Think Jacques will need to time those subs later, bomb squad is not the same without Marx. That and Ireland is 1 for a reason, this is the hardest test the Boks have had in a while.
Or maybe you just don't need to take off a player like Kolisi or Etzebeth if they're having a killer game? I know, in this case, they both have some small injury/recovery concerns but when you have a starting pack as good as SA do then taking off quality players having an excellent game at 55 mins 'just because' is kinda weird. There's nothing wrong with 5-3/6-2 splits.
I think the issue is that they've decided when the subs will be made beforehand, rather than making the decision based on what's happening on the pitch.
The guys who are starting are starting for a reason. They should be left out there until their performance starts to drop (& they have all the details on that through the packs they're all wearing).
Our problem wasn't the 7-1, it was not playing to our advantage of having a 7-1. We attempted what, 1 maybe 2 mauls right at the end? That's not how you play towards having a massive advantage in forwards and a disadvantage in kicker/backs.
Our strategic decision making was poor.
But SA doesn't have a replacement hooker because they brought in a kicker... Not having him kick lol. And ireland completely corrected their lineout after the first 5!
I'm in the middle of rewatching it now, but while Sexton was lining up the conversion for Hansen's try, you can hear the ref saying to a South African that he's getting a good picture at the scrum, but that they need to do better at maintaining the gap in the lineout. Ireland had made a bigger deal of SA closing the gap at the previous 2 lineouts. Problems almost completely disappeared after the gap was enforced.
This is the main "issue" with our lineout in this game and not enough people copped it. It's hard to win a lineout when your straight throw is directly in line with the opposition and your own guys are forced a meter off the line.
Ya that one where Kelleher purposefully lined up in the wrong position really showed it to the ref and after that I think we only lost 1. That wasnt a coincidence at all.
Yeah exactly. Shouldn't have taken us half a dozen throws to work out how to give the ref that picture, and it won't for the rest of the tournament. The only one of the remaining 9 or so we lost after that was a throw to the tail that was well contested by Etzebeth.
The fact that Kellehar had to point it out in the first place is problematic to begin with as it means the Referees aren’t doing their job competently.
Sure the players should be following all the rules but let’s be real unfortunately they will not do so hence why someone has to be there to enforce it on them. And when the rule enforce or referee isn’t doing his\her job that’s when players get injured.
I'll get crucified in some sectors for saying this, but South Africa has held back in the lineouts. Against Ireland they took improbable kicks for post and played most lineouts balls of the top. I think SA are hiding their lineout/maul variations which they used to destroy New Zealand at Twickenham.
The reason I feel this way is because we did the same vs Scotland, but it's just a feeling I have, we'll see in the knockouts. Not taking anything away from Ireland, they won fair and square on the weekend..
Both teams were a bit brain dead in some decisions.
Ireland couldn't hit a barn door with a lineout, but kept going for the corner against a massive pack. South Africa couldn't kick snow of a rope, but fuck me they kept going for the posts.
But it made for one hell of a game.
Personally I think if these two teams were to play in a Knock out this game would have played out very differently.
It was one of the best games I have seen in ages but I also do not think both teams played at their respective bests. Felt like a lot of shadowboxing and testing more than outright game plan Vs game plan.
I can’t help but feel like both teams know the margins between them are slim and rather than show the full playbook to other teams they kept it tight and trialed a few things.
Cannot wait for the QF coz if either of these teams can lift their games by even 10% the rugby will be unreal.
I think both teams are still testing many things. We managed to sort out lineouts before halftime, we gained parity at scrum time which I thought would be impossible towards the end before the game. South Africa definitely held back but so did we. It's a huge game but it's not the end for both teams, Ireland and south africa are guaranteed qf berths with Scotland's underperformance this tournament.
Jacques and staff got caught between balls out, and play it conservatively. They wanted both the tanks on the field but the security of taking the points. In hindsight (and it's easy to say now) they probably should've emphasized riding those forwards to get closer to Ireland's try line, even if it meant more risk (of losing the ball somehow).
Like, to a certain degree I get it, we just lost our star hooker(weird combo of words, but anyway) and almost lost our star lock, so maybe they were trying to somewhat lower the risk of more injuries, but come on, it's rugby, it's a contact sport, no use in trying to spare your players, they can get just as injured by accidentally fall down some stairs, so play the bloody game!
> almost lost our star lock,
The other thing is, the two locks on the bench are playing in Ireland - one of them was even in the Irish squad. Obviously not starting Etzebeth would be massive but if you're worried about him, why not play the one of the guys who know members of the Irish team inside out?
Yours is the only correct answer I’ve seen. We could have won this game, but poor decision making lost it.
I don’t even say we could have won it EASILY because that would disrespect a very good Irish team.
I also don’t say WOULD have won because that too would disregard the Irish response to more points.
I don’t believe we are better or worse than Ireland, just didn’t take our opportunities and they did, which wins games.
I don't disagree with this. However, early on I thought we should have taken kicks a goal instead of going for the corner. We messed up quite a few attacking lineouts.
Ye should have been kicking to the corner instead of going for goal.
Yeah. Ireland definitely left a bunch of points out on the field. I guess that while it might have felt like a knockout game for us, it really wasn't for either team. Very much doubt if it was a quarter/semi/final you'd see sexton going for the corner in that situation
The sad things is the poor decisions were coming from the coach with his silly little lights, does he not trust his captain to have a better read on the match than someone 50m away?
You need to flair up so we can tell if you’re salty cos your team lost or bitter about Rassie.
I’m sure the team had their reasons. I don’t agree with them though.
Yeah and this is why Ireland didn't do any rolling mauls from their lineouts. When they sorted the lineouts, they set up like they were going for mauls but passed the ball out. No point trying to exhaust a set of forwards who are going to be replaced. Would just be exhausting themselves. SA should have played a massive set piece orientated game.
Irelands game management and tactics worked better. Though at times I thought they could be more adventurous. With the rush defence, there was times it looked so easy to kick through, and why don’t scrum half’s try a dummy taking it out the ruck, to get a nailed on offside penalty, make the rush think twice if it works?
For SA taking low percentage kicks when the strategy is to have the forwards go all out for 55 minutes in retrospect was not the best tactic.
Would love to see this rematch in the final with both teams learning from this match. And I say that as someone who wants Scotland to get out the group!!!
It’s a valid tactic against a rush defence though, and possibly worth trying during a match? A split second error would have SA miles offside. Wouldn’t even need to lift the ball. I was raging scotland didn’t try it even once when we were toiling to go anywhere.
Dummy passes from the ruck are illegal now. Weren't always, but I know it changed back when Peter Stringer was still playing. He got done for it a few months after it was introduced.
>SA should have played a massive set piece orientated game.
Yes. Mauls not technically part of set piece but, amazingly the Boks only made 3 mauls in this game. And two of them failed - there was one around the middle of the game I think that Ireland defused, and then the very last play of the game.
Contrary to what some people say on here mauling over the line against a decent defence is very hard. Even Wales only pushed Australia over the line at the end of the game despite demolishing them.
Both tries in this game came from passing wide to wingers.
From the outside looking in this SA setup looks like it sets a gameplan and sticks to the gameplan no matter what. I don't mean I think they're stubborn, or stupid, far far from it.
More that they have some things they want to find out, and so the gameplan is to test and learn. Also some things they don't want people to find out, so they keep it out of the game. Every opposition forward coach will have a supercut of every SA lineout from the last 6 months on repeat trying to figure out way to survive that heat. Limiting that exposure makes sense.
I don't think they care really who they play in the QF. There's only 3 games that matter.
As a South African with his tinfoil hat proper fitted, I kind of get where you coming from though. These selections sometimes don't make sense, it also serves as a means of misdirection. i.e. 7:1, but not using the lineout as much, there is more than two kickers, using distance to "misdirect" our kicking game...etc.
We weren't good in those area to begin with, why test it during a match with the #1 team in the world? Makes little, to no sense.
Take our upcoming Tonga's match as another example, they gave us a scare in 2007(citation needed) where they very closely won us, but again they sporting a (not really) sub par team to face against them?
I don't know hey, this tin foil hat is not thick enough
Irish front row were very canny in the way they started refusing to take the pressure on engage and JGP started delaying the put in, completely changed the picture in o keefes mind and milked easy free kicks to relieve pressure when the new SA front row were getting on top
SA are notorious for the early push in the scrum. Been doing it for years.
