Tri Nations Analysis So Far: South Africa

The Springboks have made a mockery of one of the doctrines of rugby that you cannot win without the ball.  Their pressure inducing strategy is winning them matches, and while not unconquerable, why would they adjust a strategy that both the All Blacks and Wallabies so far have been unable to counter?

Peter De Villiers, seen by some as a misguided or mad genius, is clearly doing something right.  There has been no dramatic tweaking of formulas, and no radical shifts of strategy from the Springboks since their second World Cup win in 2007. 

Jake White had meticulously built his side into a crescendo from when he took over in 2004 from Rudolf Straeuli—whose time in charge of South Africa suffered due to the strength of the English, All Blacks and Wallabies—and now De Villiers is enhancing a truly formidable outfit.

While some circles believed his appointment to the highest coaching job was political; being the first non-white appointed to the South Africans top post, the former Boland scrumhalf, and Under 19, Under 21 (winning the age grade world title in 2005) and Emerging Springboks coach has all the credentials of an elite rugby tutor.

While media attention has been sidetracked by his colourful quotes, the key for South Africa has been the fact that he hasn’t overhauled what is essentially a winning team and blueprint.

Early promises that he would transform this Springbok team into a running and attacking hybrid have been appropriately left behind. 

Statements that their game plan is unattractive or bad for rugby are, for both the Springboks and most South Africa, a moot point.  They are winning, and so far the combined efforts of an excellent British and Irish Lions team, the All Blacks and Wallabies have not been able to resist.

De Villiers summed up their approach brilliantly.

“Entertainment is one of the boxes we want to tick off, but it doesn't mean it is the first one," De Villiers said.

"We didn't invent this game and we didn't write the laws. The law changes called for us to adapt (our game) and our adaptation, at this moment, is spot on and I am proud of how the team has gone about it.”

That typifies the strength of the Springboks.  They have not only adapted, but are playing to their strengths and doing what most teams would love to do to their opposition. 

Force them out of their comfort zones and shut down their tactical approach.

Furthermore, their key advantage thus far against both the All Blacks and Wallabies has been execution, implementing their strategy with assurance—something that their Tri Nations foes have been unable to do.

But if there was to be a weakness for this Springbok team, it lies in their style itself.

For all of its success, their game plan is one with almost no emphasis on attack and appears to have little promise with ball in hand.  This was personified in their recent match against the Wallabies, when against a 13 man Australian side they looked to run the ball and showed little fluency and precious little penetration.

All involved with the Springboks, from Peter De Viliers through to assistant coach Dick Muir and Captain John Smit have implied that they have the ability to attack if they feel the need to, and that in the future such offensive stratagem can and will be instigated.

As other international sides have shown, most vividly the All Blacks, employing an up tempo technique is hard to realise. Ironically sometimes it can be easier to defend, more straightforward to pressure your opponents.

The Springboks, now two years from trying to become both the only team to win three World Cups and the first side to successfully defend such a title, will need to decide in the coming months whether or not their current approach can allow them to maintain their current global dominance.

England, who employed a comparable style to South Africa in their build up to their maiden World Cup success, were eventually caught out by their adversaries, losing considerable ground between 2004 and 2006 as a rugby power.

Sooner or later, if not by the end of this Tri Nations by the 2010 series, the All Blacks and Wallabies will figure out ways of countering the South African rugby machine.

Not to mention fast improving Irish, Welsh, and French teams.

Does South Africa back this style to allow them to continually dominate?

Irrespective of this, the Springbok rugby landscape is indeed in very rude health.  A Tri Nations success will see South African rugby hold virtually every major rugby trophy on offer, and further cementing this team’s position in the history books.

With players such as Smit, Victor Matfield, Bakkies Botha, Fourie Du Preez, and Jean De Villiers; South Africa wields more world class players, more trump cards than any other rugby side.

Add to this the startling impact that both Morne Steyn and Heinrich Brussow have made, and you get the impression that perhaps the only thing that could stop this Springbok juggernaut could be themselves, either via the changing of a functioning and winning strategy, or whether or not their key pillars remain within the game.

If the Tri Nations is won, capping off a brilliant period of rugby in the republic, will the floodgates open and their pillars move on to the lure of retirement or the riches of Europe?

Or does 2011 hold an irresistible lure.

One thing is for certain, if South Africa can win this Tri Nations, and manage to win the World Cup on New Zealand soil, they will cement their reputation not only as one of the great Springbok teams, but of arguably the greatest side of all time.