OPINION: Springboks vs Wallabies — What Went Wrong

Well, that was not the way Rassie Erasmus and his coaching staff would’ve imagined a second-half would go after racking up 22 points in the first quarter of the Springboks’ opener against the Wallabies in Joburg. The final 22-38 scoreline speaks volumes to some of South Africa’s current weaknesses, despite, prior to the game, looking like the most well-oiled machine in world rugby; but what exactly went wrong?

I think the most shocking thing to come from the game is the shocking juxtaposition of the Springboks’ performance — from appearing so incredibly dominant from the outset to falling apart at the seams in the second-half.

Perhaps Rassie Erasmus was only protecting the playing group when he said “the coaching staff got it wrong” in the post-match press conference; but taking his word for what it is, it seems like the strategy was a mistake, not only the players’ input.

From the kick-off, the Springboks seemed to be in a sort of feverish attacking mindset, offloading at every given opportunity, rushing through rucks, and even popping the ball up to support runners to avoid rucks altogether. It worked, initially, stunning the Wallabies with three early tries as they tried to comprehend what was happening.

The pace and rhythm of the Springboks was immense, but something seemed off. A little more frantic than usual despite the momentum looking to be in their favour. It was so intentional that the direction had to have come from the coaching box: play fast and keep the ball moving.

Of course, that initial loosey-goosie nature could only last so long, and as the match wore on and the Boks showed the same unhinged energy when on defence, things were bound to crack. Offloads being knocked on, inaccurate passes being thrown, rushing on defence and missing tackles — the error rate seemed to rack up significantly in a short period of time.

The Australians are (and always have been) excellent at exploiting mistakes. With Harry Wilson’s try, the Wallabies know that the Springboks like a rush defence, and used a short tip-on pass from Bell to Wilson to find a gap in the midfield. The Boks think it’s going out the back to the backline (Tom Wright or James O’Connor), and rush up, missing the second forward runner (Wilson). To make matters worse, two players (Nche and Marx) are locked onto the ball carrier (Angus Bell) instead of covering the other potential runner. It’s so simple and so effective.

You saw this again later in the 65th minute with James O’Connor exploiting the rush defence with a great bridge pass to Max Jorgenson. Tom Banks then had two breaks as a result of overzealous sliding defenders (which made them easy to step inside of) and another solo try thanks to a spilt pass from Jessie Kriel and Esterhuizen down the wing.

Add in the Joseph Sua’ali’i interception on a pass that probably didn’t need to be thrown (despite the space being out wide), and it was just a period riddled with errors from the Boks.

This even extended into the set-piece of the Springboks, an area they’re traditionally solid at. An early engagement in the scrum and stolen lineouts robbed the Springboks of attacking opportunities they would usually bank on.

It was essentially the rugby version of watching a kid ram a square shape into a circular hole. The Boks avoided what they were good at, actively rushing set-pieces and skipping their dominance at the breakdown, in favour of sketchy offloads, passing from the ground, uncontrolled defensive blitzes, and throwing as many high-risk passes as possible. I think every rugby fan wants an evolution and some ambitious play, but when and how to do it needs to be more conscious than a shotgun approach.

The Springboks have previously found a harmonious balance of commanding the set-pieces and physical battles, while having sparks of counter-attacking flair, as opposed to throwing caution to the wind. If the Boks can remind themselves of their successful formula, they should bounce back in Round 2.