1
'Seven forwards... really? Seriously?': Irish pundit calls for Springboks 'abusive' tactic to be outlawed
By Kim Ekin
Former Scotland coach and Irish rugby pundit Matt Williams has slammed South Africa for the way they used their bench against New Zealand.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Springboks went with a 7-1 split in the reserves which meant they were able to nearly able to replace their entire pack early in the second half.
The set-piece dominance they achieved was colossal as a result of a red card to All Blacks lock Scott Barrett.
But Williams believed they have gone a step too far and are now ‘abusing’ the original purpose of the reserves.
“The South Africans are just abusing the bench at the moment,” Williams told OTB Monday Night Rugby podcast.
“The bench came in all for safety reasons. People didn’t come on for positions they weren’t trained for so we weren’t putting back rowers in the front row. Everything was done for a reason.
“They had seven forwards [against New Zealand]. Seven forwards… really? Seriously? And World Rugby has just got to act on this.
ADVERTISEMENT
“The way you fix it is say you must have three recognised backs on your bench. And that stops it.
“But right now South Africa just change the whole pack. Now if they do that and we’re not up to scratch, they’ll be found out.
“South Africa’s tactics are obvious now, what they are going to do. We have to be ready for it.”
However, Williams had a warning for South Africa saying that they are ‘walking the tightrope’ by leaving so little cover for the backs.
If they suffer multiple injuries out wide the strategy will come back to bite.
“In 1999 when the Wallabies won the World Cup I was coaching the Waratahs,” Williams recalled.
“We had one tighthead prop, who did the whole tournament. We were one injury away from disaster.
“To win you’ve got to have luck going your way too.
ADVERTISEMENT
“South Africa are walking a tightrope, if they get an injury in the backline, it could come back to get them.”
South Africa are blessed to have the reserves, they have, nobody would complain if they had the bench s.a have but because they don't now it is a huge problem. And for safety?? Your danger for getting really injured are up front and the bench is there.
🤣
That too. I was highlighting the cynicism.
yeah Matt Williams was talking about the boks. Words like "the South Africans".
“ International regulations only require that a replacement front-row (tighthead prop, loosehead prop and hooker) be selected on the bench.
Beyond that teams are free to complete their eight-player bench however they see fit.”
As it should be!
@Matt Williams like they said to Alice, who the f@ck is Matt Willams
Substitutions only came about because in the 1996 SA v NZ series, the sp
Springboks got players to fake injury so they could be replaced. NZ then followed suit and hey presto, non injury replacements were introduced! One has to give it to the boks, they are smart and have always thought outside the square. If replacements are limited, I wouldn't be surprised to see 'tactical injuries' once again.
Methinks the writer here is still looking for the dummy he spat out.
Matt Williams needs to wind his neck in. What people don't realise is substitutions apply to every team, not just the Springboks. It's just our use of the subs is as a united front, whereas it seems most coaches bring on subs as individuals. Each one performing a particular task on his own, never, it seems, as a group.
If people like Matt Williams can't handle it, then people like Matt Williams must then fight against it, ON THE FIELD, where the players play. Thus if you don't like seeing the Boks wallop an opposition, then train up the opposition to withstand and return the favour.
Most scrums are easy to defend if you know how your opposition functions. But nowadays it seems teams want the immediate quick fix solution.
Also another reason why it works is because Rassie and Jacques have been working on this strategy for a straight six years. They have figured out how to manipulate their players at any given point into slotting into different skills. Thus it's only Esterhuizen and Mapimpi who have specialised positions. Everyone else is interchangeable
South African New Rule Proposal:
We play sub 90KG wings, fast running wings, heavy & fast players hitting into people is dangerous!
Caleb Clark KO'd Kriel & Faf with raised knees to tacklers head in B2B games. Very Dangerous!!
Wings have too much momentum, weight x Speed, they must be below 90KG's ala Kolbe/Arendse no more.
Clarke too heavy, defo no Jonah Lomu, wings at sub 90KG's.
NZ can play Damon Mckenzie more skills less bash.
We have become so bored & tired of NZ backs bashing through tackles, its very crude, we want more finesse silky skills.
You know that shit you hate, that our forwards do apparently all that power & force and smash it up. That is always so ugly to you when done in a Springbok jersey.
Well we find 'big smash it up' 100kg+ wingers to be equally dull & unwelcoming, so Duhan V D Merwe will also need to stand down too we are afraid Scotland.
Remove massive Polynesian Backs its just plain dangerous. FiJI/Tonga/Samoa smaller backs please don't make us come over there & cut you down to size.
Done as a rule by weight given higher speed.
What an utter bleater, wants World Rugby to create special rules to Stop Boks from possibly defending the RWC & playing to their strengths.
Fancy Rugby Pass home of Ben Smith & NZ supremacy hosting such an article after their scrum was smashed.
I don’t think the ABs will be worried about this loss, most of the team hadn’t played for a month before this game & only had a week in London to acclimatise. Whereas the Bokke had two warmup games in the NH. Yes we were disjointed & gave away some penalties which cost us the game but ultimately it was a warmup but the pedantic referee was out of depth to start with. I’m not complaining about the result the Boks played well but I expect the ABs to be firing come the start of the World Cup
So a massive swing difference in forward dominance in your favour, once you include the wife beater & injured Retallick?
Your coach is also showcasing the same breezy bravado in a follow up interview with his hands in his pockets. I would have come 3 times with the amount of fidgety pocket billiards he was pinging, in his hyper relaxed.
NZ was exposed to all & is in an undercurrent of denial Panic!!
