'Vulnerable': Steve Hansen warns Springboks over risky bench tactic

The question Hansen should be pondering is: How many times has a 6/2 split worked for the Boks and how many times has it failed the Boks. The answer is easy if you know your rugby.

Click bait. SH knows full well the power and influence the reformatted approach to using the bench that the Springboks have largely been the main pioneers. Of course there are vulnerabilities to any strategy otherwise teams would be invincible. Not possible

are we back in 2023 or what🤔same old smack

The ABs can absolutely do a 6-2 or even a 7-1 at a pinch

I can see them going 6-2 for the first test

If Vaai plays blindside which is probable

Then it’s a front row, a lock, two loosies and a half back and ALB or Rieko

If Fainga’anuku was fit he’s midfield, wing and openside

If they want 7-1 it’s tricky but lose those backs and add Carter who has played half back and definitely midfield and outsides

Can’t see that but you never know

I think Steve Hansen’s warning is fair in theory, but this article misses the crucial difference between the Stormers’ situation and the Springboks’.

The Stormers lost two scrumhalves in the same match and did not have the same level of built-in versatility that South Africa’s Test squad carries. Using that as a warning for Rassie Erasmus is a bit like using a provincial injury crisis to predict a Formula 1 team’s pit strategy.

The whole reason the Springboks can use a 6–2 or even 7–1 split is that they don’t select specialists in narrow boxes. They select hybrids.

Cheslin Kolbe has already shown he can cover scrumhalf in an emergency, not just wing and fullback. Damian Willemse can play 10, 12, 15 and even wing. Canan Moodie can cover centre and wing.

Then you have the truly unusual South African hybrids who blur the line between backs and forwards. Pieter-Steph du Toit has operated on the wing in Test rugby despite being one of the world’s premier forwards. André Esterhuizen has the size and skill set to shift from inside centre to flank or even No. 8 in certain scenarios.

That is not a weakness; it is a deliberate squad-building philosophy.

Hansen says the 6–2 split makes you vulnerable if things go wrong. Of course it does. Every bench split involves trade-offs. A 5–3 split makes you more vulnerable to multiple forward injuries. A 4–4 split reduces your forward impact.

The real question is whether the upside outweighs the risk.

South Africa have won World Cups, Rugby Championship titles and major series while using these splits. At some point it stops being a gamble and starts being evidence.

The irony is that the article ends by noting Dave Rennie says the All Blacks are considering a 6–2 split because they believe they have the versatility to do it.

So the conclusion becomes rather amusing: when South Africa use a 6–2 split, it is “vulnerable”; when New Zealand consider using one, it is “innovative”.

Springboks lost their only hooker in the RWC Final, NZ actually changed their tactics to “avoid” kicking to touch. Can you believe it?

I think you’re fine to run 6-2 with this level of opposition common.

Did Hansen just wake up now to the risks of a 6/2 bench. Well Steve if you paid attention to the GOAT coach he will tell you that Cheslin covers 9 in the event that both 9’s go down. Then the GOAT coach will tell you that every backline player is expected to have the skills to play in two or more positions. It goes much deeper because one or two forwarde will also need to have the versatility of playing in the backline and vice versa - it’s called hybrids!

Esterhuizen needs to be on the bench again. Covers 6 and 12. More of a 5.5/2.5 split if anything.

The only problem with that is that he would take a bench spot away from the brilliant Paul de Villiers (unless Siya is still injured, then Paul de Villiers will likely start at 6)

Maybe if uncle Steve was paying attention he would have noted that the Springboks have moved on from a pure 6/2 split.

With utility player Andre Esterhuizen on the bench its a 5 & 1/2 / 3 & 1/2

So nice of Steve Hansen to be concerned about the welfare of the Bok team.

A 5-3 split wouldn’t have helped being 2 scrum halves down.

I don’t think the issue was 6-2 - the issue was losing 2 half backs. That created a massive hole in a key position. And it’s about being smart - Rassie uses a hybrid as the extra forward - eg Esterhuizen or a multi skilled player like Kwagga, or a back like Williams who can play wing as well. The thing about 6-2 is that is allows most of the forwards to max out at about 45 minutes. The Boks are able to up the pressure while most teams are struggling.