“Winning is winning. We don’t care how we do it.”
That was the common refrain from South African supporters before the World Cup and it remains so today.
Rassie Erasmus’ South Africa are now indelibly etched into the William Webb-Ellis trophy as champions.
The thing is, while you can win trophies, you can’t win legacies. Time and history judges them.
As the smoke from the fireworks at Stade de France disappears and the players give their final interviews, talk turns quickly to World XV sides and assessing the ‘greatest ever’ teams.
It was surprising to see Matt Dawson writing for the BBC say “South Africa are probably the greatest team in the history of the World Cup. I don’t think anyone has got anywhere close to that previously, and given the format going forward, I’m not sure it will happen again.”
Siya Kolisi lifts The Webb Ellis Cup with his South African team mates. (Photo by Dan Mullan/Getty Images)
His argument is predicated on the fact that this was arguably the closest fought World Cup in history. A tournament where four excellent sides stood out from the rest.
And yes, South Africa found a way to win most but not all of their games in supremely hard fought circumstances.
But that isn’t the whole story. Dawson said as much later in his article when he argued that what made this Springbok side so special was:
“Their unwavering desire to push the boundaries and do whatever it takes to win. There have been moments over the past six years where director of rugby Rassie Erasmus has done things that are unacceptable, but you learn from those mistakes and he never, ever stops trying to work out where he can push things. The detail of the coaching staff around the pitch during the game, analysing everything, is NFL-like.”
It is very hard to argue with any of that. I wrote last week that Erasmus had coached as well as selected within the rules to slow the game, delay restarts and ensure that his side’s greatest attributes of size, power and bloody-mindedness dominated the landscape.
I maintain that it is a style of Rugby that shouldn’t be encouraged and also is counterintuitive when player welfare is front and centre. The authorities must consider whether the laws strike a balance between defence and attack, between all styles of play. Whether as they stand, the laws encourage a side not to possess the ball.
South Africa’s Damian Willemse celebrates after the team is awarded a penalty during the Rugby World Cup Final match between New Zealand and South Africa at Stade de France. (Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
After all, laws are meant to strike balances aren’t they and right now possession rugby is on the outer.
Nonetheless, Rassie was in many ways a genius. He coached within the laws as they are written and applied. It was certainly very effective. But that approach does not win the hearts and minds of most neutrals.
When discussions take place over camp fires or at bars about the greatest sides ever, I’m not sure too many will pipe up and advocate for the South African side that participated in games with endless stoppages and dozens of scrum penalties as well as episodes of ‘kick chasey’.
Talk will turn to Gareth Edwards and JPR Williams running rampant during the 1974 Lions Tour in the team they called the ‘Invincibles’. A team it should be said was fronted by hard, hard men like Willie John McBride and Fran Cotton.
The conversation will no doubt centre on the Richie McCaw led All Blacks that found ways to beat some magnificent sides led by generational players such as Brian O’Driscoll, Thierry Dusautoir, Bismarck Du Plessis and David Pocock. McCaw won 131 of his 148 tests.
It will also be interesting to see whether over time, these Springboks come to be accepted even as the best their country has produced.
John Smit’s Springboks were arguably man for man a better side than this one and played in a Lions series in 2009 that can’t be compared to the awful spectacle dished out in 2021.
To my mind only possibly Malcolm Marx, Handre Pollard and perhaps Pieter-Steph du Toit would have made that South African side of 2007-2009. Even then that would have been at the expense of some outstanding players including Schalk Burger and Smit himself.
Some have already highlighted the fact that having won 4 Rugby World Cup Finals, the Springboks now have the distinction of having not scored a try in 3 of them.
Os du Randt. (William West/AFP/Getty Images)
Doing so does nothing to advance this discussion. It isn’t about the number of tries scored or kicks taken for that matter. After all, the final in 1995 was gripping end to end rugby won by a field goal without either team crossing the line.
But from that game at Ellis Park, almost 3 decades ago, I still remember a rampaging Jonah Lomu being dragged down by James Small who is sadly no longer with us.
I remember a guy called Joost, another departed legend, in my opinion the greatest scrum-half of all time, stepping, weaving, passing. Throwing himself relentlessly at Lomu’s legs.
I remember Os du Randt at 130kg playing a whole game and tiring though he was, making a cover tackle in the last 20 minutes.
Not even a week later, I don’t remember many great moments from the 2023 final.
There were plenty of cards, one in particular will rest on the shoulders of a wonderful young man for the rest of his life. Very harshly so.
Of course that isn’t Rassie Erasmus’ doing. The game as it stands today has been taken down a deplorable dead end by the authorities where it died on the hill of player safety but rolled back down again.
It’s slower, arguably more dangerous and less pleasing to the eye despite the fact that there are almost no tight forwards playing 80 minutes like Os du Randt did in 1995 (and remarkably again in 2007).
