Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Irish TV pundit clips up 12 incidents where Boks beasted All Blacks

Analysis details how the Springboks used defence to win them the final

In the aftermath of what was another epic contest in the 2023 Rugby World Cup final, there has been plenty said about how the Springboks edged the All Blacks 12-11 at the Stade de France in Paris.

ADVERTISEMENT

While New Zealand lost their captain to a red card, they lifted their play and had multiple opportunities to score and even take the win, despite trailing all match.

Some fans and pundits have been quick to focus on referee calls, or even the missed Jordie Barrett penalty, as reasons why New Zealand lost, so it was refreshing to come across the views of former Leinster stalwart and Ireland hooker Bernard Jackman, who has looked at things from a defensive point of view.

Defence

92
Tackles Made
209
14
Tackles Missed
37
87%
Tackle Completion %
85%

He’s perfectly illustrated how South Africa’s well disciplined and well executed defensive strategies are what actually won them the match, putting pressure on New Zealand and in a lot of cases, putting an immediate stop to their attacking efforts.

Led by workhorse flanker Pieter-Steph du Toit, who famously made 28 tackles in the final, the Springboks showed that it’s clearly not always attack that wins big matches.

“It was beauty and the beast – the best attacking side that went into the world cup against the best defensive side,” said Jackman on RTE Sport.

“They (the Springboks) pressure everything. They just make you make mistakes through their physical presence, through the speed that they come at you, and it’s phenomenal.

ADVERTISEMENT

Jackman takes us through a selection of clips from the final, displaying how the rush defence forced errors from the usually very slick All Blacks side, who a week prior had easily beaten Argentina by forty points.

“The All Blacks had no handling error against Ireland, and they had seven or eight in this game, and it’s not by chance, it’s not down to the weather. It’s down to the pressure.”

The analysis appears to have been appreciated by both South African and neutral fans alike.

Related

ADVERTISEMENT

Boks Office | Episode 39 | The Investec Champions Cup is back

Argentina v France | HSBC SVNS Hong Kong 2025 | Men's Match Highlights

New Zealand v Australia | HSBC SVNS Hong Kong 2025 | Women's Match Highlights

Tokyo Sungoliath vs Shizuoka BlueRevs | Japan Rugby League One 2024/25 | Full Match Replay

Reds vs Force | Super Rugby W 2025 | Full Match Replay

The Rise of Kenya | The Report

New Zealand in Hong Kong | Brady Rush | Sevens Wonders | Episode 4

The Fixture: How This Rugby Rivalry Has Lasted 59 Years

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

115 Comments
A
Another 459 days ago

I’m a Kiwi and stout All Blacks fan but I don’t think this is unreasonable analysis. However, the notion of the Springboks having an unbreakable defence is more of a cultural stereotype as, in all honesty, the stats just don’t quite add up in this WC to support that point.

SA conceded tries and missed tackles during the knockout games they played in - quite a lot of them, really. I think the critical factor for them was more to do with attitude and confidence, while also using their bench effectively to target the breakdown area late in the game especially. Against France, England and New Zealand they were outplayed for large portions of the game but held on enough to be able to exploit weaknesses when it counted.

For France, their essential weakness (after losing their big lock, Willemse especially) was an inability to slow down and control a game. They attacked aggressively but couldn’t consolidate their lead through set piece control. They could only play at hyper speed, which allowed SA to meet fire with fire using high ball attacking and simple driving play. Every time France scored, SA came straight back at them.

For England, their essential weakness was an inability to score tries as well as a weak reserve front row. They couldn’t accumulate enough points while dominant, which kept SA in touching distance and gave an easy target for SA at the scrum to earn penalties towards the end.

For New Zealand, their weakness stemmed from ill discipline, which itself stemmed from a underlying lack of confidence based on several years of shaky results. When things didn’t go to plan - like referee/TMO decisions not going their way - you could palpably sense a degree of panic in their game. This led to desperate high tackles and the like even when they weren’t needed. This was true throughout the last few years, to be honest. Past NZ teams weren’t necessarily better in any technical sense but were mentally stronger...more confident that things would turn in their favour eventually.

They had it against Ireland, but that was after months of analysis, a very smooth build up in the Group stages, and they were helped a little by Irish overconfidence too. SA weren’t overconfident as much as they were cussed and defiant which is a different mindset.

If teams want to learn from the World Cup and improve next time, they need to honestly address these weaknesses rather than beating their nationalistic chests or blaming the referee.

B
Bob Marler 515 days ago

Sjoe. I’m jelly of Leinster already.