Lets go France hype the panic in their ranks, so Boks can take the Silver Fern/Spoon whiners out in the Qtrs.
Guys and gals - wouldn't get into a huff about this. The Aussies have been trying to turn rugby union into rugby league lite for decades because that's where the majority of fans and money is. That's why they want to do away with scrums and lineout mauls because the league fans want to see basketball with a bit of violence thrown in a bit like Aussie Rules. NZ have to go along with everything the Aussies say because they rely on Australia for so many things other than rugby - in fact the Australian constitution gives NZ the right to join Australia as a single nation.
What they did with the make up of their bench is legal, a risk and not something we can expect to see at the World Cup.
What these pundits really mean to say:
1. MAULS are killing rugby = They are stronger than us up front!
2. The game was too slow = We were holding players long after the ball was gone, We had the longest injury where we never removed our "Stabbed!" prop Lomax, Plus you had to review all our card fouls.
3. They picked 7 forwards! = They are "Abusing their Bench", we don't have the depth to do bomb squads too, so we must stop them from properly pasting us like that with theirs. Shriek for World Rugby
4. Nobody likes stop start rugby = Springboks are responsible for our injuries, cards and pressurized us into countless fumbles & knock on's, they spoil our champagne rugby game
5. The TMOs are too involved = Sorting out all our on the edge cheating, holding of players is a massive job & we expect officials to let us get away with most of it, these one actually wanted to penalize us for everything and that is not fair.
I love seeing my twitter & YT comment being re-posted, although you should source the originator
Nothing in this all teams are playing under the same rules
This is a dumb comment, while we are at it why don't we bring weight classes into rugby, maybe it will be fair then. Springboks, France and Fiji can be the heavy weights and the Assies and Irish the light weights. Maybe then they don't have to tackle big blokes any more and won't complain.
South African NEW RULE proposal:
We play sub 90KG wings, fast running wings, heavy & fast players hitting into people is dangerous!
Caleb Clark KO'd Kriel & Faf with raised knees to tacklers head in B2B games. Very Dangerous!!
Wings have to much momentum, weight x Speed, they must be below 90KG's ala Kolbe/Arendse no more.
Clarke too heavy, defo no Jonah Lomu, wings at sub 90KG's.
NZ can play Damon Mckenzie more skills less bash.
We have become so bored & tired of NZ backs bashing through tackles, its very crude, we want more finesse silky skills.
You know that shit you hate, that our forwards do apparently all that power & force and smash it up. That is always so ugly to you when done in a Springbok jersey.
Well we find 'big smash it up' 100kg+ wingers to be equally dull & unwelcoming, so Duhan V D Merwe will also need to stand down too we are afraid Scotland.
Remove massive Polynesian Backs its just plain dangerous. FiJI/Tonga/Samoa smaller backs please don't make us come over there & cut you down to size.
Done as a rule by weight given higher speed.
“The South Africans are just abusing the bench at the moment,” Really? How? What law did they violate? The laws only stipulate, that the bench needs to contain a complete front row replacement. Nothing else. What the Boks did is perfectly legal.
“They had seven forwards. Seven forwards… really? Seriously? And World Rugby has just got to act on this."
Why would World Rugby need to act on this?
“South Africa’s tactics are obvious now, what they are going to do. We have to be ready for it.”
Yeah, Matt. They're substituting tired players for fresh ones within the boundaries of the laws. The nerve on them, right? Guess what, that's what every team does. Yours, too.
What a load of inanities.
We can just give Kwagga number 11 and Marco number 14 and say its a 5 3 split.
This is dumb as all hell. You announce teams before the match — if other teams think the Springbok tactic is going to beat them they can just adjust or mirror it?
Also since when do we disagree with safeguarding player welfare? Especially two weeks out from the RWC
WHAT A BUNCH OF "T!TS" these whingers andf moaners are... if NZL had the BRAINS to whip up a tactic like that then it wudda been a TOTALLY DIFFERENT song they'd be singing... "ABOMINATION"... really dude?... 🤣 🤣 🤣 ... the REAL ABOMINATION was them allowing you on TV with THAT FACE... THERE'S YOUR ABOMINATION RIGHT THERE... grandissez... vous êtes des imbéciles... THE BOKS WERE BRILLIANT IN BRAINS, BRAWN, TACTIC AND GAME... NUFF SAID... you bunch of lactating bovines... 🐄 🐄 🐄
Can only be dangerous if you don't pick front rowers - so 3 forwards at least. 7 forwards cannot be a problem, 7 backs might be though. Kak argument even for an Aussie Irishman.
Such a stupid perspective to take. SA takes the risk, and they either get caught short or reap their reward. Enough of the moaning, I'm not even a SA fan, I can see they are just playing to their strengths, it's upto NZ to find a way to do the same.
When the boks started the bomb squad they complained,now again with 7 forwards...Doesn't all other teams have the same amount of subs it is all own fault if you can utilise what is at your disposal bok management was thinking outside the box to demolished there oppositions..The same with the kicking game for some it was boring rugby the boks played and when the all blacks played it a few weeks ago no complaints...So people will always complain about the boks style of playing and managing the subs while all of the teams has the same benefits....get over your high horse..
How ridiculous. If a team wants to take the risk of this bench split then that should be up to them. There is no risk to player safety here. It would be hilarious if a couple of backs injuries meant already subbed SA forwards had to play in the backline. Much like any innovation in rugby it's up to the opposition to develop a game plan to stop it. NZ showed exactly how NOT to do it which will hopefully help other teams develop their own plans.
Well spoken Nickers.
Well observed. Perhaps it's time to rethink the bench idea. Why not 15?