Rassie did choose to coach and select sides to play the game that way. In many ways he did approach it like an NFL coach and at this time at least, seems very pleased with himself.
However, the game is worse for it. And the legacy of Rassie’s Boks will inevitably be tarnished by it.
Again, while you can win trophies, you can’t win legacies. Legendary status isn’t won. Time and history judges.
KiwiHaydn
Roar Rookie
Nope, none of that. The yellow card to Frizell was an accident and shouldn’t have been a card, let alone cynical. And it was still 8v7, no matter the age of the players…
GrahamVF
Roar Rookie
Except the one which was cynically taken out of the game.
GrahamVF
Roar Rookie
Could that possibly be that a 37 year old 92 kg part time hooker played 76 minutes 20 minutes longer than any other front row on either side, after the specialist hooker was cynically put off the field?
piru
Roar Rookie
I agree with you on all points mate
Brendan NH Fan
Roar Rookie
Not sure I am as blind as a Welsh man who wants to be loved by the English. Do you disagree that NZ even at their worst still won every RC they entered is not a reflection on a poor tournament. Or the fact that SH fans believe that we need a nations league because SH teams don't get enough competitive games. The only reason people view this NZ team as bad and the one in 2015 is good is because one lost and the other rarely did. Ignoring the state and standard of the all the other teams is the problem that you and others are ignoring. Only Oz, Maybe England and Wales would say they had a better team in 2015 then 2023 which must be taken into account.
Brendan NH Fan
Roar Rookie
I agree Graham. ODriscoll is people pleaser and will say what he things most will like. If he thinks that more supported SA he would be all about them. O'Driscoll is not taken serious by most pundits when it comes to general things but can be good an sporting potentially good players (though often if Leinster will be amazing is his go to). There is a reason he has not coached.
Brendan NH Fan
Roar Rookie
Piru the point is people can't say that the 2012-2015 was much better than the 2020-2023 Boks and yet at the same time say that the NH have not closed the gap on the SH because the two best NH teams failed to make it past the quarters as many have done. Either people believe that the WC is the pinnacle of the sport and it is all that matters (a much more SH view) or we look at teams over a 5-10 year period to see progress (a much more NH view). We have two teams who are back to back winners of WCs then the team that had to beat the 2, 3, 4 and 5 best teams to win it while the other only had to beat 2 of the top 5 teams to win it there can only be one winner. If we look at the whole cycle then many SH people would have to start facing some hard facts.
piru
Roar Rookie
There have been 10 world cups - the fact SA was excluded was of it's own doing. We don't get to claim we would have won if Cane wasn't carded, they don't get to claim the RWCs they were excluded from don't count.
Armand van Zyl
Roar Rookie
The win percentage post Apartheid is 64%. I don't know where you got the figure of 50%.
piru
Roar Rookie
Over the last two years excluding the games against each other France and Ireland have lost 3 games between them. But all I heard on all the SH sites was SH only care about the WC and after the quarter plenty were happy to point out that having failed in the WC the rest of the WC cycle was irrelevant as only the WC mattered. Yep, and if you look back during NZ's drought between 87 and 2011 you'd find them all arguing the exact opposite. People will find whatever stats or "facts" they can to back up their predetermined position, it's what the internet is built on.
piru
Roar Rookie
Maybe not WE, but I find this line of argument often comes with a tacit (or not so tacit) suggestion that the Springboks are playing rugby the 'wrong' way, when all they've done is play to the laws as best they can. I would be very surprised if somewhere beneath all this (and I'm not talking about your good self here) there isn't some 'sour grapes' motivation. I used the analogy of IRB changing up the laws (or at least the interpretation, not sure they ever actually changed a law now that I think of it) during McCaw's days to "ensure a clear release" after the tackle - the reason for the change was always given as "to give the tackled player a chance to play the ball".
