u/Flyhalf2021

I don't know if it's like this in France, but in SA we really love scrums, mauls and a good kicking battle with lots of physical carries.

At a South African derby match you would even find fans moaning about their team running too much and rather to play the percentages.

This is not to say beautiful line breaks aren't cherished in SA but with the right salesmanship you can sell rugby as a game of chess where the team that uses their different pieces better wins.

Rugby's issue with growth has nothing to do with the rules and how the game looks and everything to do with the structure of the sport from a competition point of view and financial mismanagement.

Rugby Union 20 years ago wasn't a better sport to watch than today and yet it's popularity was probably higher then.

I know Australia and now NZ have a giant NRL problem on their door step but trying to guilt rugby into changing to win those fans over by emulating a sport only taken seriously in 1 continent is not it.

It's like someone coming here and saying T20 cricket has more action than a 90 minute football match. The response wouldn't be to introduce power plays into football, it would be "Then go watch Cricket".

It's like they didn't test the contrast between their two kits.

I think Pollard was always going to start this game and Rassie loves to have SFM on the bench when Polly starts but will have Manie on bench if SFM starts.

Yep, even the fact they needed 30+ phases to score their second try isn't a sign of Springbok poor defense it just means the ABs either have to be brilliant like this or put insane amounts of effort to score.

It puts a mental and physical toll to always have to play like this to unlock the Boks when the Boks only need 5 or so phases to score.

We have two mercurial flyhalves - that is sometimes great - and sometimes also a bit of a problem. Sometimes you just want Handre because these guys make you tear your hair out lol.

To be fair these 2 flyhalves as a combo have done exceptionally well looking at the results.

Beat NZ (4 out of 5 times they played) and have been controlled about it for the most part.

Beat France away with 14 men, Beat Ireland Away.

Not to disregard Handre's impact with the Springboks but we are arguably more dominant with these 2 than with any other flyhalves in the professional era.

I think Rennie's ABs have a bit more guts but for the most part this series would have played out almost the same as under Razor.

Truth is this series was always kind of a miss match.

Boks have had the same coaching group for 8 seasons and the core senior group have been together since 2016/2017. Some even before that.

This is basically like Hansen's ABs against Meyer's Springboks. Just 2 totally different development cycles.

Guys we have to be honest about SFM at 10. I am just not seeing it at the moment

I think we will have a solid 2031 team but it won't be as dominant as the 2024 - 2027 Boks. I still think France will be the bench mark in 2027 and beyond.

Reminds me a lot of when SA lose with Manie/SFM at 10 and then Pollard plays the week after and keeps getting selected until they lose with him.

Rieko if he had not gone to 13 would have followed the same path as Julian Savea, Waisake Naholo and Sevu Reece. Players that burn bright and then get dropped.

Depends on perspective really. From a Springbok perspective I always have these flashbacks of Rieko using his pace to create chances at 13, in a way he was like the Jesse Kriel of NZ but instead of being a physical specimen of a man he was lightening fast.

He wasn't exciting but I felt he did the boring things well enough that he stood out amongst the other NZ 13s.

Rieko is not even that old. He is 29, he still got another 4-5 years of international rugby in him

Rieko in his first 4 years was top 3 wings in the world. Then he transitioned for a bit and became a world class 13 for a few years.

Pity he fell off last couple of years.

An interesting thing to ponder is how the Injury of Pollard on the eve of Test 2 changed things.

Had Pollard been fit and we had won with him at 10 in the same manner there is a real possibility he starts at 10 for the rest of the series and this team approaches things very differently. Even Grant getting injured as well opened the door to Morne taking his spot for the rest of the series.

Another one to think about is if we had won well in test 1 would Hanekom still be on the bench instead of PdV, likewise JHW instead of Deon?

What's more is that the Springboks were 14-16 points ahead for large parts of that game. Springboks kicked 35 times and ABs 23.

Basically SA only played rugby in the red zone so they looked more efficient whilst NZ for large parts played in the wrong parts and gifted SA penalty kicks.

I would call that a masterclass in test match rugby.

I mean sure you can say the Boks are limited but they are not average, the fact that they can monster the 2nd bets team in the world without their backline is genuinely insane.

If the Boks can get the ball to 10 and beyond they will look unstoppable like lats year.

This is not correct, we lost twice in a row at home in 2015, 2008.

This is why you don’t outsource research to AI without fact checking

It’s always strange that Rassie has Manie on the bench whenever Sacha is in the team.

But when Pollard is in the team then Sacha is moved to the bench.

But when Manie and Pollard are together then Pollard is on the bench.

I don’t know how they come up with this

Isn't it amazing that Zas was a top try scorer when Manie was there but when Sacha plays 10 he can't get more than 2 tries a season.

Surely something happened there.

I was initially quite puzzled but the more I think about the series as a whole the more I can see what Rassie probably had in mind for this series.

My thinking is that the master plan to win this series was to use the full squad to outlast the All Blacks.

The plan was to win the Ellis Park match and then rotate heavily for Cape Town. SA with Manie at 10 just look more balanced and threatening as a whole so I am sure the plan was for him to close out the series similar to how Pollard closed out the World Cup.

It takes time to build those world class players. PSDT and Eben weren't the best in the world in their positions for the first 6 years of their international careers.

But none the less we have built up a few genuine world class players like Ruan Nortje, Jasper Wiese, Damian Willemse who are top 3 in their positions.

In a few years time we could see more like Paul de Villiers, SFM and the likes.

Deon in the team is for the same reason they called up Morne Steyn in 2021. It's because of a unique skill set they need against a particular opponent.

Deon won't play any more tests after this series.

Also you can't always be in transition all the time. 2023 was 3 years ago players who played there for the first time should be expected to go to 2031.

To give you context how many players have been transitioned out here is a list.

Bongi Mbonambi, Frans Malherbe, Trevor Nyakane, Franco Mostert, Lood de Jager (he has been replaced), Duane Vermeulen, Faf de Klerk, Makazole Mapimpi, Willie le Roux.

All of them were key players in the 2019 - 2023 Cycle.

The players still here are geniunly generational in World Rugby. Eben Etzebeth, Pieter Steph du Toit, DDA. These are some of the greatest in the country's history.

The team that beat NZ 43 - 10.

Only 7 of them played in the 2019 RWC final. The team has transitioned.

I am not concerned by the age but more so the kind of players we need going into the next world cup and whether we will be willing to make the big step.

For instance at 9 we play our best with the Cobus Reinach type scrumhalf but we want the X-factor of Grant Williams.

For 10 we look at our best with Manie but we want the skill set of Sacha.

For 2 we kind of need a Bongi but we just have a bunch of lite Marx's.

Either we are going to have to rethink how we adapt our game or we need to rethink the kinds of players we are bringing in.