Paul Rees makes his case for why Springboks will be a very different animal come the World Cup
In this instant age, one result makes a significant difference. After South Africa's defeat to New Zealand in Auckland last weekend, one headline claimed the Springboks were in big strife ahead of the World Cup and needed a major rethink.
The reverse was being said 11 months ago after the Springboks overwhelmed the same opponents 26-10 at Mbombela Stadium. The World Cup in France is now a couple of months away and the holders, who came from a long way behind to win the 2019 tournament with a sprint finish, are being written off as outdated.
The defeat to the All Blacks, who last year were being written off, followed reverses to Ireland and France last autumn. The four countries are on the same side of the World Cup draw and, should they progress from their group, South Africa will play either New Zealand or the hosts in the quarter-finals.
“I think South Africa's gameplan has really hit a wall,” said the former Scotland coach Matt Williams, below. “They beat Australia easily, but they are really poor at the moment. They (the Boks) are not coping well against the big boys like New Zealand, France and Ireland. They need a big rethink on what they are doing before the World Cup.
“Lukhanyo Am is one of the best outside centres in the world, if not the best. They hardly called his name on Saturday. He just did not see the game. They are playing to some of their strengths, which is their forwards, but that is not going to mix it against the top four.”
Am received the ball nine times against New Zealand, beating three defenders in making 20 metres. His opposite number, Rieko Ioane, who was replaced 14 minutes from time, was on the end of seven passes. He also evaded three tacklers and made 16 metres.
The images of New Zealand and South Africa are starkly different and they endure. The All Blacks played a tactical game last weekend, kicking often and chasing hard to give Willie le Roux little room or time to counter-attack.
They won the territory battle in the opening 25 minutes and moved the ball quickly when in striking distance. It was a pragmatic approach: they were not living up to an ideal. It was a gameplan to defeat South Africa and, after withstanding a second half fightback, it worked.
The All Blacks kicked from hand twice as often as the Springboks, 28 to 14. They had more possession, 56 per cent, and made 193 passes to 135 and went on 120 runs compared to 103. They offloaded more, 9-6, and made more clean breaks, but more crucial were their set-pieces with only one line-out lost out of 15 and one scrum in eight to give them better percentages than their opponents.
The player who covered most ground with the ball in hand was South Africa's wing Cheslin Kolbe, even if he was less often involved than Will Jordan with New Zealand having by far the more effective kicking game. Faf de Klerk is still some way off his form in 2019 and Handre Pollard's absence at outside-half is telling.
South Africa have won the World Cup three times, in 1995, 12 years later in 2007 and another 12 years on in 2019. A common denominator was that they had the best defence in the tournament, and whether a forward approach will be enough in France remains to be seen. Defence will count in the latter stages as it invariably has done.
South Africa defeated New Zealand in the 1995 final in Johannesburg after blunting Jonah Lomu and while the three meetings between the sides in the tournament since then have all been won by the All Blacks, their defence stood out in the 2015 semi-final at Twickenham and in the 2019 group match in Yokohama.
A strength of New Zealand over the years has been their ability to tailor their game to the opposition.
How often have they met the might of France and South Africa head on, scrummaging with unexpected intensity and more concerned with territory than ball retention, taking on their opponents at their strongest point? Speed of ball is not the preoccupation for South Africa that it is for the three teams above them in the rankings, Ireland, France and New Zealand, but as they showed in the final against England four years ago, they have their moments, if usually after wearing down opponents.
As well as having to do without Pollard, whose attacking game was given an airing at Leicester last season, South Africa are missing their captain and openside flanker Siya Kolisi, who is hoping to be fit for the World Cup.
Kwagga Smith does not have the same presence or reading of the game. The return of Kolisi and Pollard will add to South Africa's attack and, anyway, there was a feeling last weekend that they were keeping their hand hidden ahead of the World Cup.
With the Rugby Championship truncated in a World Cup year, played on a home or away basis rather than home and away, winning it is of secondary importance to the tournament in France. If New Zealand and South Africa do meet in the quarter-finals, it will be a very different match.
Another factor to consider with South Africa is that after beating England in the last World Cup final, they did not play for 20 months because of the pandemic. They went into the 2021 series against the Lions almost cold, one Test against Georgia in Pretoria three weeks before the opener against the tourists: a second scheduled for the following week was cancelled because of Covid.
The team that beat the Lions in the third Test to clinch the series may line up again in France. Twelve started against New Zealand last weekend: Pollard and Kolisi were absent while Cobus Reinach played at scrumhalf in the decider three years ago with Faf de Klerk, who had started the first two Tests, injured.
All the starters in the 2019 final, with the exception of prop Tendai Mtawarira, are still around, as well as most of the replacements. South Africa have continuity and, vitally, an identity. They know what they are about, and if everyone else does as well, doing something about it is another matter.
They may have lost in Dublin and Paris last year, but they were missing their half-backs and Am at the Aviva Stadium and at the Stade de France had Pieter-Steph du Toit sent off early on. Antoine Dupont followed for the home side at the start of the second half, but the Springboks were leading when back rower Deon Fourie was sent to the sin-bin ten minutes from time only to concede ten points and lose by four. South Africa also made ten changes from the side that had overwhelmed Australia the previ-ous week.
They have greater depth in the forwards than they do behind and selection will be key in the World Cup: Malcolm Marx has tended to operate from the bench, but should the hooker start given the impact he invariably makes? He scored the try after coming on in the second half that saw South African come back from 20-3 down to trail by eight points.
