So how good are the Springboks?

So South Africa managed to pull it off and retain the Rugby World Cup. But this raises for me the question of just how good are they?

In my opinion they are a team that has exceeded the sum of their parts - take the 2011-2015 All Blacks as the most immediate comparison as the other team to have retained the RWC, and you have a team with at least 2 players who redefined the level of play for their positions (Carter, McCaw), a number of other greats and a team who dominated through the majority of that period. By contrast, who are the greats in the SA team? Etzebeth certainly, Faf de Klerk maybe. The front rows have great strength in depth but does any one individual really stand out as head and shoulders better than either their team mates or opposition? Back row I could argue for Vermulen in 2019, but he's not the player he was, and the rest of the back row are very good but again a case of a strong unit rather than great individuals.

I'm not sure they were the strongest team in the tournament in 2019 - I'd have fancied the All Blacks to beat them, and they benefited from England just not turning up for the final. Still, undoubtedly worthy champions, but certainly not a much stronger team than their opposition.
This tournament they lost to Ireland and then scraped through the QF thanks to a conversion charge down and the semi final thanks to a dominant scrum and a penalty in the last 5 minutes. And then in the final had the luck to play against 14 for something like 65 minutes, between the yellow and red card, and even then could have lost if New Zealand had converted either the conversion or penalty they missed late on.
Yes, winning tight games is a very good skill to have, and shows that there is a certain bloody-mindedness about the team, but there's definitely a little luck involved along the way.

I don't know howgood they are. Comparing them to NZ of 2011-2015 they don't stack up comparing greats, Carter and MCaw are greats of the game, if you start listing greats you think Lomu, Carter, McCaw.

The reason is each of those three redefined their positions.

You could call players like Etsebeth a South African great, PSDT and a few others, but none of them redefined their position.

Comparing teams results, the Boks don't stack up to their record either, the AB's during that time had a 90% or something close to it, this Bok team under Nienaber has a 70% win record.

I don't think it is realistic to compare one team to another from different eras either,

When comparing playing styles is where these comparisons become completely subjective as well. South Africa is a pragmatic team, and mostly conservative, they don't entertain like the All Blacks, and they never will.

That doesn't mean they can't play attractive rugby, they do, there are enough examples over the past three years that they do. People just conveniently chose to forget it. Over this world cup cycle 75% of their tries were scored by the backline.

There is often criticism that the Boks don't play attacking rugby by building phases, and that most of their tries come from mistakes from the opposition, people conveniently ignore the fact that NZ is and has been the most destructive team on turnover ball for more than a decade.

The majority of their scores come from opposition mistakes and counter moves.

So I suppose it very much depends on how a person wants to look at a team, how they prefer to write a narrative for a team.

As I said, the Springboks are pragmatic first and formost. They can play conservative rugby, they can play attacking rugby and they will always focus on set piece, kicking and ferocious defence.

I was having this conversation with my son just yesterday, he wanted to know why we are seen as the biggest most physical players.

The way I see it is we aren't that much bigger, we aren't that much stronger, these days all professionals gym, train, have conditioning, strength and fitness coaches, so if we did perhaps have a natural advantage in the amateur era, we don't anymore.

South Africans live a different life than many first world countries, to be South African your daily life is a challenge of being resilient for many different reasons, you live around violent crime, you life in a community where load shedding, unreliable public services, poor roads etc are the norm. It breeds a resilience to overcome things other people won't understand if they don't live here.

Then we also have this beautiful climate, sunshine most of the year, we eat meat and I think all these factors make us fighters, hard headed and create a never say die attitude.

The reality is we aren't a very popular nation/team. People look from the outside and say we are obnoxious, arrogant, whingers etc.

Every world cup we have won there has been some degrading criticism of justification why we won.

1995 we had Suzie take care of the All Blacks
2007 we were fortunate that we didn't have to face the top teams.
2019 we had an easy draw and England removed NZ on our behalf.
This time round it was Ben O'Keefe and Barnes that gave us the wins.

So often you will find this us vs them attitude amongst Siuth African supporters, unfortunately there are some really distasteful Springbok supporters as well.

To sum up, if you are looking for the most talented, most exciting team with players that redefine rugby, you aren't going to find them at the Springboks, but if you are looking for a team that has more grit, more determination and bloodyminded attitude, you will find it in the South African psyche.

