Those who are familiar with the history will understand that this game had a bit extra skin on the game, which made the Springbok victory much sweeter. The World Rugby Council vote was treated as a routine formality because South Africa’s technical bid was substantially superior to those of France and Ireland. Legal investigation would not support how “South Africa” was changed to “France” in the bid winner’s envelope.

SPRINGBOK VICTORY BASED ON ADAPTABILITY

Ryan Jordan highlights a few crucial takeaways from this game.

Creativity and taking risks

It wasn’t a spur-of-the-moment call for Damian Willemse to ask for a mark in the Springboks’ 22-meter area and then request a scrum. After the game, Rassie Erasmus, director of rugby, said that this was always a possibility.

Some describe it as a dangerous decision that might have backfired. Not at all. Previous Springbok coaches who were as eager to pursue this kind of risk vs. return approach are hard to recall. At the Springboks, everything was managed by the French. The scrum gave the French time to gather themselves before continuing their attack rather than punting the ball downfield to stop them.

The Boks’ penalty from the scrum was an added bonus that helped them gain control of the game.

There were two significant effects of the one-time choice on the game. It compelled the French forwards to rush to build that scrum rather than stand still and await the return kick. Additionally, it prevented the French kickers from kicking far enough to make the Springboks maintain possession of the ball. The French would have been involved in a scrum conflict if the Springboks back three had received the ball and continued to choose the scrum option. Instead of tangle, they preferred to flee.

The Springbok game plan continues to evolve

Erasmus and Nienaber have undoubtedly taken note of the fact that other rugby-playing teams have begun to develop their forward packs in order to adhere to the same strategy of forward dominance and a kicking game, despite complaints about unfairness. Will the Springboks encounter a different opponent on Saturday than England?

The Manie Libbok haters won’t like this much, but he has significantly improved the attacking capabilities of the Springboks. They faced up against a France squad that was regarded as “flamboyant” and a serious offensive danger, demonstrating how their running game has developed into a real menace.

Exceptional Springbok conditioning

You should never ignore conditioning. It most certainly hasn’t been with the Springboks. The French put a lot of pressure on them, both offensively and with their fast-paced attacking and phase play. The Boks were competitive with them and appeared to be winning the game.

They do effectively during games because of their physical conditioning. They are able to refuel for the next task after a proper recovery.

What does this all mean?

Simply said, Springbok rugby is no longer the kicking and forceful game it once was. There is a lot more clever play and curiosity about trying new things. They are now capable of switching between two things. First, they can play an assault game or switch to the tedious Boks mode to overpower and conquer. The Springboks decided to play a relatively limited game against Ireland in order to give the Irish and other potential knockout opponents no idea of their capabilities.

Additionally, they have addressed a long-standing Springbok vulnerability. the transition from offensive to defense. They become a completely different proposition as a result, adding uncertainty to the situation.

Whoever succeeds Erasmus and Nienaber will take over a Springbok organization that is well-positioned to develop a new, younger team for the upcoming Rugby World Cup.