rules the TMO and says he’s confident there was contact with the head and gave the yellow.
If Peyper knew without doubt there was head contact why ask the TMO for his opinion. To me where Peyper gets it all wrong was 1) openly states he can’t make out the incident clearly, however interprets it and makes a decision 2) Asks the TMO to confirm what he has seen is correct. 3) The TMO says it is not correct and he should re-consider as he has asked for assistance. 4) Peyer totally ignores the assistance he asked for and decides to stick with his initial decision even though he openly admitted he couldn’t clearly see what happened.
@robdylan (Comment 15) : hell yeah. Both more direct to the ball and will ensure Kriel and Whiteley play tighter and taking away a lot of attacking decision making from the Lions.
which ever pack gets the upper hand will win. Neither Elton or Curwin can win the game on the backfoot although I would rather have CB in such a situation as Jantjies becomes anonymous when his pack struggles
@KingCheetah (Comment 18) : As far as DSTV goes I have it for sport and that’s it. If I could watch Rugby and cricket anywhere else without having to “make a plan” I wouldn’t have DSTV.
@StevieS (Comment 14) : Same, never missed a lot of SR games a couple years ago but I’m not that interested in watching all the games these days(especially boring Aus derbies).
@vanmartin (Comment 11) : Agreed regarding Bosch and his responsibilities but I don’t think this match, in particular, is a good one to hand a 1st start at FH for April.
I thought the Coenie card was a marginal call, but at the end of the day he did make contact with the head so I couldn’t really disagree with it. Thought ou Coena had a very good game notwithstanding.
@vanmartin (Comment 1) :
Was really impressed with our team, but sadly I need to agree with you “Don’t know how this display makes me feel about the Lions game”
@BluffShark (Comment 25) : This display tells me we have the ability but improvement is required. We can not go “soft” for periods like we are doing at the moment.
Yes the format might be questionable, but I don’t think that is the main reason why people stop going to the field. I think it’s more about what does the field offer which I can’t get from the TV? Yes, I know the vibe is there, but besides the amazing vibe (which is not always that good), what does make it better to go there than watching at home with some friends over a braai.
@KingCheetah (Comment 18) : It would have been according to the law if he had made contact to the head – he didnt, and he took the situation into his own hands and stuffed it up. He even tried to justify his decission by saying that Coennie didnt bend his knees (WTF). I watched the after game discussion and this topic came up and both Mallet and Jean de Villiers said that Peyper was probably right due to intent again (WTF) Its simple, did he make contact to the head – no, and believe you me if he had Mallet would have shown it over and over to prove it was the right decission – they did not. Now to really make it interesting Mallet went so far as to say that Coennie launched himself at the player, ahem, take that statement into consideration with Peypers observation that Coenie did not bend his knees when attempting the tackle – almost impossible unless Coennie was a Watusi tribesman, which I promise you he is not. Im sure the Kiwis and the B&I Lions hope that Peyeper doesnt pitch up wearing an under nose moustache (and attitude) to ref their game.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 28) : 😆 😆 😆 If he could grow that, he’d look like Kwagga in Movember mode
It was a very good game by the lads. JdV (one of the few decent ex-player commentators around) made a great point when he disagreed with his co-hosts and said you would have expected to Cheetahs to win a home game – especially since they rested their big guns against the Argies and played their strongest 15 in this game. In that context, I’m not even too fussed about not chasing the BP.
I didn’t enjoy us losing a few line outs and not winning any of theirs though. The lost line outs were often simply due to them closing the gap too far. One can question the officials in this regard, but really, Chilli is experienced enough to make an issue about it.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 28) :
2 things grated me about Peyper. First missing their TH scrumming in on Beast, and secondly the Coenie card. Fact is he did the touch the head, even though the guy was heading downward. But I’m pretty sure history will show that he tends to blow 2 cards (1 to either side) a game – guy must be a Buddhist.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 28) : are you sure he didn’t make contact with the neck? I thought he did
@Big Fish (Comment 30) : 😆 Dwarf Buddist traffic cop from Bloem. love it
Sounds like a Coen Brothers [email protected]The hound (Comment 32) :
@The hound (Comment 29) : Kwagga, eish, not again hopefully.
@Big Fish (Comment 30) : 😆 Jaco the Buddhist, good man.
@robdylan (Comment 31) : Jeepers, now you are making me doubt myself. I have it recorded so will give it another look but from memory there was contact with the head area but that was when the ball carrier was already on the ground with Coennie bending over him but long after the tackle (and incident) was completed.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 36) :
?
@robdylan (Comment 37) :
Looking at that “dynamic” situation, is a card deserved? Look at the height his head is at – around normal navel height.