kgbagent
Roar Rookie
Gawd you are tedious and one dimensional - the Stephen Jones of the Roar
GrahamVF
Roar Rookie
New Zealand has been the premium rugby nation for the past 50 years. The nation which has been must successful (however limited that may have been) during the past 30 years is South Africa. The two countries have very different national psychology. Different national personalities. Everyone has different friends in their circles - some bold and not adverse to risk taking - other more timid and conservative. I certainly value both. One is not better than the other. So with rugby. New Zealand is admirably attacking minded not adverse to risk taking, and deservedly gathers applause from all round the world. South Africa is the other personality. Timid perhaps (not on the field but on the drawing board. Conservative and not inclined to take strategic risks. Let's look at international rugby games that are regularly scheduled. There are two types. Mostly the games are of the log points type where points are awarded for more tries for example the Six Nations and Rugby Championship.(The exceptions are the mini tours) favours attacking teams. The characteristic of these games is that there is always another chance. So lose one and win five you're the champion. No one remembers the lost games just who was the Six Nations champions in whatever year and as the whistle goes on a disappointment the planning starts for the next game of the competition just ten months away. These games are best suited to an attacking style. Every four years there is a very different competition. The World Cup. The attacking style favours teams in the pool stages and almost without exception New Zealand ends up with the most tries and points difference, partly because up to this year the mismatches were stark. Then comes the knockout stages. Statistically it is difficult to argue with the point of view that defence wins knockout competitions. One mistake and it not a case of see you in ten months time - it's see you in 48 months time. That's why the conservative no risk taking low mistakes approach is successful. Secondly the WC takes a different kind of fitness to the round robin type games. The one requires a fitness that is geared at an 80 minute effort every fourteen days. The other is geared to have to play five gruelling games in 35 days. That required a squad depth which by its nature often excludes some of the most attacking typr of players. So we have two different types of rugby suited to two different types of competitions. It's not fair to criticise one style which is successful at one type of competition because that style provides the best chance of winning. So why not have two prestigious world competitions. One the knock out cup and the other a competition which takes the top two teams over a four year period based on the on going log standings in the rugby wold rankings calculated every time world rugby makes a new calculation. The top two teams play the best of three on a four weeks competition either on a home and away or even on a neutral ground. But it is not fair to continuously criticise one style of play which is suited to one type of competition because tries and bonus points win one type and the fact that in 380 minutes of final rugby the other style only allows one try to be score against. South Africa and New Zealand don't play the sort of games they do because they want to win by playing those styles. They play those styles because that is in the national DNA. The fact that they both win lots of games is a result of the DNA not the other way around.
CW Moss
Roar Rookie
Yes. It was worth a yellow to take him out they may have thought in the shids.
CW Moss
Roar Rookie
I was looking at the success ratios of the AB coaches and Sir Steve is the top with that team. That said I love the 1971 Lions as the best team I've ever seen. A close second is the Inter-Varsity team I played in which won IV in Perth in 1970.
CW Moss
Roar Rookie
This is ridiculous!. It sounds like a lightweight attempt from a closet AB fan with a keyboard, mourning the recent loss. The bigger problem is the rebuilding of the ABs after the champion players have left to bulk up their superannuation. Now that will be interesting. The shaky isles fans could face more time in troubled waters and when will they turn on their saviour?.
kgbagent
Roar Rookie
"What Rassie has done for rugby and the nation as a whole is something you wouldn’t understand." Rassie turned rugby into a whinge fest that has resulted in these death threats to refs and officials since 'that video'. Yes it was wildly appreciated in Bokke land but the rest of the planet were hardly applauding. These "tactics", whilst legal, has to me and many ruined the game we grew up with. However the blame ultimately resides with RFU and it's NH centric controlling the narrative. Didn't SA block the vote against the Argentine for head of WR? He would have made major positive changes I believe yet we end up with dithering old English running the shop.
GrahamVF
Roar Rookie
Maybe it just shows that this time round the draw was a nightmare. Two of the top four teams were guaranteed to be eliminated in the quarters which mean the pools must have been really tough. The difference between the top six teams has never been so slim.
Muzzo
Roar Rookie
But at least the records show Harry that the Bokke had the wood on the AB's for nigh on 60 years with the for & against & that was turned around in our favour in the latter part of the 90's. No other nation, on the planet, has come close to doing that to the AB's over a period of time that the Bokke did.
Muzzo
Roar Rookie
Tend to disagree, but we all have an opinion. In respect to the current Bokke side they do have a excellent captain , who you fail to mention. His workrate, inspirational leadership, & play in general is massive. Siya Kolisi is definitely one of the great Bokke leaders . To even say that the 74 Lion's were the ' invincibles' , is a tad out of whack, as that label belonged to the 25 AB's who toured the UK back then. Bestowed on a team from our nation, & not on a team that comprised the best of four nations. Even this last RWC, in which now the Bokke have a 50% record of winning all the tournaments they've contested, & never been beaten in any final they've been in, also suggests that Rassie did get it right. Winners are winners, & that's something we can't take away from them, so a big congrats is in order. Yes I agree, that there have been finals that have been won by just the boot, but it's the points on the board that shows the final result, no matter how. We can't just blame the way the game is played on the teams partaking in the action, as I have pointed out on a few occasions, it's the fault of the ruling body, World Rugby, that have just thrown many rulings out there, without any thought. Leave it to those out there to sort it, is no way a ruling body should operate, as we've seen with there incompetent ways in the past. Even the way they handled the Rassie affair just showed their incompetence, in having a independant committee to rule on it. A definite clean out at the top, with more knowledgeable persons in place.