Springboks set an extra-big ‘bomb’ for New Zealand with unique tactics for Rugby World Cup finaly
Springboks set an extra-big ‘bomb’ for New Zealand with unique tactics for Rugby World Cup final
The Springboks reportedly contemplated both the slightly riskier 6-2 and the more conventional 5-3 option, according to Jacques Nienaber. Subsequently, they went all-in for the Rugby World Cup final and Nienaber’s farewell match as South Africa’s coach, going 7-1.
Nienaber along with his coach In order to take on New Zealand in rugby’s biggest match, South Africa’s director of rugby, Rassie Erasmus, took a chance on a high-risk, high-reward plan that involved starting seven forwards and only one backline player on the bench.
In elite rugby, only the Springboks have shown the courage, obstinacy, or stupidity to take such a risk. On Saturday, they will introduce it for the third time at Stade de France, where misguided experiments have no place.
Nienaber’s statement, “The team is not 15 (players), it is 23,” expressed South Africa’s conviction that its bench is just as important as its starting lineup, particularly the forwards. It’s what we always say. Many factors impact the selection of the squad, including historical results, medical clearance, and extensive research into New Zealand and our perceived areas of advantage.
Finalists for the Rugby World Cup Savea and Etzebeth are also competing for player of the year.
Subsequently, the coaches engage in dialogue, and the score fluctuates between 5-3, 6-2, and 7-1. It takes hours and hours to have this conversation, not ten minutes.
Some have criticized an overly forward-heavy bench for turning rugby into a mindless physical assault, usually including huge players from the Springboks.
Former Scotland coach Matt Williams spearheaded the criticism of South Africa’s usage of the 7-1 split against New Zealand in a World Cup warm-up in August, accusing the Springboks of “abusing the bench” in a rugby podcast.
They had seven strikers. Really, seven forwards? Honestly? William made a stance. “World Rugby’s governing body simply needs to take action on this.”
According to Nienaber, he is merely choosing “a team that you think can get a result.”
“We think the 23 players we chose can deliver and win us a World Cup back-to-back,” the statement reads.
In their five years with the Springboks, which have already witnessed one World Cup victory in 2019, Nienaber and Erasmus have undoubtedly changed several aspects of rugby. Regardless of where the trophy ends up on Saturday night, they will end their association with another semi-revolutionary move.
South Africa pushed the high contestable kick idea tenaciously in that tournament, and it is currently widely accepted by others. As it is in rugby today, the lineout maul was an essential tool for the Springboks four years ago when they were trying to score tries.
2019 saw the birth of South Africa’s “bomb squad,” or bench-warming group of forwards who effectively make up a second pack. The country had previously experimented with varying the composition of its reserves, beginning with a 6-2 forwards-backs split.
Erasmus stated earlier at the World Cup, “The 6-2 a couple of years back was new to people and now a lot of teams are doing it.”
But the Springboks bomb squad on Saturday is larger than ever.
Two months ago, South Africa had their first trial of the 7-1, which ended with a record 35-7 victory over the All Blacks, who were reduced to 14 men following the red card of forward Scott Barrett. In the pool round, Ireland defeated South Africa 13-8, therefore the 7-1 didn’t work.
The Rugby World Cup final is, in every aspect, the pivotal match for an extra-large Springboks bomb set by Nienaber and Erasmus for the final time. So, it’s won one, lost one with the 7-1 split.
“Taking some gas out of that bomb would be a good idea, wouldn’t it?” Coach Jason Ryan of New Zealand forwards remarked.