TRC Round 2: South Africa v New Zealand, 25 July

First topic message reminder :

                
SOUTH AFRICA v NEW ZEALAND
25 July 2015
KO: 17:05 SAST (UTC+02)
Emirates Airline Park, Johannesburg

TV TBC

Referee: Jérôme Garcès (France)
Assistant Referees: [tbc]
TMO: [tbc]

A. Recent History

4 October 2014
Ellis Park Stadium, Johannesburg
27 – 25 to South Africa
 
13 September 2014
Westpac Stadium, Wellington
14 – 10 to New Zealand

5 October 2013
Ellis Park Stadium, Johannesburg
27 – 38 to New Zealand

14 September 2013
Eden Park, Auckland
29 – 15 to New Zealand

6 October 2012
FNB Stadium, Johannesburg
16 – 32 to New Zealand

B. Squads

1. South Africa

Forwards: Willem Alberts, Schalk Brits, Schalk Burger, Marcell Coetzee, Eben Etzebeth, Steven Kitshoff, Vincent Koch, Siya Kolisi, Francois Louw, Frans Malherbe, Victor Matfield, Heinke van der Merwe, Marcel van der Merwe, Teboho 'Oupa' Mohoje, Francois Mostert, Tendai Mtawarira, Scarra Ntubeni, Trevor Nyakane, Bismarck du Plessis, Jannie du Plessis, Adriaan Strauss, Warren Whiteley

Backs: Damian de Allende, Bryan Habana, Cornal Hendricks, Elton Jantjies, Zane Kirchner, Faf de Klerk, Jesse Kriel, Lwazi Mvovo, Rudy Paige, Ruan Pienaar, JP Pietersen, Handre Pollard, Willie le Roux, Morne Steyn

Conditioning squad (injured players)

Heinrich Brussow, Jaque Fourie, Lood de Jager, Patrick Lambie, Lionel Mapoe, Coenie Oosthuizen, Fourie du Preez, Cobus Reinach, Jan Serfontein, Francois Steyn, Pieter-Steph du Toit, Duane Vermeulen, Jean de Villiers

2. New Zealand

Backs: Israel Dagg, Ben Smith, Nehe Milner-Skudder, Charles Piutau, Cory Jane, Waisake Naholo, Julian Savea, Conrad Smith, Malakai Fekitoa, Ryan Crotty, Ma'a Nonu, Sonny Bill Williams, Dan Carter, Beauden Barrett, Colin Slade, Lima Sopoaga, Aaron Smith, TJ Perenara, Tawera Kerr-Barlow.

Forwards: Kieran Read, Victor Vito, Richie McCaw (capt), Sam Cane, Jerome Kaino, Liam Messam, Matt Todd, Sam Whitelock, Brodie Retallick, Jeremy Thrush, Luke Romano, James Broadhurst, Owen Franks, Charlie Faumuina, Tony Woodcock, Wyatt Crockett, Ben Franks, Joe Moody, Dane Coles, Keven Mealamu, Codie Taylor, Hika Elliot.

C. Teams

1. South Africa

Willie le Roux, Cornal Hendricks, Jesse Kriel, Damian de Allende, Bryan Habana, Handre Pollard, Ruan Pienaar, Schalk Burger (captain), Francois Louw, Heinrich Brussow, Lood de Jager, Eben Etzebeth, Jannie du Plessis, Bismarck du Plessis, Tendai Mtawarira.

Replacements: Adriaan Strauss, Trevor Nyakane, Vincent Koch, Flip van der Merwe, Warren Whiteley, Cobus Reinach, Pat Lambie, Lionel Mapoe.

2. New Zealand

Israel Dagg, Ben Smith, Conrad Smith, Ma'a Nonu, Charles Piutau, Lima Sopoaga, Aaron Smith, Kieran Read, Richie McCaw (c), Liam Messam, Brodie Retallick, James Broadhurst, Owen Franks, Dane Coles, Tony Woodcock.

Reserves: Codie Taylor, Wyatt Crockett, Ben Franks, Sam Whitelock, Victor Vito, TJ Perenara, Beauden Barrett and Malakai Fekitoa.

This is the problem for SA - they aren't clinical enough. We all know what the All Blacks can do with the slightest hint of a chance.

This SA comentary is atrocious!!!