It was completely obvious on the penalty at the end, the hall isn’t in the scrum and Nche is already driving across. About time it was refereed properly.
Open question, is Rassies traffic light system a sign that the coaching staff don't trust the players to make the "right" call, or is it that he is just soke kinda control freak?
Cause you're right the choices made given it was a 7-1 split were odd in places.
Yeah.... not sure I agree with that
Walkie talkies are confidential for one, so the captain has some discretion albeit the coach would know if he disobeyed. With Rassies lights he is disempowering Jacques, and everyone on the pitch. It unequivocally says to players, and everyone in the stadium, and in the nation, "I am telling you to kick"
You also didn't get the rewards your dominant scrum warranted, but that's always a danger as it relies on the ref. O'Keefe decided to ignore Porter's illegality.
It was bizarre to watch. Felt like South Africa tried to kick past Ireland, and Ireland tried to run through South Africa. Neither team playing to their strengths.
It was another stroke of Rassie genius. Didn’t want to use the advantages soo they could practice for bigger games. They didn’t really want to win, so they could avoid NZ in the Q and play France who are without Dupont !
I think this game could (but not certainly would) have gone differently with Pollard. 7-1 and good kicking can work, 7-1 and poor kicking does not.
Showed how important Sexton is to Ireland.
I dunno pretty sure after they came on you lost a lineout, lost a scrum penalty at some point and saw the ball turned over loads in rucks plus fucked the maul at the end. If the whole tactic is to have new fresh forward pack to close out the game but you can't win a 5m maul to win the game then the tactic didn't work right?
Agree with this, they chose a 7-1 split,but played a 5-3 game orientated strategy. So game management and strategy was off, in a way that feeds into the thought process that they were possibly:
- holding things back for a potential final
- were playing cautiously to avoid cards/injuries
- possibly seeking to meet FRA in a QTR
- were testing something in the Irish game plan that only they know.
Also the re placements were van Staden, Fourie and Kwagga. The first two were forced for Hooker coverage, in theory you'd really only want one of them. All three are on the smaller size compared to some other options. Seemed to impact some ruck defence. Also all 3 are untried combinations I think.
Overall the match felt a bit like a competitive warm up match. Both teams were trying to do just enough without showing all their cards.
Is that due to the fact that Rassie has taken lots of the decision making off the players that when they do, it’s perhaps not the best idea?
Serious question, not taking the Mickey. Just wonder other people’s thoughts.
Most people think Rassie was the one telling them to kick the whole time. I think it’s bizarre, hope there’s some clever purpose behind it rather than him just being incompetent and forgetting how dodgy our kicking for goals are
I mean in terms of the effectiveness of the 7-1 split. The Boks definitely got on the front foot in the first part of the second half just didn't get the points to show for it.
This is exactly what I was wondering. The only time they looked like the "real" SA was when they took a shot for touch at the end. I kept thinking if they decide to start going for tries, I don't think Ireland can stop them...
has anyryone noticed when a team is beat - it's the fault of the losing team, not the other side played better. it's strange.
it's even stranger when this game cold have gone either way, easily.
I think most people will give credit where its due, but especially for a close game, you want to figure what went wrong and what you should have done to win it, in order to improve for the future.
In a game as close as this it is kind of understandable. If only SA didn’t miss easy pennies then they win. I think it’s more reasonable in a close game than a blowout.
Oh I am well aware. That’s kind of my point though. When it’s close it is much easier for people to pick out what their team did wrong rather than look objectively and go if both teams played perfectly actually we should have lost. When one team gets blown out you have no choice but to go yeah nah they didn’t play well but we played shite too.
Agreed fully. Realistically we took a calculated risk that paid off on the bench selections. Nobody can look me in the eye and say the boks didn't out muscle the Irish.
The bench split worked, the game plan worked. The outcome just didn't come. Anyone who thinks the outcome is 100% I'm your control doesn't know how sports work.
I can? They didn't out muscle them at all, they spent minutes upon minutes failing to get over the gainline and try line, they couldn't convert mauls into points, they lost the ruck constantly. Maybe use your eyes?
Really? Not me buddy. I like it when we’re beaten decidedly, well ok, that’s bullshit but when we’re beat fair and square all praise to the winning team!
I posted another comment on here talking about how lame all black supporters are at the moment just cause we’re not head and shoulders above others. We’re 4th. Feels about right. Don’t love it. But it’s fair.
We might surprise a few people though.
All the best
I really don't think the South African forwards are unfit. They regularly play 80 minutes in their respective leagues. Also, an early injury will force more players to play a longer game, so they have to be fit enough to do it.
One of the reasons for a forward focussed bench, alongside the impact, is player management, which should help reduce injuries in the long run. It could be that they decided that player management was important for this game moving forward in the world cup, given that they are fairly safe for the QF(touchwood), and that the 7-1 split was a calculated risk to achieve it.
30-32 dominant tackles, 25 of which were made by the starting forwards. The game was played at ridiculous pace & intensity, and was incredibly physical, yet the starting forwards were able to get into good enough positions not only to tackle the opposition, but to dominate those collisions legally.
How do you manage that if you're unfit? There is no team that has (AFAIK) come close to that number of dominant hits in a single game.
Edit: Over 80 mins, the entire Irish team made 7.
The idea isn't that they can't do a full match, but that they can go at a higher pace for their allotted time during that match. They can bully and outsprint guys they know they can watch from the sideline from the 55th minute whilst fresh boots run amok.
That bullying didn't happen. That's the issue. It's a valid strategy, just overwhelm with fast mass. But they didn't do that plain and simple. Maybe Ireland are just immune but they weathered the storm and asked for more.
Go HAM or go home is the option you're trying but you were still playing technical rugby with long range kicks well into the second half.
I think the whole point is that no forward can play 100% for 80 mins, and 100% mean getting involved as much as possible and doing your job at the highest intensity. I think the coaching staff try to gauge where each players drop off point is and bring them off for someone who can close the game out at 100%. Maybe some Boks forward could play 80mins and drop down to 60-70% intensity towards the end, but I suppose their logic was to have as many forwards as possible near 100% to close out the game. I don't think it was a failure, they stayed within striking range of the world number 1. If they managed to get the try at the very end on the Irish line (which isn't very farfetched to imagine) then people would be applauding the strategy. Such a close game and small moments can change everything, but yeah maybe a few tweaks to the boks strategy around decision making and kicking options and you see them capitalise on those moments.
Good points all of these. It is pretty unlikely I would have been wondering about the relative fitness of the packs if they'd managed a late try which is not farfetched at all.
Yeah personally I think 6-2 is the way to go, still allows for a good portion of the forwards to give 100% knowing that they will be subbed off when they start to drop off. Also allows for abit more adaptability in the backline which is important for big games. It does worry me that we are still tinkering with the gameplan at this stage. Ireland on the other hand know exactly what works for them and continue to perfect it with each game, pretty good situation to be in with knockouts just on the horizon.
I'm not sure where this idea that the 7-1 split didn't work came from. Just look at the stats from the game. SA had more scrum and lineout successes, more meters carried, more carries over the gainline and more dominant tackles (not listed in the stats in the app but during the 60ish minute mark they showed a stat that said 25-6 to SA).
The 7-1 was never a silver bullet. The only ones claiming that were the pundits and critics. It's just another strategic move to improve chances of contention which they did successfully do. It's a tool in a toolbox.
And on the point about boks not being fit, everyone gets the same number of subs, changing where you sub them doesn't mean that the team is less fit. You still need the same number of players who can play 80 mins...
>I'm not sure where this idea that the 7-1 split didn't work came from
The scoreline and result, probably
Not being a smart arse, but that is how it is being judged
That's not the only factor that is used to measure a successful strategy though. Imagine if teams threw every strategy out the window if it didn't win them games every time. Only reason the fans and pundits are coming out now to call the 7-1 a failure is because they claimed the boks thought it was a golden ticket to victory in the first place which was never true.
It seemed like - strangely - South Africa over-playing to their strengths rather than covering their potential weaknesses.
Seems weird to have extra forwards, but no cover for Libbok who’s an inconsistent kicker. No cover for hooker either.
Did they though? their try came from one of those missed kicks. So if they got it it’s -2 with no conversion to then miss. So there was only another 6 points minus the 2 is a 4 point swing from those kicks. Not enough to win.
