Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

Nienaber reveals why he's gone for 7-1 split against Ireland

Jacques Nienaber (Head Coach) of South Africa during the South Africa men's national rugby team training session at Stade Omnisports des Fauvettes on September 19, 2023 in Domont, France. (Photo by Steve Haag/Gallo Images)

Springboks head coach Jacques Nienaber has revealed why he has once again gone for the risky 7-1 split, this time against Ireland in their crunch Pool B match in Stade de France on Saturday.

ADVERTISEMENT

Nienaher has gone for a bench of Deon Fourie, Ox Nche, Trevor Nyakane, Jean Kleyn, RG Snyman, Marco van Staden, Kwagga Smith and just one back – scrumhalf Cobus Reinach.

The split was the main topic of discussion at the press conference on Tuesday.

“Like any team selection, we went with that because we believe that’s the best way for us to make sure we get a result on the weekend.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

“We always try to be as physical and intense as possible. We always say you can’t plan for a good start, but you can always plan for an intense start. We will definitely try to be as intense as possible from the start, as I think they would as well.”

Nienaber insisted that the fact that the Boks used the same split in the warm-up win over New Zealand didn’t influence his selection against the world No.1s.

“It worked well in that specific game. The bench had a big impact, not only in that game but also on the weekend [against Romania].

“We analysed Ireland and after looking at them and what they bring and what we think we will need in this specific game from a tactical point of view and trying to counter everything they do – that’s the reason we went with seven-one.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I don’t think necessarily Ireland and New Zealand are similar in how they do things. It’s for this specific game.

“The ‘bomb squad’ that came on against Scotland also had a big impact. That’s what we want.

Related

“I don’t call them finishers or stuff like that. The guys that start and guys who come off the bench have a role to fulfil. That’s why when we talk about our front-rowers, we don’t talk about first choice or second choice. It doesn’t necessarily work like that in our team.

“The guys who start have a specific role to perform and the moment we see that being achieved, we bring the other guys off the bench.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The tactic creates a scenario where forward could potentially haver to fill in for back if there are more than one enfocred change during the 80 minutes, a risk the Boks’ brain trust seem happy to live with, although he wouldn’t reveal who he would ask to do so with, saying “That is tactics!”

“Obviously people look at it and say it’s a risk, but for us it’s a calculated risk. There are guys on that bench who cover various positions, but that is not something I’d like to go into too much because it is probably more tactical.

“I don’t want to talk too much about tactics. We have a lot of versatility in the squad and we showed that on the weekend by playing four nines [scrum-halves]. But we are comfortable with the risk we are taking.”

Springboks player ratings
AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND – JULY 15: Kwagga Smith of South Africa
(R) during The Rugby Championship match between the New Zealand All Blacks and South Africa Springboks at Mt Smart Stadium on July 15, 2023 in Auckland, New Zealand. (Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)

“It’s a week that you want to be involved with. It will be the same for them; the analysis they do on us and the plans they make for us, and the plans we make for them to see if it will work on Saturday. That’s the thrill of it.”

It was put to Nienaber that a new name might need to replace the ‘Bomb squad’ monniker that has become so widely used when referring to South Africa’s bench.

“That will probably be up to the media, they will decide that.”

“I won’t say I’m nervous, I’m excited. It’s going to be a proper test match [between] two teams that have a good skill set.

“If you look at their squad versus our squad, you’re probably going to find that they have a very experienced squad, probably between 29 or 30 years of age. We’re probably between 29 and 30 years of age.

“If you look at the amount of test cap experience we have on average per player, it will probably be between 40 and 45. If they select the guys that we think they’re going to select, it will also be around about 40 or 45.

“It’s going to be a clash of two teams that have good experience; good, cool, calm heads. They will be similar in the amount of guys that are over 30, so I think it’s two squads that will be very well matched on the day. 

Related

“That’s the exciting part, to see if our plans will work against them. Will we be able to handle the pressure they put us under? There will be ebbs and flows in the game. Will they be able to handle the pressure that’s on them? Because at the end of the day this is an important game for both teams.

“It’s only the third game of the pool, but if Ireland slip up in this game, their Scotland game becomes massive. (If) we slip against them in this game, our Tonga game becomes massive.