It does look like the Boks are still adapting to the more expansive vision of Meyer. The Kiwi defence has been intense and marginally offside all night.

Surprising end to this. Until just before the end of the first half, i thought the Boks were going to bully the ABs off the pitch. Suppose this is test match Rugby............

South Africa were not clinical enough, that was always going to happen when they couldn't capitalise on the yellow card.

Good win, well done.

glad i got up to watch this

I thought NZ got a few breaks on the decisions and was surprised the pass to Coles was not reviewed. However SA have only themselves to blame for not securing that match. Crucial period was the sin-bin session when they played like headless chickens with concrete hands.

NZ hung in there, refused to let the Saffers get out of sight and pounced at the end.

Interesting what a test match at Ellis Park turns up, when you have the two best teams on the planet playing.

From a New Zealanders perspective I thought The sheer fight of the ABs to win got them to the point of domination at the 80 minute mark. Did anyone else think that the playing of "Golden Oldie scrums" for the last 15 minutes was on e of the rarest things you will ever see in a game at this level?

For South africa to play the last fifteen minutes without both a tight and loose head prop on the field at the same time was amazing, cant help though that as a Kiwi, that the refs decision to go to depowered scrums played right into New Zealands favour. wish we could get a ruling like that every time we play the mighty Sprinboks.

And maybe that's the weakness in the Bok squad?  Needed to keep their heads. I thought they kicked away possession too much when then had the run of play in the first half.  Why give up the ball when physically winning the battles?  I can easily see England doing the same thing. Of course, they were playing the ABs, where mistakes are punished.

This altitude thing generally seems to not work. Maybe we should go higher up next time, we've got suffocate them eventually?

Congratulations to all the NZ fans.

Tell you what if anyone says that McCaw is too old, too slow and past it then they didnt see the last 10 minutes of this game.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Tell you what if anyone says that McCaw is too old, too slow and past it then they didnt see the last 10 minutes of this game.

That freakin guy must be held together by sheer will power by now. ufb.

So we'll almost certainly be heading into the RWC with one over the All Blacks. Our only hope I guess, is that someone... anyone, takes them out early. Or that we finish second in our group.

Watching the travesty that is Jaco Pyper and his refusal to referee Australia it makes me think the officials in the NZ vs SA game were very good and helped the spectacle.

I have to be honest I felt that NZ were in control from the first minute, the way they wanted to run the SA pack around was always a bit risky, and well they did get the breaks of returning a score every time SA finally broke through.

There was a pointlate in the first half I thought the plan had backfired and they kept comitting few numbers to their own rucks and losing ball over and over, but that blip aside as long as they went into the last 15 minutes within 7 I was positive NZ would take the win at some stage.

Hd they played to 90 minutes I think NZ wouldve scored 4/5 more tries too.

You have to give Hansen credit for playing the way they did, and persevering with it throughout.

I wanted SA to win that game, that back row run their socks off and were totally dominant, but I supppose that was the plan.

I thought SA had done enough to win that game as have a few teams against NZ in the last 18 months (and have nt). The self belief and experience are there along with ruthlessness and a great defence. The only worry must be despite the winning streak they do look beatable often.

Willie le Roux is a fantastic player but he'll have nightmares if r ages about being sidestepped by a hooker for the NZ 2nd try

brennomac wrote:Willie le Roux is a fantastic player but he'll have nightmares if r ages about being sidestepped by a hooker for the NZ 2nd try

Not sure there was too much of a sidestep, I think Le Roux just didn't want to make the tackle as much as he could have!

One thing that surprised me, the one thing Arg got right v NZ was the line out maul that led to Creevy's two tries and the NZ pack didn't seem to have a clue how to defend it. Apart from the maul when De Jager was caught inches short, SA didn't seem to want to maul their way over.

brennomac wrote:One thing that surprised me, the one thing Arg got right v NZ was the line out maul that led to Creevy's two tries and the NZ pack didn't seem to have a clue how to defend it.  Apart from the maul when De Jager was caught inches short, SA didn't seem to want to maul their way over.

I think they did early on but there were 2 occasions where the ref shouldve penalised NZ and never allowing for the maul to vanish, I think they become reluctant after that.