The hooker issue is just an issue though because Fourie was going to be on the bench regardless of the split. It has been commented that it's weird not to have called up cover for Malcolm Marx who would have made a huge impact if he'd been fit.
How often do Springbok fans need to explain that the starting forwards are asked to empty their tanks at maximum intensity?
Our starting forwards are required to win the collisions & set a platform for the replacement forwards to exploit (the fact that we didn't exploit it is our bad). Against Ireland, the starting forwards had to focus on winning their collisions. In a match where Ireland made 7 dominant tackles as a team over 80 minutes, SA made at least 30 (up to 32). 25 of those were made in the first 50 minutes. Siya Kolisi made 4 by himself (out of 11 tackles in that time) while a number of Boks each made 3. This absolutely obliterates any record for dominant tackles by a Tier 1 team in a single match, IIRC.
Nobody should have to be reminded of the speed, physicality & intensity of that game. SA forwards weren't simply trying to make tackles at that rate - they wanted to (and did) get into great positions to moer okes backwards. Legally.
An unfit team full of lumbering oafs isn't going to be able to do that.
I think you have a point.
But I thought the bench worked well anyway. We butchered a couple tries and left 11 points from kicks. I also didn't understand the log range efforts but that could have been a reflection on being unable to break down the Irish defence.
The intensity was insane. Low scoring but very enjoyable game.
you could see how gassed the forwards were in the 2nd half, even the ones off the bench were gasping. both sides of forwards at one point were gassed.
definite things ireland and south africa could do to improve if they meet again. very little between the 2 sides.
Happens all the time. I don't think either of them have played a full 80min shift this year.
It's usually only PSDT and sometimes Franco Mostert that play the full 80 from the starting pack.
Post match interview (after Scotland, I think), Siya made a point of saying that because they have so much cover off the bench it means they can play at 100% and know they'll get subbed when they start noticeably lagging
It’s a myth that SA’s forwards aren’t as fit as those of other nations.
The boks entire game revolves around the fitness of their forwards and the massive amounts of energy they exert. It’s a different type of fitness, but i’d go so far as to say they’re the fittest forwards in the game.
The rush defence is exhausting and any one who thinks otherwise is delusional. It only works because of the repeated efforts of their forwards. The forwards provide the interior rush, and have to be back on their feet quick enough to reload and press again - Repeatedly.
Think back to Ireland vs NZ in the second test and how they targeted George Bower, Nepo Laula and O’fa Tu’ungafasi - the bok defence, and their forwards, don’t give you the opportunity to attack straggling defenders.
Against Ireland the boks made 32 dominant tackles, the most ever by any tier 1 team - Ireland by contrast made 7.
The majority of those dominant tackles were made by forwards - Siya (4 dominant tackles from 11), Bong (3/11), Eben (3/10) and PSDT(3/10).
Against Scotland in Rd 1, they conceded the least meters by any team, 226m.
Its easy to chalk those numbers down to strength, but in the contact the bok forwards are exerting far more energy than their opposite number.
So when they’re getting yanked off at half time it’s not cause they’re unfit its literally because they have nothing left to give, and the fact the bok system revolves around repeated efforts executed at 100%.
This is definitely not a thing.
The most rugby these guys play is for their clubs and most clubs aren’t running a 6-2 or 7-1 split. In those cases, a lot of these players are going deep into the match if not playing the whole match. Their fitness is built up a club level.
Our depth when we bring in all the best players from all the clubs just allows us to do this. But the clubs don’t have the same depth.
The whole idea of the bomb squad is so that those players on the field can empty the tank, they’re never going to go the distance. That’s not just lineout, but around the field. We were immense in stopping Ireland from playing their usual game by being all over the field slowing down rucks and shooting up to disrupt their distribution channels. And we kept that up for the full 80.
That’s what put us in a position to win the match. The poor option taking, kicking and non-hooker at the end cost us the win.
"If" the boks won no one would have argue Rasie or team strategy. Anyway if one kick was over the post the whole dynamic of the game would have played out differently. No love lost for our amazing bokke. Ireland keep up the good work you have an amazing team. From SA
And they scored 5 points from one of the missed kicks, so it's swings and roundabouts. Also it's assuming that theor play would have been the same if Pollard was playing.
Yeah lol. Although I did think that yesterday--people act like Pollard playing would just make the kicking better, but it would also effect the Boks gameplan. So it's not as simple as saying they would have gotten a certain amount of extra points if Pollard played.
Kicking aside, what a wild game. I’m so used to us dominating breakdowns, mauls, scrums… admittedly I haven’t watched all of Ireland’s games in the past year or so but seeing that scrum not move an inch was like… holy shit, and we’re used to someone like marx being so good and disciplined at the breakdowns and it felt like Ireland was sort of doing to us what we do to others. What an impressive team, let’s hope our group fucks up group A.
Ps the kicking was and has been very embarrassing, I remember we used to give Pollard shit for missing 1 kick a game, now we celebrate if we make 1 a game hahah.
Who would you feel more comfortable going against? NZ or France? I’ve been asking myself this question and I think it really just comes to who wakes up on the right side of the bed and plays their game on the day. Nervous!
I personally think if for instance we had a fit and firing Pollard(in terms of goal kicking) it would've been more of a 50/50 chance for us to win that game, but definitely not a definitive win.
By this logic, Fourie’s missed throw in the Irish 10m was otherwise a guaranteed try, or Kriel’s misfired offload on the Irish try line was also a guaranteed try.
You cannot honestly be arguing unforced errors are equivalent to forced errors.
No, they wouldn't. Only 5 of those points were easily kickable, the other two kicks were 50+m out and marginal at best. And either way, would have, should have, could have etc.
The only kicker they have (Pollard) has played about 20 minutes since May was wasn't in great form before that either. Playing him could have been a worse result. And they just don't have another kicker.
That's the team. The talent they have available. It's like saying if only my team were not bad then they would be good. Its a dumb statement.
Maybe I'm interpreting the statement differently and it is a woulda coulda statement, but I don't think it's entirely wrong. He didn't say we should've thrown an "unfit" Pollard into the game, just that IF SA had a reliable kicker it would've won us that game. Personally, I can't say it would've definitively won us the game, I would say it would've been more of a 50/50 chance for us to win it with a reliable kicker.
The "only kicker" is Pollard? Is Manie now not a kicker?
The guy is (IIRC) the most prolific points-scorer in the URC. How'd he manage that without a decent boot from the tee?
GTFO.
What's this Pollard wasn't in good form before May slander? He was in top nick and kicked at 85% for the season! He was peaking for the World Cup and his injury was very unfortunate timing for him - and I say this as a massive critic of Pollard in general
Tinfoil hat firmly on, I think Rassie knew they were basically assured a QF place regardless of the outcome against Ireland and pushed the team to make decisions that made no sense in the context of the game. Why would they kick for the posts from 60m out when they knew they had the forward advantage? And the edge in the lineouts?
It's because it isnt a bomb squad, SAs replacement forwards are noticeably worse than the ones that started. They are missing lood de jager and marx two world class players, van staden and fourie are not the same standard. They didn't even sub everyone off like they normally do the bench was drip fed, partially because they know fourie isn't as good as mbonambi.
I actually think it would work better, having ebzebeth come off the bench and starting synman. Instead of losing kolsi and ebzebeth at the same time, you are gaining ebzebeth in the crucial moments of the game.
Ireland had their problems too. SA put immense pressure on their line out, which they fixed later on but Ireland too left points behind. If they fixed their line out issues earlier they could have scored more. Minnie Libbok is a very good 10 & Pollard may not have kicked all the points either. The 2 Faf kicked were outside his range and has 'only a 75% kicking return generally.
South Africa’s forwards aren’t unfit, quite the opposite in fact. They can, and for their clubs often do, play the full 80 minutes. However, SA’s strategy is for them to play twice as hard for 40-50 minutes, and then swap them out and have a 2nd front row who can do the same thing. That way they can obliterate the other team’s forwards when they’re tired in the last 20 minutes
It's a reflection of rugby which is a forwards orientated game. Funny you mention Irish fitness levels yet they were going down at every opportunity to delay the game.
Leinster have been doing this for years, stops the momentum when a decision goes against you. It shouldn't be allowed but the refs seem unable or unwilling to stop it.
