The confetti swept, the Cup boozy, silver medals rubbished, composite teams selected, Japan in the rear view mirror, and Rassie Erasmus’ stock price in the stratosphere.
Doctrines and rugby dogma re-examined. What is still true, truer than true, debunked, or seen anew?
1. Yes, you can win the Rugby World Cup after losing a pool match
To be exact, this is only true if your ref in the loss is also your semifinal and final ref, and if your pool nemesis is the also the tournament favourite, so that you avoid them until the final if at all, and lose early in a style (three simple mistakes in five minutes spawning 17 points) that allows your coach to fix things.
Oh, and it probably only applies when your reserve pack is a starting pack. 2023 may yield added exceptions.
2. A grim, trench warfare semifinal win is better for your prospects in the final than a low-pressure magical Disneyland rugby win
Front runners England scored a try against New Zealand in two minutes, notched another three points, ceded possession in the right areas, minimised risk, and then let the Kiwis self-destruct.
The Boks faced the toughest team with the hardest coach and the smartest captain.
Just as the 2015 All Blacks enjoyed (and played to win) the final because they suffered through a grim, no-try second half, two-point win over South Africa the prior week, the 2019 champs were never fully comfortable against Wales.
The Welsh scrum also crumbled, but scored their try in retreat. Warren Gatland and Alun Wyn Jones knew how to remind their lads how to cope with set piece problems.
Pressure must become your friend. England had not felt much, with Tomas Lavanini, Typhoon Hagibis, and Michael Cheika easing their minds. The Boks embraced the tight first half; it was old hat.
(Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
3. Eddie Jones is a brilliant one-off underdog coach; Rassie Erasmus can build a bigger structure and save the best until last
If you had to pick a coach to shock the pundits once, maybe Eddie is the man. Both he and Rassie are good rescue job men; meticulous and innovative.
But there’s something missing in Eddie’s methodology when game plans go awry, or it’s all on the line.
Rassie seems to think three or four matches ahead better: all six final front rowers were equally played and confident; all four locks, too.
For some reason, when England lost one forward, all was lost; South Africa lost two, early doors, and never missed a beat.
4. A great defence can stifle a very good offence; a great attack can still struggle to open up a very good defence in finals
All the semifinalists only scored one try each.
The losing finalist couldn’t score a try, from inches out. Want to win? Focus first on not conceding soft tries.
5. Rugby is more territorial than possession-dependent
Give me five minutes of possession but all in your 22, and I’ll give you the other 30 minutes of ball-in-play in your half, happily. I can train tackling, and finishing chances.
You can work on dozens of ruck scenarios.
Yet, with all of the statistical nous we have, several teams almost refused to qualify or challenge for a semifinal spot, by ‘bravely’ running and passing from the end of the pitch, baa-ing like wild sheep on a precipice.
Cheslin Kolbe of South Africa celebrates (Photo by Dan Mullan/Getty Images)
6. You don’t need a four-year plan
Two years is enough if your grassroots have produced healthy horses.
7. You’re probably still picking props and halves, first
After all has been said and done, weaknesses in your tightheads and halves are almost impossible to hide in knockouts.
Eddie shorted at 3 and 9, chopped and changed at 10, and didn’t even carry enough reserves, but had wings in droves.
Wales’ smart flyhalves kept their teams in the hunt; do we really know if they’d have lost to England? New Zealand may have lost it by not really bedding Bo-unga in soon enough.
Erasmus settled on Beast Mtawarira, Frans Malherbe, Faf de Klerk, and Handré Pollard and never wavered.
8. The All Blacks are still the best team in the world, but have work to do to be champions
Losing both trophies on offer to the Boks, with question marks at prop, lock, and six; puts pressure on how the playmakers and midfield are selected and trained.
The best path may be a Razor Robinson revolt? A new mind. Relatable? Ruthless? If 2020 goes the Boks’ way, then you can start to wonder if the All Blacks still reign.
9. Rugby is not soft
It’s harder than ever. he four most powerful teams were in it at the end. The 27 forwards in the final were bigger, stronger, faster, and more athletic than any prior era’s packs.
The biggest hits happened in the last match. Skeletons were rattled, legally. Power is the future. The cards helped.
Pundit
Roar Guru
harry i love your penmanship
Pundit
Roar Guru
https://www.theroar.com.au/2020/10/12/what-is-a-springbok-flyhalf/
Pundit
Roar Guru
wayne barnes was good
Pundit
Roar Guru
Hey harry, speaking of pollard, i wrote about the bok flyhalf-prototype for success, i would love to hear your verdict :rugby:
Pundit
Roar Guru
forward depth is better than backline depth nEW ZEALAND HAD two backlines, sadly forwards are the ones who tire, not the backs
Pundit
Roar Guru
Willie can assist tries without even being on-form. Certainly deserves his spot as i advocated
Pundit
Roar Guru
Pollard fired since quarters but didnt kick too well then.