Not much has changed since 2011, SA having a lot of injuries?The cynic in me says there
all in a Camp somewhere under intensive training.
Nz have`nt a clue how to defend driving mauls?see how many tries they actually conceded
from them since 2011 not many.
NZ look beatable they sai that in 2013 and 14 too but only one loss,as a famous golfer
once said."It`s amazing how lucky I get the more I practice"
Three matches,3 scrappy wins to beat the AB`s you need to be about 15 points ahead
in the last ten minutes.
THEN keep the pressure on them at Ellis Park a 7 point win is a good result against any
Bokside.NZ have won 3out of the last 5 there.
Australia in Sydney is never easy I expected at least one loss pre RWC thought this
match the most likely.

Fanster wrote:

brennomac wrote:One thing that surprised me, the one thing Arg got right v NZ was the line out maul that led to Creevy's two tries and the NZ pack didn't seem to have a clue how to defend it.  Apart from the maul when De Jager was caught inches short, SA didn't seem to want to maul their way over.

I think they did early on but there were 2 occasions where the ref shouldve penalised NZ and never allowing for the maul to vanish, I think they become reluctant after that.

Not sure. Could be right. Probably also worth remembering that in May the world has instructed referees to concentrate on aspects of the maul. Many of these relate to ensuring the team in possession is legal (e.g. http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?domain=9&language=EN). I think offside from players not bound in the maul was also mentioned. I've seen a number of mauls that I'd question in the last few weeks. No doubt about though. NZ's defence of the rolling maul is a work in process.

I'd be interested to see what their option taking was. I think they won 9 lineouts an in the match and and mauled the ball 7 times during the game. I'm not sure how many of those mauls were from lineouts and how many lineouts were in good positions to attack with a maul.

emack2 wrote:Not much has changed since 2011, SA having a lot of injuries?The cynic in me says there
all in a Camp somewhere under intensive training.
Nz have`nt a clue how to defend driving mauls?see how many tries they actually conceded
from them since 2011 not many.
NZ look beatable they sai that in 2013 and 14 too but only one loss,as a famous golfer
once said."It`s amazing how lucky I get the more I practice"
Three matches,3 scrappy wins to beat the AB`s you need to be about 15 points ahead
in the last ten minutes.
THEN keep the pressure on them at Ellis Park a 7 point win is a good result against any
Bokside.NZ have won 3out of the last 5 there.
Australia in Sydney is never easy I expected at least one loss pre RWC thought this
match the most  likely.

Strange seems overall in that that you do agree that they look beatable.

Great game - the boks pretty much dominated physically but NZ sucked it up and showed why they are so far ahead.

Very impressed with both bok centres - Nonu and Smith really struggled to contain them at times...SA have a serious amount of talent but the leadership and experience NZ have just sets them apart.

7.5, are you saying the ABs are there for the taking?

Depends what you mean by there for the taking I suppose. As I said they have great self belief, fantastic defence, great attack; that said there's more games like Saturdays where you come away thinknig they should have lost that. That's a great testament to NZ but the other side of the coin is that they aren't looking as dominant as they have done in the past. Performances aren't quite matching the results for me. You can say that's a good thing or a warning.

blackcanelion wrote:

Fanster wrote:

brennomac wrote:One thing that surprised me, the one thing Arg got right v NZ was the line out maul that led to Creevy's two tries and the NZ pack didn't seem to have a clue how to defend it.  Apart from the maul when De Jager was caught inches short, SA didn't seem to want to maul their way over.

I think they did early on but there were 2 occasions where the ref shouldve penalised NZ and never allowing for the maul to vanish, I think they become reluctant after that.

Not sure. Could be right. Probably also worth remembering that in May the world has instructed referees to concentrate on aspects of the maul. Many of these relate to ensuring the team in possession is legal (e.g. http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?domain=9&language=EN). I think offside from players not bound in the maul was also mentioned. I've seen a number of mauls that I'd question in the last few weeks. No doubt about though. NZ's defence of the rolling maul is a work in process.

I'd be interested to see what their option taking was. I think they won 9 lineouts an in the match and and mauled the ball 7 times during the game. I'm not sure how many of those mauls were from lineouts and how many lineouts were in good positions to attack with a maul.

It was definitely individual error, the first instance was 2 NZ player circling either side of the maul while all the pack stood off, however one forward clearly engages at the front which the ref missed.

SA's lineout seemed to creak later on, weather thats just my thoughts based on the 2 young locks who looked great around the park, but not so great in the set peice, or wether SA did start losing lineout ball i'm not sure.