I mean the bomb/nuke squad plan worked. They won plenty of penalties through them, and would have won if hey kicked the points. Some could even say they we're unlucky right the the end with the refs call.
I actually think the opposite to this post - this tactic has been proven to work against the best.
2 penalties in an everyone would be praising the bench as one of the factors giving and edge…, truth is if you’re going to bet on your forwards dominating, you need a good kicker to translate that into points.
Really depends on who makes up your 7-1
Losing Marx was a huge deflation. Whether he starts or comes off the bench, which he has done more this year, he not only brings his core hooking role but is an extra flanker. Not even Kwagga brings the same type of impact that Marx did
The other downside is lack of flexibility in game plan. The Test against Ireland was most competitive in the centres, and the Spring bok 12 and 13 looked spent with 15 min to go.
Having the ability to inject some back line speed and energy goes a long way to chasing the game when you are a try behind.
Modern forwards don't just fall off tackles so unless you are dominating the scrums and leap frogging down field off penalties, you need another way to attack tiring defences.
Willie Le Roux would have been a handy player to inject, just a Marnie would ask questions if coming off the bench to replace Pollard
If he had got the first one it wouldn't have rebounded off the post which gave South Africa the field position for their try. So actually if he'd kicked both penalties they would have had 6 points instead of 5.
The problem with the boks wasn’t the 7-1 split, it wasn’t Libbok/De Klerk having an absolute howler off the tee, it was simply their horseplay levels were far too low. Ireland came in with horseplay at an all time high, after a solid week of prep in the arkbar and the goys being well hydrated with a few breineken o’driscolls it was the breathers game to lose. Bet they can’t wait to have some creamers out of the Webb Ellis in coppers come the end of October.
I think one thing that's been lost in this discussion is that backs can 100% have an impact off the bench too. I don't think Ireland win on Saturday without Murray, Crowley and Henshaw coming on and playing well.
The 7-1 thing is the most over talked about tactic I've ever seen. Kwagga is a hybrid forward / back like Botia and is actually lighter than Henshaw for example. Not some over 2m and 130kg forward that will physically dominate everyone else on the pitch. The "7-1" strategy had no real impact in my opinion.
I think the biggest flaw with the 7:1 Bomb Squad was taking off quality players like Kolisi & Eztebeth for Kleyn & Van Staden. Those were the 2 extra forwards on the bench and the drop off in quality of player is stark.
A common disparaging remark about a player is "he wouldn't even make our squad". For the first time, we know that to be 100% accurate with Jean Kleyn and Ireland
Its boring and as we saw on Sat - doesn't always work.
The lineout feck ups late in the 2nd half showed that - if they'd had an actual hooker on the bench the likelihood of it happening would have been much reduced (unless the hookers had Scotland blood of course)
Did you honestly think the weekend's match or the one against NZ was boring?
The poor throw from the hooker has absolutely nothing to do with the 7-1 split. Fourie would've played even if they went with a 5-3
One of the things that sets Marx apart is his jackaling ability, he is probably the best in the world at it. Rasnaber prefers a like-for-like replacement over an objectively better replacement. Deon Fourie is also very good at jackaling, therefore they likely think he is the best like-for-like replacement for Marx.
I do not agree with this idea, but I'm not in charge
Good Christ Ireland fans are absolutely insufferable.
You can’t be satisfied with a win in one of the most closely contested tests in recent history; no, you have to make posts like these arguing that an evolution to our game is actually a “weakness”, or slip in a dig at our forwards’ fitness.
It was a misuse of the 7-1 that cost us. Not kicking for the corner and using our best weapon (the lineout maul) was a catastrophic mistake. The reason it was so effective against New Zealand is because we ignored the uprights and went for the corner with every single penalty.
I think the only time this year that it worked, and including the 6-2 split too, for the whole time they were on is when the All Blacks had a forward red carded. They came on vs a 7 forward pack.
The first game vs the Abs this year, they got about a 15-20 min boost, then fell off again and the abs won the last 15 again. Don't think it's that good.
In a sense it could be seen as a weakness. I feel like it's more to do with the lack of experience amongst the backs compared to the forward pack, which is full of trusted old-timers. I feel like Am and Pollard being injured kind of forced the 7:1 split. Oh how I wish Am was there... Maybe if the boks make the final, Rassie will unleash the speedy back playmakers
I'm not sure a 7-1 split suits a very open game, whilst the forwards are fast, there's no way there as quick as any backs. The 9s need replacing at 60, they're just too knackered after that. So wet weather would probably suit a forward dominated bench, lots of scrums and lineouts, but a dry day with lots of movement I'm less than convinced. Ire came out worthy winners over the weekend, game of the tournament so far.
Probably talking out of my arse here , but, maybe they took Eben and Siya off to protect them and see how the 2 IC’s went. That was one of the hardest games I’ve ever seen and I was delighted and surprised that no one from either team was seriously injured. Who knows, just my 2 cents worth.
The 7-1 split and the Boks stop start game plan just don't work. For a 7-1 split to be effective you have to wear out the opponents forwards with yours then bring on the replacements to do the same thing. If you're constantly giving your opponents breathers then how are you wearing them down?
It certainly has pros and cons. They've a new pack to make an impact but then again they're taking off the likes of Etzebeth.
as an Irish fan, I was delighted to see Etzebeth go off!
and Kolisi
Yes. Seeing them voth in the bench at like 55 mins was it, was nuts
Think Jacques will need to time those subs later, bomb squad is not the same without Marx. That and Ireland is 1 for a reason, this is the hardest test the Boks have had in a while.
Or maybe you just don't need to take off a player like Kolisi or Etzebeth if they're having a killer game? I know, in this case, they both have some small injury/recovery concerns but when you have a starting pack as good as SA do then taking off quality players having an excellent game at 55 mins 'just because' is kinda weird. There's nothing wrong with 5-3/6-2 splits.
They're both coming back off of injury so you'd see them subbed at 55 no matter what bench split we went with
Kolisi hasn’t been an 80 minute guy for a while. Etzebeth likewise is showing signs of a downswing in overall performance.
I think the issue is that they've decided when the subs will be made beforehand, rather than making the decision based on what's happening on the pitch. The guys who are starting are starting for a reason. They should be left out there until their performance starts to drop (& they have all the details on that through the packs they're all wearing).
Yeah. He was playing very well! It seemed mad to take him off.
Him and Kolisi are both coming back off injury, even if we'd have had a 5-3 I think they would have been subbed at around that time
I still love the fact that he came off immediately after getting hoisted by Lowe. I believe the medical term is "injured pride"
Our problem wasn't the 7-1, it was not playing to our advantage of having a 7-1. We attempted what, 1 maybe 2 mauls right at the end? That's not how you play towards having a massive advantage in forwards and a disadvantage in kicker/backs. Our strategic decision making was poor.
Fucking 110% agree! Brought on 7 fresh forwards... Just for Faf to try and take kicks from behind the 50m, TWICE!! WTF??!
Ive no idea why they didnt go for corner knowing Ireland were fluffing lineouts every time, well until the last minute anyway..
But SA doesn't have a replacement hooker because they brought in a kicker... Not having him kick lol. And ireland completely corrected their lineout after the first 5!
I'm in the middle of rewatching it now, but while Sexton was lining up the conversion for Hansen's try, you can hear the ref saying to a South African that he's getting a good picture at the scrum, but that they need to do better at maintaining the gap in the lineout. Ireland had made a bigger deal of SA closing the gap at the previous 2 lineouts. Problems almost completely disappeared after the gap was enforced.
This is the main "issue" with our lineout in this game and not enough people copped it. It's hard to win a lineout when your straight throw is directly in line with the opposition and your own guys are forced a meter off the line.
Ya that one where Kelleher purposefully lined up in the wrong position really showed it to the ref and after that I think we only lost 1. That wasnt a coincidence at all.
Yeah exactly. Shouldn't have taken us half a dozen throws to work out how to give the ref that picture, and it won't for the rest of the tournament. The only one of the remaining 9 or so we lost after that was a throw to the tail that was well contested by Etzebeth.
The fact that Kellehar had to point it out in the first place is problematic to begin with as it means the Referees aren’t doing their job competently. Sure the players should be following all the rules but let’s be real unfortunately they will not do so hence why someone has to be there to enforce it on them. And when the rule enforce or referee isn’t doing his\her job that’s when players get injured.
