Lesson for NZ and the world in Boks' triumph

Reuters

TIGHT TUSSLE: Springboks flanker Schalk Burger tangles with the English in the World Cup final.

Relevant offers

Duncan Johnstone

Junior ABs have every right to replace Maori 20 questions that answer themselves Luke's blunder sign of the times South Africans would be no great loss 14 ways to make this season Super Is there another coach out there who can do a Deans? Why didn't Tana get a parachute earlier? Tietjens has the X-factor like no other These guys have got points to prove Deans spells double trouble for NZRU

There was more substance than style. But that's what it takes to win a World Cup final. New Zealand can take a lesson there and thank South Africa for flying the flag for the southern hemisphere as well.

It's no coincidence that both times the Springboks have won the World Cup - 1995 was their previous victory - they have featured in finals without tries.

They won't worry one bit about that. Victorious skipper John Smit admitted he would have gladly taken a 3-nil victory.

South Africa got there by grinding out a win against an English side who specialise in exactly that.

Yes, we would have all liked to have seen a lot more running rugby and you would have to wonder why England were still kicking the ball away in the final 10 minutes when they were nine points adrift.

But in reality that should be no surprise. England have done that all tournament to reach the final.

We can just thank our lucky stars that their method didn't take them all the way to a consecutive title.

Any chance the game had of reinventing itself would have disappeared in a white tidal wave of glory.

Now rugby can sit down and take good stock of itself after teams from either side of the equator failed to fire up a final as a spectacle.

Does rugby want to continue down this track or does it want to mix and match its rules to allow for more freedom of expression?

The World Cup is over and now the game is facing some huge decisions as it changes the IRB leadership.

It was interesting to hear Tana Umaga saying the All Blacks and New Zealand rugby needed to reinvent their World Cup approach and look more at the conservative tactics that have proven so successful at the World Cup.

There is plenty of merit in that because history proves Umaga is correct.

But whether we want to go through year after year of that sort of approach is debatable.

South Africa have proven their ability to blend the near-perfect game at times, mixing their brutal forward power and a strong kicking game from their No 10s with an increasingly willingness to use outside talent like Bryan Habana.

That they weren't able to reproduce that in the final says plenty about the occasion and the opposition.

England have an uncanny ability to drag the opposition into their own playing style. Just ask the Wallabies who couldn't break the shackles four years ago in Sydney.

So why did the Springboks manage to edge out the English in Paris then?

Well, they had former Wallabies coach Eddie Jones in their midst for a start. He has formed a strong bond with Jake White and that was crucial to the side's success as they ended as the tournament's only unbeaten side.

For a long time White has operated virtually solo, even without a manager on ocassions. Jones brought friendship, a sounding board and also some clever tactics both on attack and defence.

Then you have the world's No 1 lineout securing ball at every opportunity.

Throw in an uncompromising defence along with the accurate goalkicking and it's a potent mix.

It would be hard to find a time when more New Zealanders were cheering for South Africa.

Some probably felt they were supporting the lesser of two evils.

Reality suggests we Kiwis need to thank South Africa for more than simply beating England.

They may have saved the game in the process.