What was cler though was that the SA pack won the breakdown, but considering it was a non contest as NZ refused to add men to secure ball i'm not sure you can call that a win.

SA definitely had the edge in the backline though, Nonu, Smith and Smith were sat down for half the game, Nonu especially as in total disarray in midfield, shooting out and not being dominant in the tackle, then rethinking and staying in the line, poor Conrad Smith didn't know what he was doing half the time!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Depends what you mean by there for the taking I suppose. As I said they have great self belief, fantastic defence, great attack; that said there's more games like Saturdays where you come away thinknig they should have lost that. That's a great testament to NZ but the other side of the coin is that they aren't looking as dominant as they have done in the past. Performances aren't quite matching the results for me. You can say that's a good thing or a warning.

I'd probably agree with this, NZ had a game plan from the off that just got them over the line, I felt like they would always win but lets be honest, there were 2 key periods where SA could and should have scored, if they had in both, or even just 1 it wouldve been squeeky bum time for NZ.

The NZ gameplan was based around being in touch entering the last 20, then ramping up the pressure, based on the team selected that was a great call, but they in no way looked unbeatable!

That said, NZ were missing some big players, and SA had nearly their strongest team available out.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Depends what you mean by there for the taking I suppose. As I said they have great self belief, fantastic defence, great attack; that said there's more games like Saturdays where you come away thinknig they should have lost that. That's a great testament to NZ but the other side of the coin is that they aren't looking as dominant as they have done in the past. Performances aren't quite matching the results for me. You can say that's a good thing or a warning.

NZ look like a side totally comfortable with their game plan - even if that means being on the back foot for an hour. There seems to be an acceptance that other sides may from time to time have a physical and athletic edge but they trust their skill levels and fitness to score when they need to.

Unless SA or England can be relentless and dominate for 80 min it's really hard to see who will beat them.

You see I think Aus, SA, England, Ireland, France even Wales will be thinknig they can compete and win.

I'm sure they do 7.5. When wouldn't they?

Certainly from England's perspective 5 or so yearss ago it's a pipe dream. Similar for ireland. I'm sure Wales' belief just remains.

Rodders said it above. The ABs are comfortable in their game plan. You seem to interpret the game plan as being the ABs are there for the taking but the ABs have been 4.5% beatable under Hansen's reign. The ABs blow teams away in short spurts and often in the last 20 mins by using the squad whilst other teams flounder. It's strange that you say that the ABs are beatable as there hasn't been a time when they haven't been. It's just darned hard to do so even at home at Ellis Park or Twickenham or where ever. Wouldn't read too much into recent performances given the rest, rotation and experimentation that has been going on. The fact we beat SA fair and square at Ellis Park with our fourth ranked first five on debut is pretty impressive. Half that team were playing their first test for the year. DC, SBW, Kaino and Savea didn't play either. There's way more in the tank. Some say the ABs are there for the taking but I imagine many will be concerned at how they're tracking.

7.5,I am an old man with along memory,my bonafides and opinions are well known,when
I say the All Blacks are beatable.I mean just that EVERY team is beatable you have to
think that or why bother.
My ethos differs from many here ,you field your strongest possible side in EVERY match
against Tier 1 sides.You develop players off the Bench or against Tier2 sides to do otherwise
shows disrespect to the other side.
It is a fact that to win a 3/4 N`s title or probably a 6N`s Grand Slam is harder than to win
a RWC.2007 proved that and was for me THE BEST RWC to date because it was so very
unpredictable.
Everything is the matter of perception,the AB`s have won just 4 times in the history
of NZv SA at Ellis Park.3 times out of the last 5 games there,and but for home media
intervention it would have been 4.
In RWC years since 2007 the 4 Ns is sacrificed for the sacred cow that is the RWC,in
a Cup Competion.You shouldn't have a draw 4 years before the event,know exactly
what you need to do to be in the easier side of the draw.
What if SA or NZ threw there Group to get an easier run to the Final?
In the years since about 2000 the All Blacks have averaged two losses a year out of
10-15 games a year.Only in 2009 have they lost more in a year when your playing
the top 3 sides in the World home and away you expect losses.
Since RWC 2011 the AB`s have lost just 2,and drawn 2 in many of those games they
were under the pump.BUT won the game in the last 10 minutes.
Under McCaw`s leadership the believe they can win no matter how late in the game
it is.He says we are going from here to here and score and such is there belief they do.
RWC`s are different teams often play tactically to obtain the best results[sides who
realistically are unlikely to win it]
Risks are cut to a minimum,Penalties /drop goals often decisive,you don`t have to be.
The best team in the World to win a RWC just beat every side you meet[to date].In theory all the top 3 SH and 5 NH sides should reach the knockout stages but seldom do.
There is always a surprise team,and unlikely results ANY side COULD win the RWC
as it should be.BUT to date only the same 4 sides have done it.