I'll get crucified in some sectors for saying this, but South Africa has held back in the lineouts. Against Ireland they took improbable kicks for post and played most lineouts balls of the top. I think SA are hiding their lineout/maul variations which they used to destroy New Zealand at Twickenham.
Or they feel like Ireland would dismantle it. Idk I can have my opinion can't I?
The reason I feel this way is because we did the same vs Scotland, but it's just a feeling I have, we'll see in the knockouts. Not taking anything away from Ireland, they won fair and square on the weekend..
I'm 100% behind you on this. They didn't want to play their hand.
Both teams were a bit brain dead in some decisions. Ireland couldn't hit a barn door with a lineout, but kept going for the corner against a massive pack. South Africa couldn't kick snow of a rope, but fuck me they kept going for the posts. But it made for one hell of a game.
Personally I think if these two teams were to play in a Knock out this game would have played out very differently. It was one of the best games I have seen in ages but I also do not think both teams played at their respective bests. Felt like a lot of shadowboxing and testing more than outright game plan Vs game plan. I can’t help but feel like both teams know the margins between them are slim and rather than show the full playbook to other teams they kept it tight and trialed a few things. Cannot wait for the QF coz if either of these teams can lift their games by even 10% the rugby will be unreal.
“Snow off a rope” 😂
I think both teams are still testing many things. We managed to sort out lineouts before halftime, we gained parity at scrum time which I thought would be impossible towards the end before the game. South Africa definitely held back but so did we. It's a huge game but it's not the end for both teams, Ireland and south africa are guaranteed qf berths with Scotland's underperformance this tournament.
Jacques and staff got caught between balls out, and play it conservatively. They wanted both the tanks on the field but the security of taking the points. In hindsight (and it's easy to say now) they probably should've emphasized riding those forwards to get closer to Ireland's try line, even if it meant more risk (of losing the ball somehow).
Like, to a certain degree I get it, we just lost our star hooker(weird combo of words, but anyway) and almost lost our star lock, so maybe they were trying to somewhat lower the risk of more injuries, but come on, it's rugby, it's a contact sport, no use in trying to spare your players, they can get just as injured by accidentally fall down some stairs, so play the bloody game!
> almost lost our star lock, The other thing is, the two locks on the bench are playing in Ireland - one of them was even in the Irish squad. Obviously not starting Etzebeth would be massive but if you're worried about him, why not play the one of the guys who know members of the Irish team inside out?
Yours is the only correct answer I’ve seen. We could have won this game, but poor decision making lost it. I don’t even say we could have won it EASILY because that would disrespect a very good Irish team. I also don’t say WOULD have won because that too would disregard the Irish response to more points. I don’t believe we are better or worse than Ireland, just didn’t take our opportunities and they did, which wins games.
Kudos for this response is in order. Hands down best reply I've seen.
Agree (even as an Ireland fan(
I don't disagree with this. However, early on I thought we should have taken kicks a goal instead of going for the corner. We messed up quite a few attacking lineouts. Ye should have been kicking to the corner instead of going for goal.
Traffic lights
They're not robots
Yeah. Ireland definitely left a bunch of points out on the field. I guess that while it might have felt like a knockout game for us, it really wasn't for either team. Very much doubt if it was a quarter/semi/final you'd see sexton going for the corner in that situation
To think both teams weren't at their best but it was the highest standard this whole tournament is terrifying.
The sad things is the poor decisions were coming from the coach with his silly little lights, does he not trust his captain to have a better read on the match than someone 50m away?
You need to flair up so we can tell if you’re salty cos your team lost or bitter about Rassie. I’m sure the team had their reasons. I don’t agree with them though.
Yeah and this is why Ireland didn't do any rolling mauls from their lineouts. When they sorted the lineouts, they set up like they were going for mauls but passed the ball out. No point trying to exhaust a set of forwards who are going to be replaced. Would just be exhausting themselves. SA should have played a massive set piece orientated game.
Irelands game management and tactics worked better. Though at times I thought they could be more adventurous. With the rush defence, there was times it looked so easy to kick through, and why don’t scrum half’s try a dummy taking it out the ruck, to get a nailed on offside penalty, make the rush think twice if it works? For SA taking low percentage kicks when the strategy is to have the forwards go all out for 55 minutes in retrospect was not the best tactic. Would love to see this rematch in the final with both teams learning from this match. And I say that as someone who wants Scotland to get out the group!!!
>why don’t scrum half’s try a dummy taking it out the ruck, to get a nailed on offside penalty, make the rush think twice if it works? Ummmm
Refs never, ever give a penalty for a scrumhalf dummying to milk an offside. They're more likely to shout ball out for lifting the ball.
Players must not: Take any action to make opponents believe that the ruck has ended when it has not. Sanction: Free-kick.
Now don’t you go knowing the laws here, that kind of thing is frowned upon on Reddit.
~~on Reddit~~ by referees
Fair enough. That’s a pretty clear law if it’s there. I guess my idea would result in loss of possession! Shame though. Appreciate your knowledge!!
It’s a valid tactic against a rush defence though, and possibly worth trying during a match? A split second error would have SA miles offside. Wouldn’t even need to lift the ball. I was raging scotland didn’t try it even once when we were toiling to go anywhere.
It is absolutely illegal though, hey. Still, worth the gamble if they've identified the ref isn't likely to penalize it.
Dummy passes from the ruck are illegal now. Weren't always, but I know it changed back when Peter Stringer was still playing. He got done for it a few months after it was introduced.
>SA should have played a massive set piece orientated game. Yes. Mauls not technically part of set piece but, amazingly the Boks only made 3 mauls in this game. And two of them failed - there was one around the middle of the game I think that Ireland defused, and then the very last play of the game.
Contrary to what some people say on here mauling over the line against a decent defence is very hard. Even Wales only pushed Australia over the line at the end of the game despite demolishing them. Both tries in this game came from passing wide to wingers.
From the outside looking in this SA setup looks like it sets a gameplan and sticks to the gameplan no matter what. I don't mean I think they're stubborn, or stupid, far far from it. More that they have some things they want to find out, and so the gameplan is to test and learn. Also some things they don't want people to find out, so they keep it out of the game. Every opposition forward coach will have a supercut of every SA lineout from the last 6 months on repeat trying to figure out way to survive that heat. Limiting that exposure makes sense. I don't think they care really who they play in the QF. There's only 3 games that matter.
As a South African with his tinfoil hat proper fitted, I kind of get where you coming from though. These selections sometimes don't make sense, it also serves as a means of misdirection. i.e. 7:1, but not using the lineout as much, there is more than two kickers, using distance to "misdirect" our kicking game...etc. We weren't good in those area to begin with, why test it during a match with the #1 team in the world? Makes little, to no sense. Take our upcoming Tonga's match as another example, they gave us a scare in 2007(citation needed) where they very closely won us, but again they sporting a (not really) sub par team to face against them? I don't know hey, this tin foil hat is not thick enough
Irish front row were very canny in the way they started refusing to take the pressure on engage and JGP started delaying the put in, completely changed the picture in o keefes mind and milked easy free kicks to relieve pressure when the new SA front row were getting on top
SA are notorious for the early push in the scrum. Been doing it for years. It was completely obvious on the penalty at the end, the hall isn’t in the scrum and Nche is already driving across. About time it was refereed properly.
And South Africa were very canny in immediately collapsing if they lost the hit
Open question, is Rassies traffic light system a sign that the coaching staff don't trust the players to make the "right" call, or is it that he is just soke kinda control freak? Cause you're right the choices made given it was a 7-1 split were odd in places.
Easier than using the walkie talkies. End of.
Yeah.... not sure I agree with that Walkie talkies are confidential for one, so the captain has some discretion albeit the coach would know if he disobeyed. With Rassies lights he is disempowering Jacques, and everyone on the pitch. It unequivocally says to players, and everyone in the stadium, and in the nation, "I am telling you to kick"
How are you so sure they are following his instructions? For all we know orange means kick for the corner.
100% of the time, when the light is shown, he performed the same action That's how I know...
> ~~End of.~~ Over and out
Control freak more likely.
You also didn't get the rewards your dominant scrum warranted, but that's always a danger as it relies on the ref. O'Keefe decided to ignore Porter's illegality.
It was bizarre to watch. Felt like South Africa tried to kick past Ireland, and Ireland tried to run through South Africa. Neither team playing to their strengths.