The queston at the end of the day, is where would each individual categorise a rugby nation that has won 50% of the rugby world cups they have entered?

Old Man
Thanks for a considered response.
What I should have said about the current Bok team is that they have a god balance between overwhelming power inthe forwards and a little sprinkle of magic in the outer backs, in particular Kolbe. Yes, neither the final nor semi-final were games to let the backline flow, but you definitely have some good weapons out there - it's often just a case of choosing when to use them.

Good point about exploiting opposition mistakes - it's often the best time to launch an attack because the opposition are disorganised, and if you have the speed and elusiveness to exploit the space then good luck to you (something England haven't had for a while...)

I also did the bit of comparison with the 2011-2015 ABs not just because they were the other team to retain, but because they are not so far removed in time that the game has changed hugely in structural ways (definitely no point comparing with the amateur era - way too many differences) - yes, tactics have evolved a bit more to playing without the ball, but the changes are more towards a pragmatic game plan, and certainly the Boks are expert at that,

I think the biggest difference between SA and NZ is the Boks play direct rugby, so when they build phases they will use the shortest line between point A and point B. They don't shift the ball as much as NZ or Ireland, I am thinking specifcally inside the red zone, it will be one pass and then maybe an offload to shift the point of contact.

NZ and Ireland will play direct to pull the defences in, then go wide to wide to exploit space.

When coming from deep, NZ and Ireland will play as many ohases as they can, where as South Africa will play not more than half a dozen phases before going to a kick as they believe (and statistics has proven) the more phases you play in usccession the kess chance you have of scoring a try.

I just want to add that it needs to be considered that this Springbok team had to manage the other five top six teams over a seven week period and the physical and mental fatigue must have been playing a role by the time they got to the smie final.

Looking at their oerformance against England some of the olayers were pulling hard on their reserves to get thiugh the game, Etzebeth as an example pay more minutes than most in the oack and his performance was sub par and got oulled early.

Which in my opinion meant Nienaber and Rassie decided on a game plan that would conserve energy to get through the rest of the tournament. Which they managed to do in the end.

Compare that with the route NZ and England had, it was a breeze in comparison. I doubt entertainment was on their mind at the business end of the tournament.

'they benefited from England just not turning up for the final' - Get real man

Maybe the Boks just did not turn up for the semi this year after the immense QF? Importantly they still found a way to win. Something New Zealand didn't do in 19 against England. I remember after that match articles about how England has redefined how rugby should be played, set the new bar for the world to follow etc. Suddenly the Boks smash them in the final and they are no longer the messiahs of the game. It's a joke.

Beating THAT French team at a home WC by 1 point is suddenly a failure? The same French team that dominated the All Blacks easily.

No one mentions that Bryce Lawrence saved the All Blacks from facing the Boks in 2011 or that they barely scraped past the French in the final so were actually not worthy winners for example. It would be ridiculous right? Or that their 2015 win was not amazing because they just squeezed past the Boks in the SF?

This RWC, the Boks can say they had the best scrum, line out (when a hooker was on the field), maul, defence, kicking game (not for poles until Pollard arrived), best bench, while missing Marx (best 2 in the world) and Lood. If you look at it like that, what a damn good team with no obvious weakness. Give their backs a sniff with that back 3 and watch them go ably supported by one of the most rabid, relentless and physical packs the game has seen. Just because it is not all flash and backline moves does not negate the impact and greatness of the squad.

How many teams this WC had a better front row than the Boks and depth at prop? Better lock pairing and depth? Better loose trio and bench? More solid and abrasive centres? More potentially dangerous back 3?

Take a 'typical' Bok player like PSdT probably plays a 7 or 8 out of 10 most games often hits a 9 too. No apparent weakness. Makes his tackles, wins his lineouts, hits rucks as well as anyone. But does it in an unassuming and no fuss manner. Possibly the best in the world in his position in terms of consistency and impact? Possibly. Top 3 in the world in his position? Definitely. The same can be said for most Bok loosies or locks over the years like Juan Smith, Burger, Bakkies, Vermeulan or further back like Andre Venter, Otto, Andrews, Ruben Kruger or indeed Rassie. Honestly too many to mention. If they played for England for example you'd never hear the end of them.

Old Man wrote:I just want to add that it needs to be considered that this Springbok team had to manage the other five top six teams over a seven week period and the physical and mental fatigue must have been playing a role by the time they got to the smie final....
Compare that with the route NZ and England had, it was a breeze in comparison. I doubt entertainment was on their mind at the business end of the tournament.