An attack mindset in defence is very clever. Instead of being passive - you maximize every minute of the game whether you have the ball or not. Nienaber will be missed but long may his influence last.

D
Dr A 515 days ago

209 tackles v 92 is an INSANE stat for a final. I’ve always thought, this is a game of who wants it more and the Boks wanted it more. 209 vs 92 shows who wanted it more.

The fact is this.

This All Blacks side was one of the worst on record, coached by the worst coach in our history. First, world cup pool loss, Argie home loss, Irish home series loss, 69% win record for a coach is horrific, most losses as an AB coach.

And worst of all - the head to head records v our arch rivals, Ireland, SA and France. Here Foster came in at 38%.

I don’t know why we are all disappointed about the final loss because the numbers above tell a story of a team that should have just got out of pool play and got shot.

T
Timgrugpass 517 days ago

One could not read a more vacuous & self involved article, ie less than half of it was the article itself, the rest quotes praising itself ie summary, defence stops attack, if it works. Rocket science.

England would be slammed if it had won the same way. Apparently the same makes the Bok superheroes. Pathetic insecurity.

T
Tim 517 days ago

What a bad example, to say their defence won them the game when they missed 37 tackles highlights that the defence wasn’t that good against 14 players.

M
Michael 518 days ago

Geees give it a bone !!!!

T
Terry 518 days ago

Rubbish!

y
yster 518 days ago

Really nicely put, never looked at it from this angle but that is impressive.

M
Michael Röbbins (academic and writer extraordinair 518 days ago

The problem is words like “actually” and “always” as if defensive intensity and strategy are not “playing” rugby or not conducive to a “positive, flowing game.” As Wittgenstein and co. have taught us, the problem is in our language.

N
NJ 518 days ago

No other team defends like the Springboks, Best D in this universe ;p. I hope this team can take it up a gear from here!!!

Load More Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

f
fl 23 minutes ago
Why Les Kiss and Stuart Lancaster can lead Australia to glory

“A succession of recent ex-players going straight back into the game as coaches in their early 40’s would prob be enough to kill it stone-dead. Innovation would die a death.”

Would it? I do think one of the major differences between rugby and most other sports - which we’ve been overlooking - is the degree to which players are expected to lead team meetings & analysis sessions and the like. Someone like Owen Farrell has basically been an assistant coach already for ten years - and he’s been so under a variety of different head coaches with different expectations and playing styles.


“The most interesting ppl I have met in the game have all coached well into their sixties and they value the time and opportunity they have had to reflect and therefore innovate in the game. That’s based on their ability to compare and contrast between multiple eras.”

I don’t doubt that that’s true. But having interesting insights doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll be the best able to inspire a team, or the best at managing the backroom staff.


“Wayne Smith winning the WWC in his mid sixties three years ago prob means nothing to you but it meant a lot to him. It took him back to the roots of is own coaching journey.”

I don’t doubt that! But I don’t think coaches should be hired on the basis that it means a lot to them.


“The likes of Carlo Ancelotti and Wayne Bennett and Andy Reid all have a tale to tell. You should open your ears and listen to it!”

I agree! Never have I ever suggested otherwise!

176 Go to comments
J
JW 4 hours ago
French bid to poach 109kg 17-year-old dual-code Aussie prospect Heinz Lemoto

Yes that’s what WR needs to look at. Football had the same problem with european powerhouses getting all the latin talent then you’re gaurenteed to get the odd late bloomer (21/22 etc, all the best footballers can play for the country much younger to get locked) star changing his allegiance.


They used youth rep selection for locking national elifibilty at one point etc. Then later only counted residency after the age of 18 (make clubs/nations like in this case wait even longer).


That’s what I’m talking about, not changing allegiance in rugby (were it can only be captured by the senior side), where it is still the senior side. Oh yeah, good point about CJ, so in most cases we probably want kids to be able to switch allegiance, were say someone like Lemoto could rep Tonga (if he wasn’t so good) but still play for Australia’s seniors, while in someone like Kite’s (the last aussie kid to go to France) case he’ll be French qualified via 5 years residency at the age of 21, so France to lock him up before Aussie even get a chance to select him. But if we use footballs regulations, who I’m suggesting WR need to get their a into g replicating, he would only start his 5 years once he turns 18 or whatever, meaning 23 yo is as soon as anyone can switch, and when if they’re good enough teams like NZ and Aus can select them (France don’t give a f, they select anybody just to lock them).

9 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Harlequins sign 132kg England prop Harry Williams Harlequins sign England prop Harry Williams
Search