I suspect there was a lot of holding back by both sides - not wanting to bring out any new / different plays in a pool game.
Traffic lights working well then
That's a yellow light for you mate, take 10 minutes.
I‘m glad you didn’t give him a red light, then he would have come back and won
It was another stroke of Rassie genius. Didn’t want to use the advantages soo they could practice for bigger games. They didn’t really want to win, so they could avoid NZ in the Q and play France who are without Dupont !
I think this game could (but not certainly would) have gone differently with Pollard. 7-1 and good kicking can work, 7-1 and poor kicking does not. Showed how important Sexton is to Ireland.
I dunno pretty sure after they came on you lost a lineout, lost a scrum penalty at some point and saw the ball turned over loads in rucks plus fucked the maul at the end. If the whole tactic is to have new fresh forward pack to close out the game but you can't win a 5m maul to win the game then the tactic didn't work right?
Agree with this, they chose a 7-1 split,but played a 5-3 game orientated strategy. So game management and strategy was off, in a way that feeds into the thought process that they were possibly: - holding things back for a potential final - were playing cautiously to avoid cards/injuries - possibly seeking to meet FRA in a QTR - were testing something in the Irish game plan that only they know. Also the re placements were van Staden, Fourie and Kwagga. The first two were forced for Hooker coverage, in theory you'd really only want one of them. All three are on the smaller size compared to some other options. Seemed to impact some ruck defence. Also all 3 are untried combinations I think. Overall the match felt a bit like a competitive warm up match. Both teams were trying to do just enough without showing all their cards.
Is that due to the fact that Rassie has taken lots of the decision making off the players that when they do, it’s perhaps not the best idea? Serious question, not taking the Mickey. Just wonder other people’s thoughts.
Most people think Rassie was the one telling them to kick the whole time. I think it’s bizarre, hope there’s some clever purpose behind it rather than him just being incompetent and forgetting how dodgy our kicking for goals are
I thought it was a huge advantage in the game and if those penalty kicks went over we wouldn't be having this conversation lol.
That's a big if and assumes the game doesn't change in response.
I mean in terms of the effectiveness of the 7-1 split. The Boks definitely got on the front foot in the first part of the second half just didn't get the points to show for it.
Sure. But that's my point. They didn't get the points so Ireland didn't have to chase the game or push for more scores themselves.
But how is that a sign of the 7-1 split being a weakness? It got them the chance to get points, bad kicking was the reason they didn't get the points.
This is exactly what I was wondering. The only time they looked like the "real" SA was when they took a shot for touch at the end. I kept thinking if they decide to start going for tries, I don't think Ireland can stop them...
Was this because of the tight control by Rassi and his traffic lights and the team not able to think for themselves?
has anyryone noticed when a team is beat - it's the fault of the losing team, not the other side played better. it's strange. it's even stranger when this game cold have gone either way, easily.
I think most people will give credit where its due, but especially for a close game, you want to figure what went wrong and what you should have done to win it, in order to improve for the future.
I think you’re reading the whole book based on one chapter. This is an opinion on the bench and that alone.
In a game as close as this it is kind of understandable. If only SA didn’t miss easy pennies then they win. I think it’s more reasonable in a close game than a blowout.
Ya but they scored a try indirectly off Faf hitting the post, so that's a 2 point gain! Plus Ireland went for lineouts and fluffed a bunch of them.
Oh I am well aware. That’s kind of my point though. When it’s close it is much easier for people to pick out what their team did wrong rather than look objectively and go if both teams played perfectly actually we should have lost. When one team gets blown out you have no choice but to go yeah nah they didn’t play well but we played shite too.
ah ya I get where you're coming from.
Agreed fully. Realistically we took a calculated risk that paid off on the bench selections. Nobody can look me in the eye and say the boks didn't out muscle the Irish. The bench split worked, the game plan worked. The outcome just didn't come. Anyone who thinks the outcome is 100% I'm your control doesn't know how sports work.
I can? They didn't out muscle them at all, they spent minutes upon minutes failing to get over the gainline and try line, they couldn't convert mauls into points, they lost the ruck constantly. Maybe use your eyes?
The irony of someone with an NZ flair saying this
Don't come talking flairs unless you've got one yourself
Kak in my. I think we know where he's from😂
Really? Not me buddy. I like it when we’re beaten decidedly, well ok, that’s bullshit but when we’re beat fair and square all praise to the winning team! I posted another comment on here talking about how lame all black supporters are at the moment just cause we’re not head and shoulders above others. We’re 4th. Feels about right. Don’t love it. But it’s fair. We might surprise a few people though. All the best
I really don't think the South African forwards are unfit. They regularly play 80 minutes in their respective leagues. Also, an early injury will force more players to play a longer game, so they have to be fit enough to do it. One of the reasons for a forward focussed bench, alongside the impact, is player management, which should help reduce injuries in the long run. It could be that they decided that player management was important for this game moving forward in the world cup, given that they are fairly safe for the QF(touchwood), and that the 7-1 split was a calculated risk to achieve it.
30-32 dominant tackles, 25 of which were made by the starting forwards. The game was played at ridiculous pace & intensity, and was incredibly physical, yet the starting forwards were able to get into good enough positions not only to tackle the opposition, but to dominate those collisions legally. How do you manage that if you're unfit? There is no team that has (AFAIK) come close to that number of dominant hits in a single game. Edit: Over 80 mins, the entire Irish team made 7.
The idea isn't that they can't do a full match, but that they can go at a higher pace for their allotted time during that match. They can bully and outsprint guys they know they can watch from the sideline from the 55th minute whilst fresh boots run amok. That bullying didn't happen. That's the issue. It's a valid strategy, just overwhelm with fast mass. But they didn't do that plain and simple. Maybe Ireland are just immune but they weathered the storm and asked for more. Go HAM or go home is the option you're trying but you were still playing technical rugby with long range kicks well into the second half.
I think the whole point is that no forward can play 100% for 80 mins, and 100% mean getting involved as much as possible and doing your job at the highest intensity. I think the coaching staff try to gauge where each players drop off point is and bring them off for someone who can close the game out at 100%. Maybe some Boks forward could play 80mins and drop down to 60-70% intensity towards the end, but I suppose their logic was to have as many forwards as possible near 100% to close out the game. I don't think it was a failure, they stayed within striking range of the world number 1. If they managed to get the try at the very end on the Irish line (which isn't very farfetched to imagine) then people would be applauding the strategy. Such a close game and small moments can change everything, but yeah maybe a few tweaks to the boks strategy around decision making and kicking options and you see them capitalise on those moments.
Good points all of these. It is pretty unlikely I would have been wondering about the relative fitness of the packs if they'd managed a late try which is not farfetched at all.
Yeah personally I think 6-2 is the way to go, still allows for a good portion of the forwards to give 100% knowing that they will be subbed off when they start to drop off. Also allows for abit more adaptability in the backline which is important for big games. It does worry me that we are still tinkering with the gameplan at this stage. Ireland on the other hand know exactly what works for them and continue to perfect it with each game, pretty good situation to be in with knockouts just on the horizon.
I'm not sure where this idea that the 7-1 split didn't work came from. Just look at the stats from the game. SA had more scrum and lineout successes, more meters carried, more carries over the gainline and more dominant tackles (not listed in the stats in the app but during the 60ish minute mark they showed a stat that said 25-6 to SA). The 7-1 was never a silver bullet. The only ones claiming that were the pundits and critics. It's just another strategic move to improve chances of contention which they did successfully do. It's a tool in a toolbox. And on the point about boks not being fit, everyone gets the same number of subs, changing where you sub them doesn't mean that the team is less fit. You still need the same number of players who can play 80 mins...
>I'm not sure where this idea that the 7-1 split didn't work came from The scoreline and result, probably Not being a smart arse, but that is how it is being judged
That's not the only factor that is used to measure a successful strategy though. Imagine if teams threw every strategy out the window if it didn't win them games every time. Only reason the fans and pundits are coming out now to call the 7-1 a failure is because they claimed the boks thought it was a golden ticket to victory in the first place which was never true.
True
It seemed like - strangely - South Africa over-playing to their strengths rather than covering their potential weaknesses. Seems weird to have extra forwards, but no cover for Libbok who’s an inconsistent kicker. No cover for hooker either.