A one-sided match became a contest and if the Springboks do not have the variety of New Zealand or France, they have pace and finishing power out wide. They are more than a one-trick side, although they have in the past, such as the series against Wales last summer, not taken the opportunity to experiment tactically, changing personnel rather than approach.
They know what they are about, and what it takes to win a World Cup.
In their last nine World Cup knockout matches, they have conceded eight tries. That run includes three semi-finals and two finals. They have won the event three times and have yet to concede a try in a final, although Mark Cueto would dispute that after his controversially ruled out score in 2007.
South Africa may be fourth in the rankings, but the three teams above them all have something to prove. Ireland have never reached the semi-final stage of a World Cup. If they appear to have never had a better chance, they felt that way in 2011 after defeating Australia in the group stage only to be felled by Wales's chop tackling in Wellington.
France have home advantage, but that was not something that fitted comfortably 16 years ago and while they have only lost once in front of their own supporters since the last World Cup, they have fashioned a way of winning rather than being convincing. They are a completely different side from four years ago, but so are England and Wales which is why the two sides of the draw are such contrasts, the peril of deciding the seeds so early.
England under Steve Borthwick need to find an identity, as do Wales who, having lost Alun Wyn Jones and Justin Tipuric, may be without Taulupe Faletau following the No 8's withdrawal from the latest training camp because of a calf injury. Borthwick's squad selections this summer have tended to favour experience. Although Sam Underhill, who played in the 2019 final, was cut last week and the uncapped Tom Pearson, below, late of London Irish retained, the flanker has been cursed by injury in recent years and Pearson has been steadily impressive, possessing many of Underhill's qualities while carrying the ball more.
Borthwick does not lack options, unlike his predecessor Eddie Jones whose first two matches in charge of Australia for the second time ended in defeat. If the first, against South Africa, was not a surprise, the second, against Argentina last weekend, was less expected and to some degree self-inflicted.
There are less than seven weeks before the start of the World Cup and with the top four of the rankings on one side of the draw, it means two out of Ireland, France, New Zealand and South Africa will not be involved in the semi-finals.
Put another way, it means two out of England, Argentina, Wales and Australia will, although that assumes Japan, Fiji and Georgia will not make it beyond the pool stage. The four tier one nations will not be assuming anything given that they have all lost more Tests than they have won in the last year.
England have the best, or should that be the least worse, record with five defeats and a draw in 12 matches. Their pool rivals Argentina have six victories and eight losses, while in the other group Australia have won five and lost ten, a tad better than Wales's three and nine.
England are the one team on that side with the potential to cause concern. If they make the last four, they will have achieved momentum for the first time since 2020 and they have a hard core of World Cup experience.
Borthwick had little time to prepare for the Six Nations but the World Cup will be different. It will come down to tactics and selection and given his tilting towards experience, England are more likely to resemble South Africa than New Zealand, more concerned about territory than the speed of release from the breakdown.
As for Jones, the quarter-finals look the limit of Australia's range. Overpowered by South Africa, they muscled up against Argentina but without Michael Hooper found themselves outmanoeuvred at the breakdown. They conceded a rash of penalties which the Pumas turned into lineouts and points.
Jones afterwards likened his side to an old car: fix one problem and another crops up. He has tinkered with selection ahead of next weekend's encounter with the All Blacks in Dunedin but must feel like a deck chair steward on a sinking liner. Oh to be in England again.
It may be different come the World Cup, but that is to believe in the power of prayer. Australia may find themselves in a group more accessible than they could have hoped for having failed to make the top seeds, but after a summer of relentless training under Warren Gatland, Wales will be even more obdurate than Argentina were last weekend.
Far from having an identity, Australia will be more reliant on the element of surprise. Jones has a good record in the World Cup having been involved in three finals and overseeing Japan's victory over South Africa in Brighton in the 2015 tournament, but this will be his greatest test yet.
They were involved in three finals out of four from 1991, but have only made that stage once since Jones's side lost to England in the 2003 final in Sydney. That was in 2015 when Michael Cheika was in charge and they lost to New Zealand 34-17.
One parallel between then and now was the turmoil the Wallabies were in less than a year before the start of the tournament. Cheika was appointed head coach in October 2014 after Ewen McKenzie, hired the previous year to replace Robbie Deans after the series loss to the Lions, resigned after denying allegations about his conduct off the field.
Cheika had a European tour to acclimatise and they went on to win the truncated Rugby Championship with a 100 per cent record. A difference then was the Wallabies had a number of top-drawer players: Israel Folau, Matt Giteau, Stephen Moore, James Horwill, Hooper and David Pocock among them. And they had strength on the bench.
They have no contenders for a World XV now and prop Angus Bell was their only replacement last weekend to make an impact. In one sense, Jones will be in his element because Australia will not be weighed down by expectation. They have nothing to lose except matches.
The top four sides in the world rankings all have the management teams that were put in place immediately after the last World Cup. England, Wales and Australia have all changed their head coaches in the last eight months and Cheika took charge of the Pumas in March 2022.
Fiji have not had a better chance of making the knock-out stage since 2007 when they defeated Wales in Nantes before giving South Africa a jolt in the quarter-final in Marseille. The islanders would add to the latter stages in a way Australia and Wales would not. And, for once, Fiji will have had the same time to prepare as their rivals.
Fiji, unlike Italy, Scotland and Tonga, are on the side of the draw that is sunlit. They faced Australia and Wales in 2019, letting slip winning positions. They were 21-12 up on the Wallabies and led Wales 17-14, both in the second half, before fading. This year, they should be better equipped to seize the moment.
Neutrals will be rooting for them.