ebop wrote:Rodders said it above. The ABs are comfortable in their game plan. You seem to interpret the game plan as being the ABs are there for the taking but the ABs have been 4.5% beatable under Hansen's reign. The ABs blow teams away in short spurts and often in the last 20 mins by using the squad whilst other teams flounder. It's strange that you say that the ABs are beatable as there hasn't been a time when they haven't been. It's just darned hard to do so even at home at Ellis Park or Twickenham or where ever. Wouldn't read too much into recent performances given the rest, rotation and experimentation that has been going on. The fact we beat SA fair and square at Ellis Park with our fourth ranked first five on debut is pretty impressive. Half that team were playing their first test for the year. DC, SBW, Kaino and Savea didn't play either. There's way more in the tank. Some say the ABs are there for the taking but I imagine many will be concerned at how they're tracking.

Less the game plan more the performances for me.

emack2 wrote:7.5,I am an old man with along memory,my bonafides and opinions are well known,when
I say the All Blacks are beatable.I mean just that EVERY team is beatable you have to
think that or why bother.
My ethos differs from many here ,you field your strongest possible side in EVERY match
against Tier 1 sides.You develop players off the Bench or against Tier2 sides to do otherwise
shows disrespect to the other side.
It is a fact that to win a 3/4 N`s title or probably a 6N`s Grand Slam is harder than to win
a RWC.2007 proved that and was for me THE BEST RWC to date because it was so very
unpredictable.
Everything is the matter of perception,the AB`s have won just 4 times in the history
of NZv SA at Ellis Park.3 times out of the last 5 games there,and but for home media
intervention it would have been 4.
In RWC years since 2007 the 4 Ns is sacrificed for the sacred cow that is the RWC,in
a Cup Competion.You shouldn't have a draw 4 years before the event,know exactly
what you need to do to be in the easier side of the draw.
What if SA or NZ threw there Group to get an easier run to the Final?
In the years since about 2000 the All Blacks have averaged two losses a year out of
10-15 games a year.Only in 2009 have they lost more in a year when your playing
the top 3 sides in the World home and away you expect losses.
Since RWC 2011 the AB`s have lost just 2,and drawn 2 in many of those games they
were under the pump.BUT won the game in the last 10 minutes.
Under McCaw`s leadership the believe they can win no matter how late in the game
it is.He says we are going from here to here and score and such is there belief they do.
RWC`s are different teams often play tactically to obtain the best results[sides who
realistically are unlikely to win it]
Risks are cut to a minimum,Penalties /drop goals often decisive,you don`t have to be.
The best team in the World to win a RWC just beat every side you meet[to date].In theory all the top 3 SH and 5 NH sides should reach the knockout stages but seldom do.
There is always a surprise team,and unlikely results ANY side COULD win the RWC
as it should be.BUT to date only the same 4 sides have done it.

I dislike the line about but for media intervention but NZ remind me of Man U in the late 00's ie winning and winning well in some cases but lacking the swagger a little bit that's all.

