Wales gifted South Africa three first half penalties that ultimately cost them the game. What’s more, two of these penalties came within a minute of Wales scoring points themselves, a fact that is sure to weigh heavily on Warren Gatland’s mind.
The penalties in the 11th, 15th and 19th minutes were given away by both locks, and all three of them were unforced.
The second two were the definition of ‘coach-killers’. The first was a lazy offside directly after Wales’ first penalty, and the second, an obvious and unnecessary kick obstruction by Charteris, was within one minute of their spectacular and only try.
The World Cup is a tough competition, and in the moment they may not have seemed that important, but in retrospect it is those small errors that can hurt so dearly.
Yes, South Africa allowed Wales to bounce back after each of their scores, but each of these occasions were forced through great play by Wales. What allowed South Africa to bounce back were small errors of effort and misjudgement.
Cruelly, the overall penalty count was Wales 12 – South Africa 9, and without those three penalties Wales wins what was an otherwise extremely evenly contested game.
The contest for possession in the tackle was fierce. Both teams threw huge numbers at the breakdown in the first half in an attempt to slow down the other’s attack. The Welsh changed tack after half time, but their pilferers were still on song with Warburton being the best.
Both teams got results with this tactic, especially Wales who exposed the Boks in contact. For all of their bash and barge tactics, South Africa lost seven possessions in contact in the first half and five in the second. Interestingly five of these turnovers were in the tackle itself, prior to the contest on the ground, so ball security will be a big focus for them moving forward.
Whether because of this contest or pre-planned, both teams looked like they were playing ‘Jake Ball’ – termed after Jake White’s philosophy of limited attacking rugby in your own half and kicking being your option on first, second or third phase depending on which zone you were in.
South Africa particularly were cautious in their play, mauling three out of their four lineouts in the first half and kicking three times in the attack. This wide kicking strategy – particularly to Peterson – is not new, but their accuracy and execution needs to be better for this to be a real option in coming weeks.
The longer the game went on the more Wales reverted to kicking as well, as both teams seemed cautious of breakdown penalties and preferred to apply pressure without the ball. For a clearly fatigued Wales this meant more and more tackling.
At the 60 minute mark, the second half possession stats were in favour of South Africa 78 per cent to 22 per cent.
The big take away for New Zealand will be that the Boks didn’t seem to know what to do with it. They relied heavily on forward carries, and attacked the third and fourth channel off the ruck well and straight, however outside of that they gained almost no direction from Pollard and as a result neither their centres nor outside backs really came into the game in attack.
Where the Boks were strong and will threaten teams is their physical strength in the breakdown and the momentum they can get with organised forward carriers.
They will punish teams who are slow to support the ball carrier, and put teams under penalty pressure if they attack in your half. This they will turn to points, and chip away like they did against Wales.
They ultimately deserved the win for this reason.
Full credit must go to Wales in this loss as well. They were clearly heavier in the legs than their opposition but their grit came through and they continued to put their bodies on the line time and time again until the very end.
Ultimately though, in hindsight I think as a team they will ask three questions of themselves;
1. Why did we stop attacking wide when we had made such good in-roads there in the first have?
2. Why did we stop attacking in general after half time with only a 1-point lead?
3. Why did we kick so much ball away knowing that it was going to lead to more tackling and exacerbate our fatigue?
Unfortunately in the tough world of professional sport, the individuals who made errors will have a lifetime to ask themselves why as well.
Terry Kidd
Guest
Partly agree with Biltong and disagree with Greg. Wales lost rather than Boks won simply because Wales kicked away far too much possession and Roberts continually crashed the ball up failing to pass to outside supports when overlaps had been created. Those chances have to be taken but were not. Wales showed that the Bok defence could be regularly outflanked but that is where it stopped. The Welsh forwards created and stole enough possession to win, the Welsh backs squandered it. The Boks were very physical as you would expect but also very one dimensional. Pollard has no idea about how to get his backline organised and functioning. De Allende and Kriel both caught colds. A tense game but not very entertaining.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Against the ABs? no, it's no myth. I have seen Morne struggle to get anything out of his backline for years against the ABs. Find me a match where Morne had a good test versus the ABs outside the one he won with ten or so penalties and drop goals, or Port Elizabeth in 2011 where they also got no tries. If they play Morne against the ABs they may as well not play. They have him sussed more than any 10 alive.
Yep, we are the UNTERHOUNDS.
