Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

The Springboks have little-to-no attacking arsenal as arrogant selections cripple the team

By Rugby365
South African players gather after their defeat to Australia after the Rugby Championship match between Australia and South Africa at Adelaide Oval on August 27, 2022, in Adelaide. (Photo by BRENTON EDWARDS/AFP via Getty Images)

In the aftermath of the Springboks’ dismantling at the hands of the Wallabies in Adelaide, it appears to have been another case of ‘insanity’ by the Bok brains trust.

ADVERTISEMENT

They are ploddingly sticking to what worked three years ago, even if the cracks already started to show.

The Springboks, as everyone knows, pride themselves on three things.

Those are a good kicking game, set piece dominance and rock solid defence.

When they get it right on the day – as we saw in the first Test against New Zealand in Nelspruit – it is a thing of beauty.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

However, what happens if even one of those areas malfunctions?

It becomes a domino effect. Everything tends to crash, panic mode sets in and there is never a Plan B or Plan C to fall back on.

The Springboks have little to no attacking arsenal and literally rely on individual brilliance to save the day – as Cheslin Kolbe did against the British and Irish Lions and Am did against New Zealand at Ellis Park.

As we saw in Johannesburg in Round Two of the Rugby Championship, sometimes not even that is enough.

ADVERTISEMENT

Bashing it up around the corner with one-off runners is easy to defend if you know it’s coming.

Against Australia, in Adelaide, we saw the hosts playing a far more intelligent brand, with average players, against a side stacked with players other nations envy and getting the victory.

Related

A lot of talk came from the coaching and management about blooding players for the next world cup in France.

COVID-19 did rob them of a whole season of doing so.

The series against the B&I Lions was very much an emergency job, where going with the tried and tested was justified.

ADVERTISEMENT

However, what happened after that?

Admittedly players like Aphelele Fassi, Rosko Specman, Jasper Wiese, Kurt-Lee Arendse, Evan Roos and Elrigh Louw were capped.

However, looking at the playing time for these guys – with the exception of Wiese – they didn’t play a lot of Test rugby.

If you look at the team selection for the second Test against New Zealand, Duane Vermeulen started – after coming back from surgery and played ahead of Wiese.

The latter did nothing wrong the week before.

How can that be justified? They know what they have in Vermeulen and it wouldn’t have done any damage to either let him play off the bench, or even let him regain fitness in the upcoming United Rugby Championship – then get him in for the year-end tour and give Evan Roos a proper run.

The same scenario played itself out with Elton Jantjies in the first Test against Wales.

This past weekend there was Francois Steyn, who came in off the bench after last playing for the Cheetahs against Griquas in a Currie Cup match back in May.

I just get the feeling reputation is what is important for the coaching and management and not form.

Have we not learnt from previous post-World Cup winning years on how to better manage players who are in their twilight years and let them be mentors for the next generation – as Schalk Brits were during the 2019 World Cup and Willie le Roux currently is for Damian Willemse?

Related

The Springboks will play England outside the international window on their year-end tour and will most likely be without their overseas-based players.

In the absence of Vermeulen and Wiese, Will Evan Roos start – given that he just has 46 minutes of Test rugby to his credit?

Will the same thing happen with Elrigh Louw?

What about the centres?

De Allende (free agent) and Esterhuizen are both overseas.

Will Willemse be shifted to No.12 and Fassi play fullback?

It could have catastrophic effects and full blame should lay on the coaches and management, because of their arrogance in selection and lack of evolution in their approach to the game ahead of the 2023 World Cup.

Angus Opperman
@AngyboyJ
@rugby365com

ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 6

Sam Warburton | The Big Jim Show | Full Episode

Japan Rugby League One | Sungoliath v Eagles | Full Match Replay

Japan Rugby League One | Spears v Wild Knights | Full Match Replay

Boks Office | Episode 10 | Six Nations Final Round Review

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | How can New Zealand rugby beat this Ireland team

Beyond 80 | Episode 5

Rugby Europe Men's Championship Final | Georgia v Portugal | Full Match Replay

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

B
Bull Shark 2 hours ago
Jake White: Are modern rugby players actually better?

Of the rugby I’ve born witness to in my lifetime - 1990 to date - I recognize great players throughout those years. But I have no doubt the game and the players are on average better today. So I doubt going back further is going to prove me wrong. The technical components of the game, set pieces, scrums, kicks, kicks at goal. And in general tactics employed are far more efficient, accurate and polished. Professional athletes that have invested countless hours on being accurate. There is one nation though that may be fairly competitive in any era - and that for me is the all blacks. And New Zealand players in general. NZ produces startling athletes who have fantastic ball skills. And then the odd phenomenon like Brooke. Lomu. Mcaw. Carter. Better than comparing players and teams across eras - I’ve often had this thought - that it would be very interesting to have a version of the game that is closer to its original form. What would the game look like today if the rules were rolled back. Not rules that promote safety obviously - but rules like: - a try being worth 1 point and conversion 2 points. Hence the term “try”. Earning a try at goals. Would we see more attacking play? - no lifting in the lineouts. - rucks and break down laws in general. They looked like wrestling matches in bygone eras. I wonder what a game applying 1995 rules would look like with modern players. It may be a daft exercise, but it would make for an interesting spectacle celebrating “purer” forms of the game that roll back the rules dramatically by a few versions. Would we come to learn that some of the rules/combinations of the rules we see today have actually made the game less attractive? I’d love to see an exhibition match like that.

29 Go to comments
FEATURE
FEATURE Will forgotten Wallabies fit the Joe Schmidt model? Will forgotten Wallabies fit the Joe Schmidt model?
Search