Pundit
Roar Guru
Bomb Squad Harry! Backs dont tire as fast
Pundit
Roar Guru
Like you said Harry, Pollard is the general while Faf does what he is meant to do and slightly more. Le Roux is more of a second flyhalf but a flash 10 because Pollard is still controlling the game
Pundit
Roar Guru
Faf is a good player but Ben Smith overexaggerated his role just to criticise Pollard. In reality he does slightly more than what a typical scrumhalf does with sniping runs and occasional blindside passes. If someone is to say Pollard isnt integral, they have the World Cup campaign to answer to
Pundit
Roar Guru
well, some mistackles here and there but that great one on Polledri for Am intercept and try
Harry Jones
Expert
Pollard played a masterful tournament. The Boks would have gone precisely NOWHERE without him. The (very) few errors he made were compensated for by his big moments, and overall stability. He was a rock in defense, he opened up Japan, Italy, and Wales, he made his kicks under serious pressure, and he gave the team confidence. Faf's role was very different, and Faf played it well, too (roverback, take chances, overplay the blind, and disrupt behind enemy lines). But Pollard was a quiet general who only made one really bad error which probably cost us the game versus NZ. From that point on, he was a rock.
Pundit
Roar Guru
well yes. Faf was not in good form tilll the knockouts even then he didnt pass the ball to pollard in space Pollard was decent against Italy but not quite the Handre Pollard i expected. Then he fired against Japan with that brilliant pass and some good territorial kicks from the boot, against Wales with great passes out wide and then the carry and break that set up the try, before nerves of steel to slot the last penalty, against England he was a masterclass with that chip and chase, while several passes wide got them going forwards. He physicality was storng with some good tackles to stagnate attack with De ALLENDE
Ulrich
Roar Rookie
The ball in play time is a lot higher than even 10 years ago so all the forwards run more. There has to be 2-3 forwards at every ruck.
Harry Jones
Expert
Sheek, there are fewer scrums, but (1) scrums last longer and are far more taxing; (2) lifting in lineouts and at restarts, as well as cleanouts are like Olympic snatch-jerk; (3) props are fully engaged in defensive lines; and (4) are asked to carry and pass.
sheek
Roar Guru
Harry, As an aside, why are props getting burned out quickly if there are fewer scrums per test now? And no prop rarely goes beyond 50 mins? Sure, everyone's bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic, the hits more intense, but does all this cancel the fact props only play for 30-50 minutes instead of the previous 80? I know ex-Puma & ex-Wallaby Topo Rodriguez, who I can call a mate as apart from a close friend, & he prided himself on two things. Firstly, his endurance strength & durability, & secondly, his versatility in playing both sides of the scrum. Topo said many bigger props roughed him for the first 30 mins but by the 60th min he was on top as his opponent ran out of gas. And curiously, Topo played most of his Puma tests at tight-head, but most of his Wallaby tests at loose-head. Those kind of props like Topo simply don't exist today. And I think it is to the game's detriment.
Harry Jones
Expert
Good points all, Sheek, but in the modern power knockout matches (after 5-6 prior games), the top props and locks are absolutely ragged out. The AB tight five looked gassed. Wales was on fumes. ENG and RSA had the piggies in reserve.
Agree Sheek, but as I said earlier in the week/last week. Rassie had 18 months to get SA back to their core strengths, scrums, lineouts, rucks, defense etc. He mentioned during the RWC there are more building blocks to add, I am confident attacking nous is next on the agenda. Looking at the final, there were a few indications such as the ball in hand during the first half, even though nothing came of it (all of penalty advantages) the maul setup in general play during the second half, and the two well executed tries, Kolbe’s really from defence turned into counter and Mapimpi’s try which came from a kick which Willie were under a bit of pressure, ruck got secured and I think from the next ruck came the try. Certainly I want to see South Africa play with ball in hand, but you still need to earn the right to go wide (if I may use that tired old cliché
sheek
Roar Guru
Corne, Just to play the devil's advocate yet again, yes, structure is very essential. But knowing when to mix it up gives players of X factor quality an edge. Keep in mind it wasn't that long ago everyone was marvelling at how the ABs happily conceded both possession & territory to their opponents, then burned them in a few minutes with a couple of spectacular tries. I think we're all trying too hard here to be sages.
sheek
Roar Guru
I’m sorry, but we’re getting carried away here about depth. Yes, depth is important, but Australia won its two world cups in 1991 & 99 with world class players, & X factor players. We’re getting carried away with how SA played to their strengths, which was obviously smart. But neither Wales nor England had X factor players to upset them on the hop. If Wales had a prop of Graham Price’s quality, he would have defused the Boks power scrum. A halves pairing similar to Gareth Edwards & Phil Bennett would have scared the wits out of the Boks defence. Wales didn’t have these quality X factor players. If England had been led by someone like Martin Johnson, he would have shut down any creeping negativity immediately. Owen Farrell was missing in his leadership. A flanker like Richard Hill would have just kept on ploughing ahead as he always did. And a pair of true magician backs like Jeremy Guscott & Jason Robinson would have had the Boks defenders in a cold sweat. But England in the end, didn’t really have any X factor players to make a difference. Another point, England & France have the most quality players of a certain standard, & the best domestic comps in terms of wealth generation. That’s depth. But it doesn’t help them win the big point games if they don’t have enough X factor players. The Wallabies have been ordinary since 2007. Exit Latham, Larkham & Gregan all together. All X factor players. George Smith & Mortlock were another two, but they soon left as well. Who’s been an X factor player since then? I’ll let you guys tell me. In 10 years, how many quality X factor players for the Wallabies? If you name more than 3, you’re having me on!