Boks master 'no-risk' approach

JOHN SELKIRK / Fairfax News

VICTORIOUS CAPTAIN: South Africa captain John Smit holds the trophy.

Relevant offers

David Kirk

All Blacks must show ruthless streak David Kirk: Now is the hour for All Blacks Bledisloe a triumph for mental toughness Springbok pride looms to doom Solid rebuild but where's the killer punch? Players key to lifting suspended sentence Demise of men in black greatly exaggerated Boks master 'no-risk' approach Talent meets toughness in final England: The boa constrictors of rugby

Two good teams tried desperately not to lose the sixth Rugby World Cup final. One of them succeeded.

England and South Africa employed virtually identical tactics in a match, that while absorbing for its importance, was mostly dull.

The match was all about managing risk. Both teams had decided that tries were going to be virtually impossible to score, given the quality of the defence.

Therefore both teams decided the best approach was to play for position on the field and hope something happened from there. Given the only thing that could happen was a drop goal or a penalty, in effect the teams said to the referee: "you decide who will be world champion".

There was so little difference between the teams that refereeing interpretations and luck decided the outcome of the match. England was very unlucky not to have a try awarded. It seemed everyone in the ground upon watching the video replay reached the opposite conclusion to the video-referee, who ruled Mark Cueto just touched the line before he grounded the ball.

England shaded South Africa in the scrums but South Africa played it smart. They wheeled a bit, they cleared quickly and generally did not allow the scrum to descend into an out and out physical contest.

The lineout was the one area of the game in which one team achieved a significant advantage. The Springbok defensive lineout was excellent. They had the courage to compete on England throws even close to their own line. As a result they won or disrupted just enough England ball to stifle their dangerous driving maul.

South Africa also competed very effectively at the breakdown. England progressed to the final on the back of massive physical presence at the breakdown. Arriving in numbers and blowing the opposition off their ball with physical power. The South African inside backs are big and together with the total physical commitment shown by the whole team, they neutralised this English strength.

So it was a game of managing risk and neutralising strengths. Both teams played not to lose and hoped for an opportunity to kick for goal or counter-punch from an opposition error.

Very few errors came. I don't know how many kicks went up - 30 or 40 - but I can only recall two being dropped and many were taken under extreme pressure.

It remains for the game's administrators to decide whether the style of rugby that has become the style needed to win a World Cup is good for the game.

The two teams who contested the final are not to blame for the dull, no-risks approach that has predominated at the business end of the tournament. This is the style that has proven to be a winning style and above all teams are at the World Cup to win.

However the corollary of the "winning style" we now have in world rugby are fewer tries, more matches decided by penalties and drop goals, and more intense pressure on the referees.

Neither Australia nor New Zealand is particularly well placed to prosper with this style of rugby. Australia especially does not have the assembly line of 120kg props and second rowers that come out of England and South Africa. And both countries produce athletic loose forwards with ball skills and vision, not the 110kg battering rams that we saw at Stade de France in the World Cup final.

Backs continue to get bigger and bigger. Matt Giteau and Dan Carter are now at the extreme small end of the range of size and weight for test match backs. They are rightly acknowledged as two of the most skilful players in world rugby. I doubt however that either would have been more effective than the far less skilful kicking and tackling machines that played in the World Cup final.

When the Wallabies and All Blacks dropped out of the tournament early, northern hemisphere commentators where quick to pinpoint the Super-14 as a weakness in the southern hemisphere game. Compared to the European Cup, they believe the Super 14 lacks physical intensity and the format does not prepare players for the sudden death environment of a World Cup.

As the Australian and New Zealand Rugby Unions lick their wounds and regather for the next four year slog to the World Cup, they would do well to start by thinking about how they can work together to influence the laws, the international playing season and ultimately the style of rugby that is winning rugby.

- © Fairfax NZ News