Schalk Burger responds to 'broken record' criticism of Bok tactics

Woke Matt Williams.

The Bok bashing and whining is getting really boring - and I’m an ABs supporter. It doesn’t matter how they play, someone needs to have a big whinge about it. If it’s in the rules then they can do whatever they want and everyone else can just stay bitter about not thinking of it first.

Matt Williams. Who?

Mr. Williams, as an ancient myself who played with other ancients. I was once made to scrum at prop weighing just over 78kg’s and another time at tighthead weighing less because there were no reserves. That's dangerous.

Brian Moore jumped on your train Matt, and he forgot that the England pack outweighed us in the RWC game. But who cares right if it ain't wearing green and gold right Matt?

Also Matt, there weren't 14 forwards on the field only 8, which is standard. But, Brian Moore's England boasted 9 forwards on the park against Japan. Against the most diminutive pack of forwards. No problem hey Brian, Mr. Williams et al.? Discriminatory rugby against shorter, and lighter guys . The bullies from England hey Matt.

Now, discrimination against backs….. Matt, rugby is about creating mismatches. So when Jonah Lomu steps Brian Moore is it disrimination against the fatties. I ask as a person who was a fat teenager? Could Iitigate against those wings who used to round me on the pitch? Do you think I might win my case Matt?

Was Lomu discriminating against Rory Underwood when he trucked over him? On account of his size. Rory being a Brit and culturally smaller you know Matt?

NZ have always had discriminatory wings in the same vein as Lomu that discriminate against smaller opposition. It dates back to your days Matt. Guys like BG Williams, Lomu, The Bus and Rokocoko are all guilty of discrimination against smaller, slower, fatter, less fit players. Victor Matfield discriminates against shorties and Joe Marler against skinny fellows.

1. It’s within the laws

2. Nothing stopping the opposition from doing the same.

3. The sport has changed and can’t be compared with other eras, just like we can’t realistically pick a world XV across generations.

Agree with Schalk, this guy is starting to embarrass himself. He has a Springbok issue not a 6-2 issue. If he had a true issue with 6-2, he would have been as critical about it when Ireland tried it too. Selective memory makes you look stupid.

I doubt even 1% of rugby fans have any kind of issue with this. It is a tactic like any other that comes down to execution rather than theory.

Teams have to innovate in line with the game and rules. The game is so forward and collision dominated at the moment, and is also very slow, so having two sets of extra large forwards makes complete sense. It is a perfect response to the current environment.

It is dishonest for pundits to keep saying this is some how “dangerous”. Also debatable if it even gives any kind of advantage. SA have won their last 4 games against other top teams by a combined 10 points. Hardly evidence of an unfair advantage or dangerous tactics being deployed.

The concepts of 5:3, 6:2, 7:1 etc are meaningless from a Laws perspective. You are entitled to bring any bench player on as a forward or a back, and at any time during the game. The only restriction is that a player coming into a front row position must be qualified for that exact position (TH, LH, Hooker) in this format of rugby. Even then, there is no technical requirement for there to be any such players on the bench. As long as you have the six front rowers in the squad of 23 you’re good. It never happens, but technically your replacement front rowers could be starters in other positions. In that case your bench could have eight hybrid players, eight scrum-halves, or whatever.

So to stop “discriminating against backs” you would have to completely change the model and be explicit about which positions a specific substitute can be assigned to. That’s nuts in general, but it also raises the point that key positions like FlyHalf and FullBack are not even mentioned in the Laws.

This seems to be a discussion about small margins anyway. Is a Bomb Squad of six forwards really that different from a Bomb Squad of five forwards? The scary thing about the Bok Bomb Squad is not the number of people, or whether they come on simultaneously, but the fact that they are comparable in quality to the starting pack. Or, to put it differently, if the Bomb Squad was a major step-down in quality from the starting pack then the bleating and whining would not take place.

By the way, if it is dangerous to have fresh players playing against tired ones then should it be illegal to fail to use your substitutes?

Change the rules to say ‘Whatever Matt wants to do’

I’m sure the Irish don’t want a failed Aussie complaining on their behalf

So what - it’s different and it works for the Boks

In fact other teams have employed it since

They have a player like Kwagga who can play in the backs which helps

The 7-1 is risk v reward as it only takes a key injury or two especially in the first half to scupper the effect and have the opposite

Also the 6-2 if the starters aren’t performing then it loses its impact too

There is discussion about the merits of the ABs doing it given Englands scrummaging issues but I don’t believe it will happen

I can’t think of a forward other than Ardie who could play in the backs and I can’t imagine he would be keen

They would have to start BB and McKenzie or drop one of BB or Perofeta then have perhaps a half back and someone like Rieko who can cover midfield and wing

Funnily England could do it as Earl played 12 against Japan

Burger spouts utter 💩 at all times to keep his other SA thickos happy.

He is a clear case for the dangerous combination of a third world education and ‘CTE.

And a primary reason for his other SA thickos also spewing an enormous amount of ignorant 💩 at all times.

This whole debate is a Non-Starter. The rules allow teams to do what they want as long as they have 2 props and a hooker on the bench. You then choose what you wanna do. The Boks bringing on all 6 forwards at once is a risk because the players wont be as fresh as the opposition who may hold back subs. It can also lead to a disjointed performance where the change stagnates the momentum. Theres nothing inherently dangerous about it. Different teams use different tactics. Thats part of the game. One might use a 5-3 or a 6-2 or 7-1. Each one has its merits. The Boks can bring on 6 at once because they know the risks but have the experience and depth to do it. Not many other nations have the confidence or depth to do that. If they did they may just do it but again its the coaches prerogative.

I wonder if Matt Williams followed cricket in the 70’s/80’s when the Windies had 4 seam bowlers who all were about 8ft tall. If he did he would have been outraged at the unfairness of it all. The Boks are in a very good place right now and many simply don’t like it. Sport is cyclical- it will swing back to another team at some point but rules shouldn’t be changed because one team dominates whilst performing within the parameters. In fact, I have many non Saffa friends who love the bomb squad. There is real appreciation when they line up to come on. It’s entertaining Matt. Get over it or get more Skeltons in the Aussie team.

Oh FFS, how much longer is this failed coach going to harp on about SA’s bomb squad?

Here’s the thing, Mattie: The bomb squad is legal. If any team decided to put eight forwards it would still be legal. The only requirement for the bench is (iirc) that there must be two props and a hooker.

Do you understand that? Whether you like it or not has exactly f-all to do with the matter. Go to World Rugby. Whine in their ears and see whether anything happens.

You’ve unsuccessfully impersonated a rugby coach and now you’re unsuccessfully impersonating a rugby pundit. Please stop. If necessary, seek professional help.