South Africa line up for the anthems at Twickenham. Photo / Getty Images
South Africa line up for the anthems at Twickenham. Photo / Getty Images
OPINION
It will be fascinating to see if South Africa - or anyone else - retains the idea of stacking seven big forwards on the bench during the World Cup.
The celebrated Springbok “bomb squad” arrived all at once in the recent hiding given to the All Blacks.Shortly afterwards, the sole surviving member of the Boks’ starting pack was yellow-carded, meaning none of the original forwards was on the field - leaving the All Blacks confronted with a whole, fresh, heaving mass of committed Springbok forward power.
Divvying up the eight-man bench to seven forwards and one back - halfback Cobus Reinach - provoked some adverse reactions, with some pulling out the tired old card of it being against “the spirit of rugby”.
In theory, all eight substitutions could be forwards; the rules allow it. The thing is, at World Cup level (particularly in the knockout phases), it’s a risk - and few realise the Boks’ tactical hand was apparently forced by injury.
The South Africans had seven big forwards come off the bench at Twickenham. Photo / Getty Images
Fullback Willie Le Roux, who covers fullback and wing (and first five), had damaged ribs, so dropped out. Coach Jacques Nienaber brought in loose forward Kwagga Smith. A long-time Sevens exponent and clever runner with the ball, Smith could theoretically play anywhere outside first five; he rather underlined the point in the manner he scored one of the Boks’ five tries.
So, yes, it’s a risk, though take the contention that it was all an accident with a grain of salt. After all, Nienaber could have slotted in another back once Le Roux was out. That he didn’t tells us this was probably a measure taken for this particular “friendly” immediately before the World Cup began.
For that game, so close to the Cup and with the fear of injury all too applicable, their bench strategy was perfect. Play it fierce, play it tight, and see if the All Blacks were up for the fight. If the forward-oriented, grinding and in-the-face defensive tactics didn’t work, no harm done; nothing given away, and 15 forwards get a good hit-out against the old foe, ideal before a World Cup.
It smacks of Rassie Erasmus, the crafty South African director of rugby, and is almost certainly a product of the timing of that one-off match. So if the All Blacks and South Africa meet again, as they could do in the quarter-finals, would they pull the trick again?
Unlikely. It depends on a good start - which the All Blacks helpfully provided by triggering a stream of penalties against themselves, administered by a referee of the sort which makes many fear for the style of this World Cup. It also depends on luck; the All Blacks could have reprised the creative way they diced and shredded the Boks in the first 20 minutes of their first meeting this year. The sight of, for example, Franco Mostert running round at centre in those circumstances isn’t worth thinking about - although, in the modern game, the forwards bash about in the midfield all the time.
In the pressure cooker of the World Cup, however, a coach (and a director of rugby) would end up being hung, drawn and quartered if a seven-forward bench went wrong.
Some wringing their hands about seven forwards on the bench may have a point when they talk about safety. Like it or not, rugby has a concussion problem it must do more about - and the sight of seven behemoths providing pretty much an entire new pack does not look like an effort to avoid injuries. Playing out of position and finding oneself in unfamiliar physical circumstances could also lead to trouble; even a traditional 5-3 split on the bench still sees more than half a pack arrive to put their mark on proceedings.
The bench may not be among rugby’s biggest issues (not like confusing and voluminous rules officiated by referees and TMOs with X-ray vision; pitifully small ball-in-play times; yellow and red cards further disrupting the spectacle). Safety is.
The seven-forwards bench underlines that many modern players need only to be able to give their all for 40-50 minutes before they are replaced by another legion of bulked-up players, who only have to transport that bulk effectively for a great deal less than 80 minutes.
One of the theories to reduce injuries and bring back some verve to rugby, as opposed to man mountains endlessly crashing into each other, is to end or reduce the bench’s role as a tactical weapon. Substitutes would only be permitted for medical reasons (maybe apart from the front row), ending the era of players conditioned only to play part of a game.
It would also bring back fatigue as a win-lose factor and - maybe with some adjustments to, and emphasis on, the offside rules - it would raise the value of lighter, faster players to selectors.
So the Boks were and are perfectly entitled to manipulate their bench into a squad of crushers. But, if you take a more holistic view of the game, the current rules governing the bench might have to be, well, benched.
Paul Lewis has been a journalist since the last ice age. Sport has been a lifetime pleasure and part of a professional career during which he has written four books, covered Rugby World Cups, America’s Cups, Olympic & Commonwealth Games and more.
