Following last week’s terrific Test match between the All Blacks and Springboks, I was surprised by the number of subsequent articles that referred to the marked superiority of the South African scrum.
As the days went by, this became a progressively more annoying pebble in my shoe, as it didn’t tally with my take on the game.
To be sure, there was one point in the first half where the All Blacks scrum did get marched backwards. And then, after Sam Whitelock was sinbinned but before the uncontested scrums, South Africa took proper advantage of the weight of numbers. However, apart from that I had thought things relatively even.
So, armed with my trusty fast-forward and rewind buttons, I had another look at the match scrums up to the point of non-contestation. And this is what I found…
During those 61 minutes there were 12 scrums, of which six were fed by each team. Apart from the one scrum where it all went horribly wrong for New Zealand (scrum 3), and the two scrums at the three-quarter mark where it was seven-against-eight, things were, as I had thought, largely even.
There were three (other) collapses, but of those only one was reset, with the referee waving play on for the other two. And the All Blacks gave away one free kick for early engagement.
On the whole, the scrummaging was positive, for which both teams, and the referee, deserve praise.
Which suggests the problem of scrum 3 was a momentary lack of concentration rather than an ongoing problem.
In fact, in a couple of other cases the All Blacks had the better of it, most notably on scrum 6 where they moved forward and got the left side up with a very useful second shove, allowing Kieran Read to make a strong charge off the back.
But what I also noticed when I went back was that the South African commentators – Matthew Pearce and Bobby Skinstad – formed an early opinion that South Africa were well on top in this facet of play, and then repeatedly talked about this ‘dominance’ for the rest of the match.
For example, the commentators responded to scrum 6 (the best All Black scrum, mentioned above) with “good pressure from the South African scrum”, and “not allowing the All Black scrum any momentum.” Read’s ensuing charge was then presented as recovering a bad situation.
I was watching in the UK, but if this was what the rest of the world was also ‘enjoying’, I wonder if Pearce’s and Skinstad’s ‘enthusiasm’ for the South African cause had a wider impact on how the scrums were perceived.
I didn’t pick up on this when I was watching live, because after about 30 minutes I could take the commentators’ cheerleading no more and hit the mute button.
I am aware that commentary-bias is a problem in many countries (including my own), but as has been the case recently in Australia, the commentary on this occasion was truly dire.
My absolute ‘highlight’ was when Pearce felt moved to say: “Can’t wait to see a driving maul, Bob. Frankly, the All Blacks don’t enjoy it much.”
Sorry Matthew, but if I want to listen to people in a pub while I watch a rugby match, I can go to a pub. When I am listening to a ‘proper’ rugby commentary, I expect something a little more sophisticated.
Well fear not, dear reader, for I know the way forward, and it is not difficult or complicated. With Justin Marshall, for example, in the commentary box, either in addition to or instead of Skinstad, the problem would have been solved.
Having both nations ‘represented’ would at one stroke get rid of the worst excesses, and with any luck would lead to more enlightenment all round. Please, Sky, you know it makes sense.
Nick
Guest
The 8 v 7 scrum right before uncontested was called was basically even with the Boks really trying to push through the middle. How is that dominance?
richardislip
Guest
You have to understand the politics in South Africa. If a commentator wants to have a job in SA sport, he must NEVER criticize. He HAS to be a permanent cheerleader. That is one huge reason why SA commentators are so bad. (yes, the Aussies are dire ). Just ask Barry Richards why he is no longer welcome to commentate on cricket in SA. And he was brilliant....but did not drop the knee to " officials ".
Chivas
Guest
I'm all for neutral commentators with knowledge of the game and a sense of humour.
Dittohead
Guest
Justin Marshall is terrible, so much so that there is a FB page calling for his immediate removal from all broadcasting. A Marshall, Kearns and Skinstad combo in any RC game or when SH teams are playing would be both hilarious and excruiciating to listen to. Bias aplenty.
Chivas
Guest
Interesting they were so incompetent with respect to the rules especially considering they had the edge in the scrums ;-) you would think they would err the other way. Maybe they got confused a bit like Bobby in the commentary box :-)
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes theyre great arent they... said in a deeply southern Alabama accent..."the ball was what they call 'knocked on' in rugby and that will result in a 'scrum' to the Aaaaall Blacks...a scrum for those who don't know rugby being..."...and that's where the fun starts... :-)
Chivas
Guest
I understand all that Harry, but it is conjecture (ifs, buts and maybes) if it doesn't happen. I personally didn't see the AB's wilting under the continual scrum pressure put on them or any sort of edge being gained. By the same token I don't think the AB's had any ascendency in the scrums either. And I like the Bok front row and tight five in general, but I didn't perceive them getting the upper hand in the scrums in this game to the extent that they were getting the rub of the green in calls or having their ball disrupted to the extent the AB's were conceding turnovers. I actually thought the Bok were accurate and strong at the breakdown while maintaining a fast tempo game which had the AB's a little on the back foot. Added to that I thought the Bok midfield showed a great combination of pace and power without giving anything away in defence. The problem is the wheels fell off in the last 10 which left me somewhat bewildered. It is like they stopped and chilled out. Maybe they relaxed :-). Anyway, they sort out the last 15 and they win games. I can't see them failing to learn and continuing to give games away like this. I still rate them as a top chance to take out the RWC.