@Big Fish (Comment 38) : ja look, I think Peyper probably ballsed it up by not listening to the TMO. But there was head contact, all I’m saying.
@The hound (Comment 33) : Could be Coen Brothers, could be David Lynch, depending if you’re going for the humorous or the surreal angle…
@Culling Song (Comment 40) : that reminds me. I cannot find my copy of Dune anywhere.
@robdylan (Comment 39) : So what you saying is that in all fairness, Coenie did give him some head 🙂
@HB (Comment 42) : jeez, now that’s a scary picture!
@robdylan (Comment 43) : @The hound (Comment 32) : @The hound (Comment 33) : since we have established that someone got head in the game, and that Toilet paper will look good in a porn star mustache, this could be the script for something that Hugh Hefner would be interested, could be called Coenie the tight head, getting blown by the mustache guy, for wrongfully engaging his head on the field of play 😳
😯
@robdylan (Comment 15) : huge advantage!!!
@HB (Comment 44) : Ron Jeremy had a mustache
😆
@Dancing Bear (Comment 46) : And if you don’t know who Ron Jeremy is, look him up on Wikipedia. 😆 😀
@Dancing Bear (Comment 47) : @Dancing Bear (Comment 46) : my eyes will never be the same, and I will for ever more see those flashing images now, when thinking of toilet peyper
😯
@HB (Comment 48) : In all fairness, you did start it…. 😉
😀 😈
@Dancing Bear (Comment 49) : at least the flashing images will make the ref look a bit better than currently, as to a square white block of paper 😀 😎
@HB (Comment 50) : bwahahaha, and you’re not stopping. Good work HB. 😆 😆
@HB (Comment 50) : Definitely single ply Peyper, for people with short fingernails.
@Dancing Bear (Comment 51) : Its been a loooong Monday so far, have to roll with the punches today:)
@Big Fish (Comment 30) : Maybe I’m missing something here, but how does a Tighthead scrum in on a loosehead prop? Please explain
@Karl (Comment 54) : Well, it’s like this… when two props really love each other… no, hold on, that’s not it at all. This thread has taken a weird turn
@vanmartin (Comment 55) : Seems like a conversation you might find on a Bulls’ fan site
@Karl (Comment 56) : And yet here we are discussing it on a Sharks’ fan site 😀
dagsê julle etters
@robdylan (Comment 58) : Aweh ma se kind
@Karl (Comment 54) :
Good point. Imean that he turns in toward his own hooker. You can tell by the fact that his arse inevitably end up preferred to the closest touch judge (just getting into the spirit of things here).
@robdylan (Comment 37) : But that screen shot is a good few frames after the initial contact (which was not to the head) and is also not around or touching the head. That left hand /arm never came into contact with Jonkers head at all and the right arm which is actually over his shoulder with the palm on Jonkers breastbone and only on the way down did it brush/ slip up to his face.
@Big Fish (Comment 60) : Hahaha sounds like it
Here is the conversation between Peyper and Greef
P;”Ok, correct me if Im wrong, the screen is not great. Its pretty poor technique from 3 white, he doesnt bend his knees, he’s upright in the tackle, but there is no deliberate swinging arm – so its direct contact to the head – for me its first contact to the head so its yellow”
G; “Ahmmm Jaco, its not clear that the first contact was to the head, my opinion was it was to the shoulder therefore I would go for penalty only”
P; “Ive seen enough on the field to know that it was on the head so Im happy to go yellow”
G;”OK”
Peyper then under his breath to Salmo, “Wies jou etter”
@robdylan (Comment 58) : How many stripes did you have in the army?
@vanmartin (Comment 55) : Thread has taken a turn fir the worst, 1st it is about someone giving head and making contact in an obscene way with onther guys head, then we talking about way ward arsses pointing to touch judges, now in the way this tread is going a touch judge can be something totally uncalled for on a rugby pitch, then its two props that love one another and scrumming in, there is also mentioned of hookers being part of it, and on a different thread speaking about kokstad, and eters, jeez, reading all this there should be a headline about a wasp willie somewhere to confirm that things are not going well 🙂
@HB (Comment 65) : I think we’re all just a little excited that things are on the up down South.
Durban is sort of South right? 😈
@vanmartin (Comment 66) : I hope it is still south, ad im heading that way on Friday vor some RR, and on the other hand van, to go and watch Sharks vs Jaguares, on the 8th,cant wait anymore 🙂
@HB (Comment 67) : think it’s going to be a cracking game! Enjoy the rest and the rugby (RR = rest & rugby)! 😆
@JD (Comment 68) : Thanx Mnr, will wave to the guys at middle earth from the stands
@HB (Comment 69) : just post a photo of you so we know when you’re on tv!