Rhino, I will be happy to send Harry some biltong, but slas, chances are only 20.2% that it will be me sending him anything. ;)
Harry Jones
Expert
Vic, we are the underdogs in the SF round. 1. NZ 2. Oz 3. ARG 4. Us
Vic
Guest
Hm - except that we don't quite deliver on tries. And that makes the difference, at the end of the game. Don't know Harry, I'm worried
Charging Rhino
Roar Guru
Yep I was happy with Barnes.
Charging Rhino
Roar Guru
100% BB. Just watched the full game replay again and I can't understand how the Boks didn't beat them by 12-15+ points and only just pipped past them with FDP's try. Boks dominated pretty much everything except for the breakdown, especially in the 2nd half. But with all that dominance they couldn't convert the many opportunities into points, and couldn't keep Wales out from pestering the breakdown and turning over ball. They have to make that count next week and be clinical and actually score the tries, but we all know that. Well done Wales, they were up for the clash, tackled their hearts out and on the scoreboard it was very close until the end! And the scoreboard is the only thing that matters at the end of the day. Just happy we made it past them in one piece and are in the semi's. They're gonna plan and dissect and plan again for the All Blacks and I won't be surprised if you owe Harry some Biltong after next weekend :-)
Harry Jones
Expert
We are just lucky to be have the chance to be on the same field as the ABs.
Gavin
Guest
Very balanced analysis. Why is it that the Boks fail to turn dominance into points? Wales fought well with what they had, but injury and two massive pool games took its inevitable toll.
RedsKing
Guest
While no doubt France didn't look interested from the get-go... (falling off tackles in the first minute is usually a huge indicator of this) The Bok attack looked very slow. It was almost slow motion. du Preez actually had to wait for his forwards to get ready, lack of fitness or brains, not sure.
RedsKing
Guest
Nope, Lambie is just as ineffective as Pollard. Pollard is probably the better choice in that he is slightly more physical. But that is about it. Pollard does not deserve the amount of praise he is getting. It is ridiculous. Bandwagon mentality from fans. Does anyone else see how clueless he actually is? Or will it take everyone about 2... or 5 years to realize Pollard isn't very good just like it did with Ruan Pienaar?
RedsKing
Guest
It is a myth that the Boks don't use their backline with Morne Steyn. Pollard rarely ever passes the ball. He kills the whole backline. Open your eyes.
Tycoch22
Guest
Immediately prior to the scrum - given to SA - that led to the Bok try, Habana was clearly offside. So should have been penalty to Wales. Barnes was his usual officious self. Several of his penalties, against both sides, were very dubious
Dave
Guest
It was a very close result. But this article suffers from the same flaw as a couple of 'Sunday Telegraph' (UK version) articles. The article analyses the game from he Welsh perspective "Why did Wales lose?" The article could have been balanced more by asking "Given the huge amount of possession territory the Boks had why didn't the Boks win by more?" - SA also gave away some gift penalties and Wales gave away more because they spent more time in their own half - Pollard missed some kicks he normally would have slotted - Unusually some of the Bok forwards lost the ball in the tackle. Good de Jager did it a couple of times and he is usually very reliable. - I don't know why SA failed togged the ball wider. Was it a problem at 10 and 12, a deliberate strategy or did Wales just close SA down (or any combo of these) Naturally I am happy we are in the semis. The last QF SA dominated even more and lost. Now for there ABs They looked awesome against France. They are clearly favourites but everyone knows that an AB - Bok game is different.. Cant wait
NickBrisbane
Guest
Pick Patrick Lambie instead
RedsKing
Guest
Finally someone else is saying what I'm saying. It isn't just his average goal kicking... the guy KILLS the backline. He cannot distribute under pressure. People think "Oh look he takes it to the line" but no, Pollard just tucks the ball under his arm and hits it up because he cannot distribute properly. He is beyond predictable. He is also killing le Roux's game... le Roux runs that second line of attack which Pollard doesn't even see. You only need to look at how much better the Bok backline was in 2013 to see how much better Steyn is. There was a reason why the Boks were top try scorers in that rugby championship.
Cylon
Guest
So true Harry. The only difference was the opponent. Otherwise the Boks looked like a carbon copy of the AB's.
Harry Jones
Expert
The woefully underdogged Boks carried the ball more than the All Blacks; offloaded the same amount as NZ and knocked on LESS. Also, NZ only passed 7 more times than SA. The difference was SA was up against the best-tackling and best-turnover team in the tournament, fighting for their lives, whilst NZ's opponent was looking for the exit. We will give the favourites a good little semifinal.
Greg Mumm
Expert
Definitely a possibility as well - chose to go with the what's rather than the what it's.