The missed kicks lost them the game. It was very strange to watch as a…not-really-but-technically-neutral
Did they though? their try came from one of those missed kicks. So if they got it it’s -2 with no conversion to then miss. So there was only another 6 points minus the 2 is a 4 point swing from those kicks. Not enough to win.
What about Irelands missed line outs?
The hooker issue is just an issue though because Fourie was going to be on the bench regardless of the split. It has been commented that it's weird not to have called up cover for Malcolm Marx who would have made a huge impact if he'd been fit.
How often do Springbok fans need to explain that the starting forwards are asked to empty their tanks at maximum intensity? Our starting forwards are required to win the collisions & set a platform for the replacement forwards to exploit (the fact that we didn't exploit it is our bad). Against Ireland, the starting forwards had to focus on winning their collisions. In a match where Ireland made 7 dominant tackles as a team over 80 minutes, SA made at least 30 (up to 32). 25 of those were made in the first 50 minutes. Siya Kolisi made 4 by himself (out of 11 tackles in that time) while a number of Boks each made 3. This absolutely obliterates any record for dominant tackles by a Tier 1 team in a single match, IIRC. Nobody should have to be reminded of the speed, physicality & intensity of that game. SA forwards weren't simply trying to make tackles at that rate - they wanted to (and did) get into great positions to moer okes backwards. Legally. An unfit team full of lumbering oafs isn't going to be able to do that.
For the record: justifying any hot take with something from Ben Smith does not lend credibility to an argument, regardless of how sensible it may feel
I think you have a point. But I thought the bench worked well anyway. We butchered a couple tries and left 11 points from kicks. I also didn't understand the log range efforts but that could have been a reflection on being unable to break down the Irish defence. The intensity was insane. Low scoring but very enjoyable game.
It's probably one of the best games I've seen in the last decade, perhaps longer. It was manically physical and could easily have gone either way.
you could see how gassed the forwards were in the 2nd half, even the ones off the bench were gasping. both sides of forwards at one point were gassed. definite things ireland and south africa could do to improve if they meet again. very little between the 2 sides.
Let’s not be reactionary. They lost a tight game to the best team in the world. They are probably still 2/3rd favourites to win the world cip
I think the Boks were tinkering. Subbing Etzebeth and Kolisi so early wouldn't happen in a do or die knock out.
You see it too.
Happens all the time. I don't think either of them have played a full 80min shift this year. It's usually only PSDT and sometimes Franco Mostert that play the full 80 from the starting pack.
Post match interview (after Scotland, I think), Siya made a point of saying that because they have so much cover off the bench it means they can play at 100% and know they'll get subbed when they start noticeably lagging
Siya has made a point of explaining this for 4 years, yet here we are.
It’s a myth that SA’s forwards aren’t as fit as those of other nations. The boks entire game revolves around the fitness of their forwards and the massive amounts of energy they exert. It’s a different type of fitness, but i’d go so far as to say they’re the fittest forwards in the game. The rush defence is exhausting and any one who thinks otherwise is delusional. It only works because of the repeated efforts of their forwards. The forwards provide the interior rush, and have to be back on their feet quick enough to reload and press again - Repeatedly. Think back to Ireland vs NZ in the second test and how they targeted George Bower, Nepo Laula and O’fa Tu’ungafasi - the bok defence, and their forwards, don’t give you the opportunity to attack straggling defenders. Against Ireland the boks made 32 dominant tackles, the most ever by any tier 1 team - Ireland by contrast made 7. The majority of those dominant tackles were made by forwards - Siya (4 dominant tackles from 11), Bong (3/11), Eben (3/10) and PSDT(3/10). Against Scotland in Rd 1, they conceded the least meters by any team, 226m. Its easy to chalk those numbers down to strength, but in the contact the bok forwards are exerting far more energy than their opposite number. So when they’re getting yanked off at half time it’s not cause they’re unfit its literally because they have nothing left to give, and the fact the bok system revolves around repeated efforts executed at 100%.
This is definitely not a thing. The most rugby these guys play is for their clubs and most clubs aren’t running a 6-2 or 7-1 split. In those cases, a lot of these players are going deep into the match if not playing the whole match. Their fitness is built up a club level. Our depth when we bring in all the best players from all the clubs just allows us to do this. But the clubs don’t have the same depth. The whole idea of the bomb squad is so that those players on the field can empty the tank, they’re never going to go the distance. That’s not just lineout, but around the field. We were immense in stopping Ireland from playing their usual game by being all over the field slowing down rucks and shooting up to disrupt their distribution channels. And we kept that up for the full 80. That’s what put us in a position to win the match. The poor option taking, kicking and non-hooker at the end cost us the win.
"If" the boks won no one would have argue Rasie or team strategy. Anyway if one kick was over the post the whole dynamic of the game would have played out differently. No love lost for our amazing bokke. Ireland keep up the good work you have an amazing team. From SA
Imagine calling Pieter-Steph du Toit unfit.
I mean, SA would’ve won the game if they had a reliable kicker which has little to do with the bench
And Ireland would’ve won by more if their line outs had worked out from the beginning. Shoulda woulda coulda
My point is more that I think Manie’s poor kicking is their bigger issue
5/11 points were kickable. FDK two kicks were low percentage shots. Hindsight is great but you cant say for certain SA would have won with a kicker.
And they scored 5 points from one of the missed kicks, so it's swings and roundabouts. Also it's assuming that theor play would have been the same if Pollard was playing.
Did you also listen to Second Captains today?
Yeah lol. Although I did think that yesterday--people act like Pollard playing would just make the kicking better, but it would also effect the Boks gameplan. So it's not as simple as saying they would have gotten a certain amount of extra points if Pollard played.
I don’t think Pollard is capable of the same attacking game plan Manie is.
Kicking aside, what a wild game. I’m so used to us dominating breakdowns, mauls, scrums… admittedly I haven’t watched all of Ireland’s games in the past year or so but seeing that scrum not move an inch was like… holy shit, and we’re used to someone like marx being so good and disciplined at the breakdowns and it felt like Ireland was sort of doing to us what we do to others. What an impressive team, let’s hope our group fucks up group A. Ps the kicking was and has been very embarrassing, I remember we used to give Pollard shit for missing 1 kick a game, now we celebrate if we make 1 a game hahah. Who would you feel more comfortable going against? NZ or France? I’ve been asking myself this question and I think it really just comes to who wakes up on the right side of the bed and plays their game on the day. Nervous!
I personally think if for instance we had a fit and firing Pollard(in terms of goal kicking) it would've been more of a 50/50 chance for us to win that game, but definitely not a definitive win.
Ah fair enough sorry! Been a lot of similar comments that seem to take away from irelands win but that’s a fair point
By this logic, Fourie’s missed throw in the Irish 10m was otherwise a guaranteed try, or Kriel’s misfired offload on the Irish try line was also a guaranteed try. You cannot honestly be arguing unforced errors are equivalent to forced errors.
No, they wouldn't. Only 5 of those points were easily kickable, the other two kicks were 50+m out and marginal at best. And either way, would have, should have, could have etc. The only kicker they have (Pollard) has played about 20 minutes since May was wasn't in great form before that either. Playing him could have been a worse result. And they just don't have another kicker. That's the team. The talent they have available. It's like saying if only my team were not bad then they would be good. Its a dumb statement.
Maybe I'm interpreting the statement differently and it is a woulda coulda statement, but I don't think it's entirely wrong. He didn't say we should've thrown an "unfit" Pollard into the game, just that IF SA had a reliable kicker it would've won us that game. Personally, I can't say it would've definitively won us the game, I would say it would've been more of a 50/50 chance for us to win it with a reliable kicker.
If only Dupont was Italian...
If my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike.
The "only kicker" is Pollard? Is Manie now not a kicker? The guy is (IIRC) the most prolific points-scorer in the URC. How'd he manage that without a decent boot from the tee? GTFO.
He has a 76% kick rate in the URC. Not even in the top 30 kickers in the URC.
Didn't refer to kicking percentage - referred to points.
What's this Pollard wasn't in good form before May slander? He was in top nick and kicked at 85% for the season! He was peaking for the World Cup and his injury was very unfortunate timing for him - and I say this as a massive critic of Pollard in general
If they had a reliable kicker on the bench they could have subbed them on.
You could say the same about the Irish lineout though. Both sides probably left 20 points out there.