“So there will be pressure in this game. It’s exciting to see how the players will handle it.”

Related

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

7 Comments
B
Bob Marler 455 days ago

Can’t wait to see the day where Kwagga covers inside centre.

G
Guy 455 days ago

He only says commonplaces known to all beginner coaches.

G
G 455 days ago

Disappointed...was hoping for 8-0

D
Diarmid 455 days ago

The rugby brain on this guy.

Load More Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

f
fl 35 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Would I'd be think"

Would I'd be think.


"Well that's one starting point for an error in your reasoning. Do you think that in regards to who should have a say in how it's setup in the future as well? Ie you would care what they think or what might be more fair for their teams (not saying your model doesn't allow them a chance)?"

Did you even read what you're replying to? I wasn't arguing for excluding south africa, I was pointing out that the idea of quantifying someone's fractional share of european rugby is entirely nonsensical. You're the one who was trying to do that.


"Yes, I was thinking about an automatic qualifier for a tier 2 side"

What proportion of european rugby are they though? Got to make sure those fractions match up! 😂


"Ultimately what I think would be better for t2 leagues would be a third comp underneath the top two tournemnts where they play a fair chunk of games, like double those two. So half a dozen euro teams along with the 2 SA and bottom bunch of premiership and top14, some Championship and div 2 sides thrown in."

I don't know if Championship sides want to be commuting to Georgia every other week.


"my thought was just to create a middle ground now which can sustain it until that time has come, were I thought yours is more likely to result in the constant change/manipulation it has been victim to"

a middle ground between the current system and a much worse system?

47 Go to comments
f
fl 49 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Huh? You mean last in their (4 team) pools/regions? My idea was 6/5/4, 6 the max, for guarenteed spots, with a 20 team comp max, so upto 5 WCs (which you'd make/or would be theoretically impossible to go to one league (they'd likely be solely for its participants, say 'Wales', rather than URC specifically. Preferrably). I gave 3 WC ideas for a 18 team comp, so the max URC could have (with a member union or club/team, winning all of the 6N, and Champions and Challenge Cup) would be 9."


That's a lot of words to say that I was right. If (e.g.) Glasgow won the URC and Edinburgh finished 16th, but Scotland won the six nations, Edinburgh would qualify for the Champions Cup under your system.


"And the reason say another URC (for example) member would get the spot over the other team that won the Challenge Cup, would be because they were arguable better if they finished higher in the League."

They would be arguably worse if they didn't win the Challenge Cup.


"It won't diminish desire to win the Challenge Cup, because that team may still be competing for that seed, and if theyre automatic qual anyway, it still might make them treat it more seriously"

This doesn't make sense. Giving more incentives to do well in the Challenge Cup will make people take it more seriously. My system does that and yours doesn't. Under my system, teams will "compete for the seed" by winning the Challenge Cup, under yours they won't. If a team is automatically qualified anyway why on earth would that make them treat it more seriously?


"I'm promoting the idea of a scheme that never needs to be changed again"

So am I. I'm suggesting that places could be allocated according to a UEFA style points sytem, or according to a system where each league gets 1/4 of the spots, and the remaining 1/4 go to the best performing teams from the previous season in european competition.


"Yours will promote outcry as soon as England (or any other participant) fluctates. Were as it's hard to argue about a the basis of an equal share."

Currently there is an equal share, and you are arguing against it. My system would give each side the opportunity to achieve an equal share, but with more places given to sides and leagues that perform well. This wouldn't promote outcry, it would promote teams to take european competition more seriously. Teams that lose out because they did poorly the previous year wouldn't have any grounds to complain, they would be incentivised to try harder this time around.


"This new system should not be based on the assumption of last years results/performances continuing."

That's not the assumption I'm making. I don't think the teams that perform better should be given places in the competition because they will be the best performing teams next year, but because sport should be based on merit, and teams should be rewarded for performing well.


"I'm specifically promoting my idea because I think it will do exactly what you want, increase european rugyb's importance."

how?


"I won't say I've done anything compressive"

Compressive.

47 Go to comments
J
JW 53 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

Generally disagree with what? The possibility that they would get whitewashed, or the idea they shouldn't gain access until they're good enough?