Prior to the semi-final, Sa played Scotland in the opening game, then Romania, then Ireland, then Tonga then a two week break before playing France.  

The top 6 ranked teams at start of RWC were Ireland, SA, France, NZ, Scotland, Argentina.  
In terms of tough matches prior to semifinals:
SA played Ireland and Fra prior to semifinal against England
NZ played Fra and Ireland prior to semifinal against Argentina.

Pot Hale wrote:

Old Man wrote:I just want to add that it needs to be considered that this Springbok team had to manage the other five top six teams over a seven week period and the physical and mental fatigue must have been playing a role by the time they got to the smie final....
Compare that with the route NZ and England had, it was a breeze in comparison. I doubt entertainment was on their mind at the business end of the tournament.

Prior to the semi-final, Sa played Scotland in the opening game, then Romania, then Ireland, then Tonga then a two week break before playing France.  

The top 6 ranked teams at start of RWC were Ireland, SA, France, NZ, Scotland, Argentina.  
In terms of tough matches prior to semifinals:
SA played Ireland and Fra prior to semifinal against England
NZ played Fra and Ireland prior to semifinal against Argentina.

Physical matches, Scotland, Tonga, Ireland, France, England and NZ. Only "less" physical match Romania.

I think these are circular discussions. No one is completely right (except me, of course) and no one is completely wrong. I don't think this Springbok team is an all-time great Springbok team. And they had to deal with their share of injuries like everyone else.

But this Springbok team found ways to win when they had to. And, given how close the top four teams were, it means something. Maybe even more than the when the top teams are utterly dominant. They didn't need to be the best all-time team, just the best of the RWC grouping we had. And that they were and now we have four more years to figure out how to catch them. Again.

Just on the one point win margins and people saying the Boks don't play rugby.

Against France South Africa was down 25-19 on the 67th minute and went to score a try and penalty to win the match.

Against England they were down 15-6 in the 73rd minute and went on to score a try and penalty to win.

If they were to be behind NZ in the final, who's to say they wouldn't have managed to score in the final minutes of that match?

I always thought that the world cup format suited SA because of the depth in players that we can bring.

I wasn't that optimistic this year because of all the injuries we were carrying and a few other teams are also generating this depth in playing pool. But somehow they pulled it through.

Looking at the in between WC years is very difficult for SA because of so many of the players playing outside of the country and unavailable for example for the RC, but I think that also probably helped with the depth of players available for the WC.

Some of our biggest names were not available prior to the WC, Am, Mapimpi, Pollard (until that bringing him in for a hooker) etc. Then we loose our best player early in the tournament. I felt the writing was on the wall.

Any way, I don't think this team is anywhere near as good as the 2015 AB team. I don't even think this is our strongest starting rugby team since 1995. I do think they proved to me that this is the strongest pool of players available for us though to make a full squad for a RWC though.

They’re pretty good. I can’t understand why they are getting a bit of stick from certain factions. Nobody ever said that about France, who we thought was the best French team ever but the Springboks beat them.

Well, prepare for more controversy, more criticisms of the Springboks and their coach.

Rassie Erasmus has announced his return to the Springbok setup as head coach, he will continue his role as director of rugby, whilst managing the Springboks.

So in reality nothing is changing, Kolisi is not retiring either. Erasmus aims to win the title in 2027 again.

Hopefully he won't take a squad of 38 years olds to the next one.

So expect more pragmatic rugby from SA

Great move for South Africa. I was a little hopeful that Wales could get Rassie…

I just hope he doesn't burn out, he is an intense character, passionate and committed to the nth degree. I do like that there will be continuity of management though.

I suspecthe is preparing Dobson to be head coah there after.

Dobson is a great coach too, don’t know a lot about him prior to Stormers joining the URC, but they’re a fantastic team under him.

He epitomises the essence of what Rassie wants in a coach, players want to play for him.

I'd like to see Johan Ackermann get back involved with South African rugby. What he achieved at the Lions who were 'no hopers' and a team thrown together after being relegated and losing their best players in 2013 cannot be forgotten.

Many now Bok names including Faf de Klerk, Mostert, Kwagga, Marx game from that group of players cast aside by bigger unions / teams.

Yeah, .i rate him highly.