Chivas
Guest
Must have hit a nerve there Vic. You make a claim,,someone refutes it and you throw a tanty and I need to relax? Excellent.
Vic
Guest
Eish, wena, relax. You're the best. Your team won. No contest. You're the man. Kearns is great. We are rubbish.
Harry Jones
Expert
Chivas, the 8 on 8 scrums looked marginally SA-edged. No dominance. Skinstad was hyperbolic. We'll never know what the 8 on 7 scrums would have looked like, but that's not what I'm referring to (and it was SA's fault, I think, that we didn't keep scrumming). Also, we don't know what the bench props would've been able to do, and how fatigue would have affected the balance of power. 8 on 8, for the first 60:00, it looked to me like SA had the slight edge over NZ and over time, that can start to take its toll with a scrum penalty or even messy ball.
Chivas
Guest
I am relaxed thanks Harry. You are the one telling the story of how the Bok had the edge. I was merely wondering what that edge gave them. I thought the game was 80 minutes. Pretty sure that the AB's would have seen out the 80 even had the scrums continued uncontested. However, as most SA's and NZ commentators observed 8 against 7 was an advantage and that could have led to a different outcome. However, that does not imply that SA had the edge in the scrums and that the AB's were tiring as a result... after all it wasn't the AB's who called for uncontested scrums and collapsed like a flan in a cupboard. I would go as far as to say, the Bok were beginning to feel the strain of the game a little more as the AB's got on top. But who knows... maybe Bobby Skinstad has a more enlightened opinion.
Harry Jones
Expert
I believe Meyer's coaching team stuffed up the scrum rule. That's what I think, based on all the evidence I have.
Harry Jones
Expert
Relax, man. What I meant was that slight edge would have taken time to have effects. The Golden Oldie scrums defused that edge. As most NZ commentators observed, that was fortunate. NZ deserved their 27-20 win. It would have been interesting to see what might have happened if the scrums continued as contested, to the end. That's all.
In general there aren't very many good commentators around at the moment to be honest, in my view the only commentator worth his salt is Justin Marshall, at least he tries to be impartial. Especially when he sees some ridiculous ruling or interpretation by the referees. As for the scrumming, it is only one part of what makes a team dominate, suffice to say the Springbok scrum was strong enough, whether one dominated the other is up to each individual to decide, I will however say that I found scrumming positive in this match and there wasn't a feeling of frustration I so often get when we play OZ, there seems to be more collapses and resets than against most other teams. Why, I don't know. Going to uncontested scrums hurt SA, and I am yet to recieve the actual facts around why it happened and not some half arsed speculative summation. In the end Meyer's team still lost, as the week before, and all the excuses have run out. The simple fact is, if you are good enough, you win, if you are pretending to be good enough (and not learning from your experiences) you lose. I am done with losing, enough is enough. When the Springboks will ever actually reach this promised potential I have been hearing about my whole life, it isn't coming to fruition, there is always a "but" or "one more excuse" South African rugby will continue to suck the hind leg of New Zealand unless they start understanding that if you want to be the best the collective includes grass roots all the eay to national team, there must be one culture throughout the country, not pods of "we do our own thing"
Chivas
Guest
OK... so the scrum change bought about by the SA coaching team was to allow the AB's a scrum advantage. That was good of them. Did you know whenever QC plays the wallabies tend to win, so he is the best first five in the world... I love simplistic logic and theories, that have so little basis in fact. Bit like how stats are trotted out to prove a point. Just for the record it was this spurious use of stats which gave rise to the saying "lies, damned lies and statistics" Also, with respect to the game... in front of a home crowd on a home ground, they were in front by so little that the next score overhauled them. Add to that, how Kriel and Allendre broke the line which actually was the difference far more than any perceived superiority at scrum time. But if you think there was an edge in the scrums and this is why they were ahead on the scoreboard... then we clearly see and interpret things quite differently.
Playmaker
Guest
Marto is right up there..in the clouds.
Garth
Guest
Americans commentating rugby are brilliant. And by brilliant, I mean hilarious yet informative. Their assumption that the audience knows nothing about the sport is something regular commentators should take on board a bit especially at world cup time.
somer
Guest
Completed scrums are an important measure of scrum prowess and a tighthead is a completed scrum is it not? What this stat fails to account for is cynical tactics which lead to penalties or free kicks but I doubt the ABs are anymore prone to this than other sides.
Yogi
Guest
the all blacks were not winning until after the scrum was taken out of the game so Harry's comment is spot on.
Chivas
Guest
And the effect was 27 to 20? The SA scrum coming to grief and having to call uncontested scrums? What effect are you talking about Harry. Surely not the one that saw SA give up their opportunity to get a shunt on against 7 men on the AB line. Skinstad is a bit excitable and SA scrum dominance has telling effect in AB win... That is gold Harry :-)