I think the first is a fairly irrelevant view, decide on the second and then worry about the first. Personally I'd have had them in a third lvl comp with all the bottom dwellers of the leagues. I liked the idea of those league clubs resting their best players, and so being able to lift their standards in the league, though, so not against the idea that T2 sides go straight into Challenge Cup, but that will be a higher level with smaller comps and I think a bit too much for them (not having followed any of their games/performances mind you).

Because I don't think that having the possibility of a team finishing outside the quarter finals to qualify automatically will be a good idea. I'd rather have a team finishing 5th in their domestic league.

fl's idea, if I can speak for him to speed things up, was for it to be semifinalists first, Champions Cup (any that somehow didn't make a league semi), then Challenge's semi finalists (which would most certainly have been outside their league semi's you'd think), then perhaps the quarter finalists of each in the same manner. I don't think he was suggesting whoever next performed best in Europe but didn't make those knockouts (like those round of 16 losers), I doubt that would ever happen.


The problem I mainly saw with his idea (much the same as you see, that league finish is a better indicator) is that you could have one of the best candidates lose in the quarters to the eventual champions, and so miss out for someone who got an easier ride, and also finished lower in the league, perhaps in their own league, and who you beat everytime.

47 Go to comments
J
JW 1 hour ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

Well I was mainly referring to my thinking about the split, which was essentially each /3 rounded up, but reliant on WCs to add buffer.


You may have been going for just a 16 team league ranking cup?


But yes, those were just ideas for how to select WCs, all very arbitrary but I think more interesting in ways than just going down a list (say like fl's) of who is next in line. Indeed in my reply to you I hinted at say the 'URC' WC spot actually being given to the Ireland pool and taken away from the Welsh pool.


It's easy to think that is excluding, and making it even harder on, a poor performing country, but this is all in context of a 18 or 20 team comp where URC (at least to those teams in the URC) got 6 places, which Wales has one side lingering around, and you'd expect should make. Imagine the spice in that 6N game with Italy, or any other of the URC members though! Everyone talks about SA joining the 6N, so not sure it will be a problem, but it would be a fairly minor one imo.


But that's a structure of the leagues were instead of thinking how to get in at the top, I started from the bottom and thought that it best those teams doing qualify for anything. Then I thought the two comps should be identical in structure. So that's were an even split comes in with creating numbers, and the 'UEFA' model you suggest using in some manner, I thought could be used for the WC's (5 in my 20 team comp) instead of those ideas of mine you pointed out.


I see Jones has waded in like his normal self when it comes to SH teams. One thing I really like about his idea is the name change to the two competitions, to Cup and Shield. Oh, and home and away matches.

47 Go to comments
f
fl 2 hours ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Yes I was the one who suggested to use a UEFA style point. And I guessed, that based on the last 5 years we should start with 6 top14, 6 URC and 4 Prem."

Yes I am aware that you suggested it, but you then went on to say that we should initially start with a balance that clearly wasn't derived from that system. I'm not a mind reader, so how was I to work out that you'd arrived at that balance by dint of completely having failed to remember the history of the competition.


"Again, I was the one suggesting that, but you didn't like the outcome of that."

I have no issues with the outcome of that, I had an issue with a completely random allocation of teams that you plucked out of thin air.

Interestingly its you who now seem to be renouncing the UEFA style points system, because you don't like the outcome of reducing URC representation.


"4 teams for Top14, URC and Prem, 3 teams for other leagues and the last winner, what do you think?"

What about 4 each + 4 to the best performing teams in last years competition not to have otherwise qualified? Or what about a UEFA style system where places are allocated to leagues on the basis of their performance in previous years' competitions?

There's no point including Black Lion if they're just going to get whitewashed every year, which I think would be a possibility. At most I'd support 1 team from the Rugby Europe Super Cup, or the Russian Championship being included. Maybe the best placed non-Israeli team and the Russian winners could play off every year for the spot? But honestly I think its best if they stay limited to the Challenge Cup for now.

47 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Stuart Lancaster 'wants out' of Racing 92 and eyeing Euro giants job Stuart Lancaster 'wants out' of Racing 92 and eyeing Euro giants job
Search