Fresh off a historic series victory the Springboks have been caught in the crossfire of every pundit not in green and gold spitting fire at the dire nature of the way the Boks play. Most Northern commentators called the Boks all manner of things under the sun except the series victors. Does it matter the way in which the Boks won the series?
The identity of the Springboks and the game plan under the Rassie/Jacques era has been one of the worst kept secrets in the world with everything out in the open especially after the World Cup in 2019. This tactic, though simplistic and brutal, is highly effective in the attritional nature of modern rugby so then why should the Boks have to answer for inspiring people to pick up the oval ball and grow the game? Anyone who spouts this nonsense clearly doesn’t understand rugby in South Africa and researched the incredibly inspiring stories of the players themselves. This current crop of players is doing more to inspire the people of South Africa then any rugby playing nation in the world. One only has to look at Siya Kolisi and his story to see the difference he is making to a generation of young South Africans in a country that bears the scars of decades of pain. The bottom line is that winning sells more than any ingredient a coach can come up with and this style in South Africa designed with South Africans in mind wins rugby matches.
The irony of all the hoopla over the ‘boring Boks’ is that the Lions played, some would argue, a more conservative game plan then even the Boks would venture. Dan Biggar on multiple occasions kicked up and unders from within the Boks half hoping for a mistake. Taking out the period with Finn Russell on the field and some attempts at playing the up tempo style we saw in the warm up games they were very one dimensional. I don’t think that the players bought into the up tempo approach after routing the understrength super franchises and all it took was one massive tackle from Lukhanyo Am on Eliott Daly to seal the deal on how the Lions would play. The divergence in style was evident with the chop and change nature of the selections whilst trying to pick the most physical team and the most creative. The Lions became stuck between the two styles and never executed either particularly well. One just has to look at the three different centre pairings over the three Test matches to see that the management didn’t know which way to go. I feel the biggest issue was always going to be Dan Biggar at flyhalf because the style would always revolve around him and they needed to go all in with the kicking, power game if he was starting. I put the confused game plan at the feet of the management team who clearly weren’t on the same path when it came to how they wanted to play. So if anything all this commotion about the ‘boring Boks’ has diverted the attention way from how the Lions copied the Boks style and lost.
The template to beating the Boks has already been tried and tested time and time again by none other than Warren Gatland’s homeland New Zealand. Finn Russell was the closest the Lions had to Richie Mo’unga who has to keep the rush defense honest with tactical kicks and multiple attacking options to confuse the defensive line. It has worked previously and will most likely work again this year. I don’t think Gatland had the conviction to go all in with the ‘All Black option’ as he employed a similar Bok style with Wales and Dan Biggar. The crisis of identity for the Lions meant they were never going feel comfortable against a team that had played a certain style better and for a longer period of time.
Northern Hemisphere teams have been losing rugby matches on the big stage for so long that it has become an art form winning moral victories. The attack on the Boks style coupled with a Finn Russell cameo is a classic diversion from the fact they lost and a moral victory was needed. So carry on sitting on a mound of mud looking down at the ‘boring Boks’ whilst we keep winning the big matches until the next Lions tour in 12 years’ time.
Leave a Reply