Did the Wallabies deserve to beat the Springboks?

Initial reporting on the result of the Wallabies versus Springboks in their Rugby Championship clash in Brisbane last Saturday night was telling us that the Wallabies somehow “pulled off a win”, “got out of gaol”, or simply won “against the odds”.

That reporting was based on the premise that the Springboks had had the better of play for the majority of the match, and had indeed created a 7-20 deficit for the Wallabies early into the second half.

So, did they have the better of play?

While watching the match, I had the impression that the Springboks monstered the Wallaby scrums on a couple of occasions, but mostly the Wallaby pack held firm, without really making any headway themselves. Their own ball was under a bit of pressure, but was nevertheless delivered safely.

That was one for the Boks.

But, at the 49th-minute mark, and ahead by 20-7, the Springbok coach Heineke Meyer replaced his front row. This meant that Bismarck du Plessis, playing at the top of his form, was off for a breather. That tactical decision resulted in an initially improved scrum outcome for the Wallabies, and was followed up by Wallaby scrum dominance once Scott Sio and Greg Holmes came on.

The lineouts looked reasonable for both sides, but the Wallabies won two against the throw, while the Boks stole none.

The breakdown saw Bismarck du Plessis getting his hands on Wallaby ball and forcing turnovers, which is a major strength of his, while Wallaby hands rarely seemed to threaten Bok ball.

Wallaby attacks were being snuffed out by good defensive play from the Boks. SANZAR stats show the Boks took four ruck steals to the Wallabies zero. The Wallabies did claim some penalties from Bok players “holding on”, however, so those stats can be a little misleading. When Bismarck du Plessis went off, the ball steals for the Boks went with him.

In attack, the Boks rarely seemed to make much of an impression on the gain-line, indicating that the Wallaby defence was showing some good line-speed and starch, knocking the Boks back and nullifying their attack. Stats show that the Wallabies missed 21 tackles to the Boks 32, but had to make only 60 per cent of the number of tackles that the Boks had to make. The two teams’ tackling success rate was the same.

The Wallabies had 61 per cent possession to the Boks 39per cent.

The Wallabies made more clean line-breaks: 8–4. The Wallabies beat 26 defenders to 17 for the Boks. The Wallabies had more offloads at 8-5, or 7-6 from other sources.

So, the Wallabies had more ball and so had to make fewer tackles, made more run metres (969-563), but turned over their ball more often and made more handling errors.

Kick-metres were the same, but the Boks kicked more (27-21). The penalty count was the same.

The two tries that the Boks scored, one before half-time and one immediately after, gave the impression of a more composed team taking their chances and executing with precision. Certainly in the first try, where Brian Habana outfoxed and out-jumped Israel Folau to tap the short, attacking high-ball back to the Boks side to setup the try, that impression was warranted.

Folau will learn from that, though the onrushing player can nominally leap higher.

The second try was more a defensive lapse by the Wallabies, though excellent finishing from Kriel. The Wallabies, in contrast, had made strong breaks, particularly by Folau and Horne, only to have Willie le Roux chop them both down in the last line of defence.

The Boks added to the impression of their being in control by subsequently securing a turnover of the ball as well. In the second half, Giteau’s pass to Folau, with the line wide open, was poor and went to ground.

While we were getting an impression of Bok superiority, however, the stats are telling us that the Wallabies did most of the attacking, holding the ball and probing for openings through the phases more often, rather than employing the up-and-under tactic of the Boks.

Another telling element of the clash was the lack of a warm-up match for the Wallabies, and that did show, particularly in Giteau’s bad pass and the breakdown turnovers against the Wallabies. The defensive lapse (on the Kriel try) as well perhaps.

A fair summary of the match impressions and the stats, however, is that the positives for the Wallabies outweigh the negatives, if we look at the big picture. An underdone team, attempting to attack, showed a secure line-out and defence, and the elements of a strong scrum.

The character shown in their fightback from the 7-20 deficit cannot be understated. That does not happen often in international rugby, let alone against the No. 2-ranked team in the world. So, I think the Wallabies did deserve their victory. It may have been a different story if Bismarck du Plessis was not replaced, however.

Obviously, some Wallaby players did not have their best games. Will Skelton seemed to be ineffective, and James Horwill was strong and dangerous when he came on. Michael Cheika surpised most, I think, by putting Horwill in the 23.

In retrospect, there could only be one answer to that, and that is that Horwill was a great player once, and Cheika had the belief that he could be that player again. He looked the goods. This is very good for the Wallabies. Should Horwill start against Argentina? I’d put him in.

Quade Cooper provided the necessary precision of execution for the Adam Ashley-Cooper try to the Wallabies in the first half, but the rest of his game looked well below par.

Most noticeably was the kicking, particularly the restarts, which put the Boks under absolutely no pressure at all. Was that the plan, or was it the execution?

His field kicks were limp and went straight to a Bok player every time, meaning that any relief he was attempting to achieve for the Wallabies did not occur, but simply gave the ball away. His goal-kicking wasn’t great, either. Toomua looked good in comparison with the ball in hand when he replaced Cooper as well, and he may get a start at 12 against Argentina.

But should Cheika persist with Cooper at 10? Cooper is a confidence player, and to be dropped after one match might affect him badly. Maybe another chance is required there, but Bernard Foley might need to be on the bench.

Scott Higginbotham notably kicked away a ball that he should have held to attempt to put away his support down the left wing. And while he secured some bad ball from a few backpedalling Wallaby scrums, the team certainly looked more potent at the breakdown and in the phases with Dave Pocock on instead. If Horwill starts, then the line-out is covered, presumably, for a Pocock start along with Michael Hooper. That experiment would be fun to watch.

Cheika must be extremely relieved to have landed a miracle after the final bell, but we see the All Blacks do that sort of thing a fair bit.

While not comparing the Wallaby performance to the All Blacks, it is the sign of something extra for the Wallabies in terms of team-spirit and belief, and may be an indicator that there are better times ahead for the Wallabies. It’s a World Cup year, so if that is the case, then the timing could not be better.