What happens when the result isn’t the most important part of a win?

Turgid. Train wreck. Rubbish. Average. Woeful. Embarrassing. Scrappy and ugly. Disgraceful. Error-riddled. A farce.

“The silliest rugby match I ever saw.”

“A good advert for any sport other than rugby.”

These are some of the descriptions used on these very pages in the aftermath of Australia’s hard-fought 23-18 win over South Africa in Brisbane on Saturday night.

Undoubtedly, and as is often the case, plenty of the commentary was over the top. I don’t keep tabs on the worst games I’ve ever seen in my lifetime, for example, and I really find it hard to believe that anyone does, despite their claim of never having seen a poorer game.

Plenty of the commentary, however – plenty of the descriptions highlighted here, even – was and is pretty hard to argue with. It was a scrappy and ugly win. It was regularly turgid, and it was error-riddled. At times it was woeful, and no doubt aspects of the review would have been embarrassing.

As far as Test match rugby spectacles go, you won’t find this one anywhere near the top shelf. You probably won’t even find it at waist-level. However you measure these things, it certainly wasn’t a great performance, from the Wallabies or the Springboks, for that matter. Even the purists might’ve had trouble with this one.

But…

If you allowed yourself as a Wallabies fan to look beyond the rugby itself, then you may well have allowed yourself a little smile of satisfaction.

Every now and again, the game itself will be the least important part of a Test match. Of any match at any level, to be fair.

The Wallabies never really looked comfortable against South Africa, and I’m still not 100 per cent sure how they managed to hold on.

Taniela Tupou of the Wallabies (second right) celebrates winning a penalty. (Photo by Jono Searle/Getty Images)

But it’s hard not to be impressed by the fact that they did. Plenty of Wallabies sides of the not-too-distant past would have conceded that try of Francois Louw’s late in the game, just as plenty of Wallabies scrums of the not-too-distant past would have buckled under the pressure of Steven Kitshoff, and buckled even further once Tendai Mtawarira replaced him.

That they didn’t do any of that spoke volumes for a second half effort that just seemed to fuel them more and more in the desperation stakes.

I made the point during the game that if anyone’s giving thought to what the Wallabies might look like after next year’s Rugby World Cup in Japan, the side on the turf in Brisbane showed us a glimpse.

There was no Dave Pocock. Israel Folau took as long as he could to prove his fitness and still ran out of time. Adam Coleman was so late a withdrawal that his replacement, Rob Simmons, had to ring Sydney Rays coach Chris Whittaker en route to Sydney Airport to explain why he wouldn’t be seeing him at Concord Oval in less than an hour.

Tatafu Polota-Nau flew back from England and lasted just 34 minutes. If he was injured and especially if he wasn’t, you have to question why with three other hookers in the squad, he was asked to undertake such a gruelling period of travel and playing in between Rugby Championship Tests.

Michael Hooper pinged the same hamstring he’d only just returned from around the same sort of timeframe, yet somehow played the game out and was still among the Wallabies most productive.

There’s really no other way to put it, but this was a win delivered not on the back of more points that the opposition, but on sheer guts, determination, and bloody hard work.

The Wallabies made as many errors as the South Africans, conceded as many turnovers, and missed as many tackles. The only stats they emerge clearly dominant in are clean breaks and offloads, with the Springboks attack managing to fire even fewer shots than the Wallabies did.

But such was the nature of the win that it would be hard to argue with keeping the same 23 for the Argentina match on the Gold Coast this Saturday night. There would definitely be an argument for Taniela Tupou starting, but the question might be answered by a lessened second-half impact; a case of weakening a strength, perhaps.

Is Bernie Foley in line for a recall? (AAP Image/Dave Hunt)

Michael Cheika’s admission that he wanted to “give [Kurtley Beale] a bit of time to have a go at [flyhalf] – he didn’t have to break any records on day one,” is as instructive as it is curious as to the role Bernard Foley is supposed to play when he comes off the bench. It was hard to see what impact Foley had, which isn’t actually a criticism of the player himself; some players are just better starters than they are finishers.

Matt Toomua endured the same schedule as Polota-Nau, yet was certainly among the Wallabies’ best. His five from six off the kicking tee was perhaps the biggest surprise of the match, particularly given both Beale and Reece Hodge have kicked a lot more than Toomua, even just in 2018. But his presence in midfield was crucial, and the combination with Beale can only get better for the run.

Will Genia feeds the scrum (AAP Image/Dan Peled)

This has been exactly the sort of left-field thinking – a plan B, if you will – that so many of us have been asking of the Wallabies coach for some time, and there’s an intriguing element of ‘what’s next?’ about the Wallabies going into this week’s match.

They weren’t great against South Africa, yet earned themselves a great win in the context of this campaign.

By any measure, the match raised more questions than it answered. But the method in attaining the result, and the possibilities those questions raise stand out as so much more important than the four Rugby Championship points gained from the win.