1
Irish TV pundit clips up 12 incidents where Boks beasted All Blacks
In the aftermath of what was another epic contest in the 2023 Rugby World Cup final, there has been plenty said about how the Springboks edged the All Blacks 12-11 at the Stade de France in Paris.
ADVERTISEMENT
While New Zealand lost their captain to a red card, they lifted their play and had multiple opportunities to score and even take the win, despite trailing all match.
Some fans and pundits have been quick to focus on referee calls, or even the missed Jordie Barrett penalty, as reasons why New Zealand lost, so it was refreshing to come across the views of former Leinster stalwart and Ireland hooker Bernard Jackman, who has looked at things from a defensive point of view.
He’s perfectly illustrated how South Africa’s well disciplined and well executed defensive strategies are what actually won them the match, putting pressure on New Zealand and in a lot of cases, putting an immediate stop to their attacking efforts.
Led by workhorse flanker Pieter-Steph du Toit, who famously made 28 tackles in the final, the Springboks showed that it’s clearly not always attack that wins big matches.
“It was beauty and the beast – the best attacking side that went into the world cup against the best defensive side,” said Jackman on RTE Sport.
“They (the Springboks) pressure everything. They just make you make mistakes through their physical presence, through the speed that they come at you, and it’s phenomenal.
ADVERTISEMENT
Jackman takes us through a selection of clips from the final, displaying how the rush defence forced errors from the usually very slick All Blacks side, who a week prior had easily beaten Argentina by forty points.
“The All Blacks had no handling error against Ireland, and they had seven or eight in this game, and it’s not by chance, it’s not down to the weather. It’s down to the pressure.”
Had a chance to breakdown one of the best defensive displays I have ever seen for @RTEsport this week on #againstthehead . Can’t wait to see what Jacques Nienaber does with the Leinster Defence #RWC23Final pic.twitter.com/dzPmRavq96
— Bernard Jackman (@bernardjackman) November 1, 2023
The analysis appears to have been appreciated by both South African and neutral fans alike.
Bernard. Thank you for your unbiased comments and pointing out the obvious. It is a delight to listen to someone like yourself, obviously someone with character and integrity with loads of rugby experience. 🏉
— Marius Coetzer (@MariusinDubai) November 2, 2023
Another great piece mate! Nice to see a pundit highlighting a key area where the game was won and lost, and not talking shite about the referees or something else irrelevant.
— Darren Cave (@darrencave13) November 1, 2023
It’s going to be very interesting to see how quickly Jacques Nienaber’s influence is felt at @leinsterrugby. Toughening up the defence was apparently the main reason for recruiting him.
— Kevin Coughlan (@KevinFCoughlan) November 2, 2023
I’m a Kiwi and stout All Blacks fan but I don’t think this is unreasonable analysis. However, the notion of the Springboks having an unbreakable defence is more of a cultural stereotype as, in all honesty, the stats just don’t quite add up in this WC to support that point.
SA conceded tries and missed tackles during the knockout games they played in - quite a lot of them, really. I think the critical factor for them was more to do with attitude and confidence, while also using their bench effectively to target the breakdown area late in the game especially. Against France, England and New Zealand they were outplayed for large portions of the game but held on enough to be able to exploit weaknesses when it counted.
For France, their essential weakness (after losing their big lock, Willemse especially) was an inability to slow down and control a game. They attacked aggressively but couldn’t consolidate their lead through set piece control. They could only play at hyper speed, which allowed SA to meet fire with fire using high ball attacking and simple driving play. Every time France scored, SA came straight back at them.
For England, their essential weakness was an inability to score tries as well as a weak reserve front row. They couldn’t accumulate enough points while dominant, which kept SA in touching distance and gave an easy target for SA at the scrum to earn penalties towards the end.
For New Zealand, their weakness stemmed from ill discipline, which itself stemmed from a underlying lack of confidence based on several years of shaky results. When things didn’t go to plan - like referee/TMO decisions not going their way - you could palpably sense a degree of panic in their game. This led to desperate high tackles and the like even when they weren’t needed. This was true throughout the last few years, to be honest. Past NZ teams weren’t necessarily better in any technical sense but were mentally stronger...more confident that things would turn in their favour eventually.
They had it against Ireland, but that was after months of analysis, a very smooth build up in the Group stages, and they were helped a little by Irish overconfidence too. SA weren’t overconfident as much as they were cussed and defiant which is a different mindset.
If teams want to learn from the World Cup and improve next time, they need to honestly address these weaknesses rather than beating their nationalistic chests or blaming the referee.
Sjoe. I’m jelly of Leinster already.
An attack mindset in defence is very clever. Instead of being passive - you maximize every minute of the game whether you have the ball or not. Nienaber will be missed but long may his influence last.
209 tackles v 92 is an INSANE stat for a final. I’ve always thought, this is a game of who wants it more and the Boks wanted it more. 209 vs 92 shows who wanted it more.
The fact is this.
This All Blacks side was one of the worst on record, coached by the worst coach in our history. First, world cup pool loss, Argie home loss, Irish home series loss, 69% win record for a coach is horrific, most losses as an AB coach.
And worst of all - the head to head records v our arch rivals, Ireland, SA and France. Here Foster came in at 38%.
I don’t know why we are all disappointed about the final loss because the numbers above tell a story of a team that should have just got out of pool play and got shot.
One could not read a more vacuous & self involved article, ie less than half of it was the article itself, the rest quotes praising itself ie summary, defence stops attack, if it works. Rocket science.
England would be slammed if it had won the same way. Apparently the same makes the Bok superheroes. Pathetic insecurity.
What a bad example, to say their defence won them the game when they missed 37 tackles highlights that the defence wasn’t that good against 14 players.
Geees give it a bone !!!!
Rubbish!
Really nicely put, never looked at it from this angle but that is impressive.
The problem is words like “actually” and “always” as if defensive intensity and strategy are not “playing” rugby or not conducive to a “positive, flowing game.” As Wittgenstein and co. have taught us, the problem is in our language.
No other team defends like the Springboks, Best D in this universe ;p. I hope this team can take it up a gear from here!!!