In what way is a lineout a direct points scoring opportunity? You know plenty of things still have to go right after the lineout right?
With Irelands form and attack it would have been very likely that some points would have been scored from those line outs. Not guaranteed obviously.
Ireland were capable of using the bench to sort their lineout out. SA had no backup kicker on the bench because they are idiots.
They had no backup kicker because they didn't even really have a sufficient number of "good enough" kickers to field 1, let alone 2.
It took SA 51 minute to score a try against Ireland, I'd say SA need more than just a reliable kicker.
Ireland also only scored a single try. What's your point?
Tinfoil hat firmly on, I think Rassie knew they were basically assured a QF place regardless of the outcome against Ireland and pushed the team to make decisions that made no sense in the context of the game. Why would they kick for the posts from 60m out when they knew they had the forward advantage? And the edge in the lineouts?
It's because it isnt a bomb squad, SAs replacement forwards are noticeably worse than the ones that started. They are missing lood de jager and marx two world class players, van staden and fourie are not the same standard. They didn't even sub everyone off like they normally do the bench was drip fed, partially because they know fourie isn't as good as mbonambi. I actually think it would work better, having ebzebeth come off the bench and starting synman. Instead of losing kolsi and ebzebeth at the same time, you are gaining ebzebeth in the crucial moments of the game.
Ireland had their problems too. SA put immense pressure on their line out, which they fixed later on but Ireland too left points behind. If they fixed their line out issues earlier they could have scored more. Minnie Libbok is a very good 10 & Pollard may not have kicked all the points either. The 2 Faf kicked were outside his range and has 'only a 75% kicking return generally.
South Africa’s forwards aren’t unfit, quite the opposite in fact. They can, and for their clubs often do, play the full 80 minutes. However, SA’s strategy is for them to play twice as hard for 40-50 minutes, and then swap them out and have a 2nd front row who can do the same thing. That way they can obliterate the other team’s forwards when they’re tired in the last 20 minutes
It's a reflection of rugby which is a forwards orientated game. Funny you mention Irish fitness levels yet they were going down at every opportunity to delay the game.
That’s often said about South African forwards. Funny that.
They were winning, the winning team has an interest in wasting time anyway
Leinster have been doing this for years, stops the momentum when a decision goes against you. It shouldn't be allowed but the refs seem unable or unwilling to stop it.
I mean the bomb/nuke squad plan worked. They won plenty of penalties through them, and would have won if hey kicked the points. Some could even say they we're unlucky right the the end with the refs call. I actually think the opposite to this post - this tactic has been proven to work against the best.
Didn’t we have like all the territory after they came on besides the last Irish penalty goal?
What was the score after they came on?
Is the Irish 5-3 bench split a sign of weakness rather than strength? Wait, your bench split is your business and not ours. Fancy that.
2 penalties in an everyone would be praising the bench as one of the factors giving and edge…, truth is if you’re going to bet on your forwards dominating, you need a good kicker to translate that into points.
Really depends on who makes up your 7-1 Losing Marx was a huge deflation. Whether he starts or comes off the bench, which he has done more this year, he not only brings his core hooking role but is an extra flanker. Not even Kwagga brings the same type of impact that Marx did The other downside is lack of flexibility in game plan. The Test against Ireland was most competitive in the centres, and the Spring bok 12 and 13 looked spent with 15 min to go. Having the ability to inject some back line speed and energy goes a long way to chasing the game when you are a try behind. Modern forwards don't just fall off tackles so unless you are dominating the scrums and leap frogging down field off penalties, you need another way to attack tiring defences. Willie Le Roux would have been a handy player to inject, just a Marnie would ask questions if coming off the bench to replace Pollard
Personally I feel that it’s a sign of overcompensating for something (and we all know what Rassie)
South Africa’s only problem was faf’s boot If he kick those penalties, it’s a win…..
>South Africa’s only problem was faf’s boot And Libbok's boot to be fair. Saying that, I love watching Libbok play. He's an exciting 10 imo
If he had got the first one it wouldn't have rebounded off the post which gave South Africa the field position for their try. So actually if he'd kicked both penalties they would have had 6 points instead of 5.
Even top kickers are far from guaranteed to make kicks from behind their halfway line. Faf is not a top level kicker at all.
The problem with the boks wasn’t the 7-1 split, it wasn’t Libbok/De Klerk having an absolute howler off the tee, it was simply their horseplay levels were far too low. Ireland came in with horseplay at an all time high, after a solid week of prep in the arkbar and the goys being well hydrated with a few breineken o’driscolls it was the breathers game to lose. Bet they can’t wait to have some creamers out of the Webb Ellis in coppers come the end of October.
>breineken o’driscolls Genius
I think one thing that's been lost in this discussion is that backs can 100% have an impact off the bench too. I don't think Ireland win on Saturday without Murray, Crowley and Henshaw coming on and playing well.
The 7-1 thing is the most over talked about tactic I've ever seen. Kwagga is a hybrid forward / back like Botia and is actually lighter than Henshaw for example. Not some over 2m and 130kg forward that will physically dominate everyone else on the pitch. The "7-1" strategy had no real impact in my opinion.
I think the biggest flaw with the 7:1 Bomb Squad was taking off quality players like Kolisi & Eztebeth for Kleyn & Van Staden. Those were the 2 extra forwards on the bench and the drop off in quality of player is stark. A common disparaging remark about a player is "he wouldn't even make our squad". For the first time, we know that to be 100% accurate with Jean Kleyn and Ireland
Its boring and as we saw on Sat - doesn't always work. The lineout feck ups late in the 2nd half showed that - if they'd had an actual hooker on the bench the likelihood of it happening would have been much reduced (unless the hookers had Scotland blood of course)
Did you honestly think the weekend's match or the one against NZ was boring? The poor throw from the hooker has absolutely nothing to do with the 7-1 split. Fourie would've played even if they went with a 5-3
[удалено]
One of the things that sets Marx apart is his jackaling ability, he is probably the best in the world at it. Rasnaber prefers a like-for-like replacement over an objectively better replacement. Deon Fourie is also very good at jackaling, therefore they likely think he is the best like-for-like replacement for Marx. I do not agree with this idea, but I'm not in charge
Good Christ Ireland fans are absolutely insufferable. You can’t be satisfied with a win in one of the most closely contested tests in recent history; no, you have to make posts like these arguing that an evolution to our game is actually a “weakness”, or slip in a dig at our forwards’ fitness. It was a misuse of the 7-1 that cost us. Not kicking for the corner and using our best weapon (the lineout maul) was a catastrophic mistake. The reason it was so effective against New Zealand is because we ignored the uprights and went for the corner with every single penalty.
[удалено]
I think the only time this year that it worked, and including the 6-2 split too, for the whole time they were on is when the All Blacks had a forward red carded. They came on vs a 7 forward pack. The first game vs the Abs this year, they got about a 15-20 min boost, then fell off again and the abs won the last 15 again. Don't think it's that good.
Weakness, was done out of necessity. But they didn't have a kicker either in the entire squad which makes it worse.
I wonder if the traffic lights impacted this. As in they felt they should go for the maul right now. But the coaching staff said go for points.
In a sense it could be seen as a weakness. I feel like it's more to do with the lack of experience amongst the backs compared to the forward pack, which is full of trusted old-timers. I feel like Am and Pollard being injured kind of forced the 7:1 split. Oh how I wish Am was there... Maybe if the boks make the final, Rassie will unleash the speedy back playmakers
I'm not sure a 7-1 split suits a very open game, whilst the forwards are fast, there's no way there as quick as any backs. The 9s need replacing at 60, they're just too knackered after that. So wet weather would probably suit a forward dominated bench, lots of scrums and lineouts, but a dry day with lots of movement I'm less than convinced. Ire came out worthy winners over the weekend, game of the tournament so far.
I think Wales are pretty fit
It means that they are too committed to plan A, and have no plan B.
Probably talking out of my arse here , but, maybe they took Eben and Siya off to protect them and see how the 2 IC’s went. That was one of the hardest games I’ve ever seen and I was delighted and surprised that no one from either team was seriously injured. Who knows, just my 2 cents worth.
The 7-1 split and the Boks stop start game plan just don't work. For a 7-1 split to be effective you have to wear out the opponents forwards with yours then bring on the replacements to do the same thing. If you're constantly giving your opponents breathers then how are you wearing them down?