emack2 wrote:7.5,I am an old man with along memory,my bonafides and opinions are well known,when
I say the All Blacks are beatable.I mean just that EVERY team is beatable you have to
think that or why bother.
My ethos differs from many here ,you field your strongest possible side in EVERY match
against Tier 1 sides.You develop players off the Bench or against Tier2 sides to do otherwise
shows disrespect to the other side.
It is a fact that to win a 3/4 N`s title or probably a 6N`s Grand Slam is harder than to win
a RWC.2007 proved that and was for me THE BEST RWC to date because it was so very
unpredictable.
Everything is the matter of perception,the AB`s have won just 4 times in the history
of NZv SA at Ellis Park.3 times out of the last 5 games there,and but for home media
intervention it would have been 4.
In RWC years since 2007 the 4 Ns is sacrificed for the sacred cow that is the RWC,in
a Cup Competion.You shouldn't have a draw 4 years before the event,know exactly
what you need to do to be in the easier side of the draw.
What if SA or NZ threw there Group to get an easier run to the Final?
In the years since about 2000 the All Blacks have averaged two losses a year out of
10-15 games a year.Only in 2009 have they lost more in a year when your playing
the top 3 sides in the World home and away you expect losses.
Since RWC 2011 the AB`s have lost just 2,and drawn 2 in many of those games they
were under the pump.BUT won the game in the last 10 minutes.
Under McCaw`s leadership the believe they can win no matter how late in the game
it is.He says we are going from here to here and score and such is there belief they do.
RWC`s are different teams often play tactically to obtain the best results[sides who
realistically are unlikely to win it]
Risks are cut to a minimum,Penalties /drop goals often decisive,you don`t have to be.
The best team in the World to win a RWC just beat every side you meet[to date].In theory all the top 3 SH and 5 NH sides should reach the knockout stages but seldom do.
There is always a surprise team,and unlikely results ANY side COULD win the RWC
as it should be.BUT to date only the same 4 sides have done it.

Any side could win the RWC but seldom do

91 - AUS best team without doubt. Beat England, beat NZ.
95 - SA probably not favourites but beat AUS, FRA and NZ. Home status helped. No one else to beat.
99 - AUS again best team. Beat SA, beat France. Won the next 2 3Ns to cement their worth.
03 - ENG beat team. Beat SA, FRA, AUS. Beat NZ at home a few months before.  Worthy champs
07 - Only real question mark. SA beat England side twice. Had won only 3 matches in last 10 3N matches prior. Probably 2nd best team in the world at the time. Would have been favourites in final bar NZ, perhaps would have had 40/60 chance there so not a gift to NZ by any means. Won only 2 out of 6 in next 3N tournament.  06-08 3N success rate 5 in 16 matches. Not exactly stellar.
11 - NZ best team, no real contenders. Beat FRA twice, AUS. SA would have pushed them further in SF but still NZ were the best team.

Nevertheless I think this NZ team is more beatable than in 07 and 11. They're the top of the tree and won't have to get out of 3rd gear until the SF but SA are closer to them than 4 and 8 years ago. England are at home but only a miracle would see them lift the trophy given key bans to Tuilagi and Hartley. AUS look decent, very decent.. probably their best chance since 1999.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Less the game plan more the performances for me.

Classic. 7.5, you sound like an AB fan circa 2006-7.

Anyways, not much to be gained from beating this horse off

?

Do Aus look decent? I'd take England & Ireland over them personally.

See AUS beating England to be honest. England with Tom Youngs starting really throws off their entire momentum. Little confidence in throwing, will throw off entire team balance. Lancaster is a fool for dropping hartley regardless of discipline history.

Aus teams playing well in SR. Beat SA and competed well upfront. Looks very balanced. Will play NZ with confidence.

Against Ireland, I think they will have enough. Difficult to tell as key players determine success or failure. Injuries will occur.

It is a bit of a myth about Youngs throwing being bad. England would need a slice of luck to win the whole thing though.

But you guys are favourites at home? It's easy to win at home as SA and NZ have proven.

I'd put England in a pack of teams behind NZ and SA personally.

With Ireland or below Ireland?

With Ireland, Wales, Aus and France. Any of those teams can win given a run. More heavily dependant of injuries not occuring to key players and playing very close to their best. That for France is a test in itself.

To beat the top teams in the NH in October you need a good set peice and a good goal kicker, Aus have neither.

Yup, there will be nerves when any of those teams and including ABs and SA play each other. The ABs and SA are ahead of the game but not so much that a win against any of the chasing pack is a given. I know what you're trying to say about performance but I doubt we will see teams being head and shoulders above all comers again. For now, I revel in the ABs ability to 'win' games no matter how. This is the new reality.

ebop wrote:But you guys are favourites at home? It's easy to win at home as SA and NZ have proven.

Espionage maybe easier at home but forever a tricky beast to keep under wraps no?? Suzi was put in witness protection, colleagues silenced and stopping derek bevan from flashing his new found wealth after the SF with FRA was always going to be a challenge.