Which theory: SA subs v Lions tighthead?

by Brendan Cole

So - how was the First Test won and lost? There are several theories about why the match took the shape it did. A close look at the key events is revealing.

Start with the first try. Scored by John Smit, the Boks tighthead, it came off an attacking scrum in which the South African front row won the direct contest at the scrum, wheeling it to give them access to the openside of the field. The Boks pack then used that advantage to beat their opposite numbers to the next phases and rucked quickly, setting up Smit to crash through a sideways sliding defensive line.  

Essentially, the Springboks front row knew their role – to work their backsides off and get around - from the hit and having shocked the Lions scrum they gave Smit a super chance.

A simple victory for better attitude, technique and work-rate.

The next scrum (6th minute) saw Vickery buckle inside the Boks 22 but the Lions got the ball out quickly enough for Ugo Monye to just miss out on scoring in the right corner in the seventh minute.

In the ninth minute, Mtawirara won a scrum penalty for the Boks about 30 metres out from goal and Ruan Pienaar kicked it, to make it 10-0.

In the eleventh minute Vickery was again penalised, resulting in the Springboks kicking out of defence.

In the 13^th minute, the Lions won a scrum and got the ball away – David Wallace then made his burst through the middle. Stephen Jones then missed a fairly easy shot at goal.

In the 18^th minute, the Lions opted to take a scrum where a ball was kicked from for an offside call – arguably a poor call by captain Paul O’Connell. Again, Vickery gave up the penalty and the Boks booted it into the Lions half.

Pattern of points and distance loss set in early

Already at that point, the pattern of the scrum costing the Lions huge amounts of points and territory was set.

The Lions gave up a penalty from that lineout – for a barge by Tom Croft – and the Frans Steyn kicked it from distance to make it 13-0.

The Lions responded with their first try in the 21st minute – set up by Jamie Roberts and Brian O’Driscoll and finished by Croft.  Just after the half hour, Vickery was again penalised, allowing Pienaar to kick another score. Soon after, Tommy Bowe then gave up a penalty for holding on inside the 22, and again Pienaar kicked it.

On the 36^th minute, Vickery was penalised on Lions ball well inside their own half. This time, Pienaar missed the kick.

Surprislingly, Vickery came out for the second half. His first act was to give up a rucking penalty (41 minutes). From the next sequence, the Boks embarked on their epic mauling sequence down the left touchline. Adam Jones came on for Vickery minutes later, changing the shape of the match significantly.

That made it 26-7. The Boks did not score again and, with Jones very solid in the scrum, the Lions were finally able to play their game.

As an aside, the first of Jones’ scrums – in the 47^th minute – took place with Lee Mears on the field and ended with Phillips just knocking on when over the Boks line.

Rees penalty: cost the Lions a chance to score

Matthew Rees, who has replaced him, gave away a penalty in the 54^th minute for punching. The Lions would have had a scrum under the Boks posts had that penalty not been given. After that, the Lions did not score until the 66^th minute (Croft’s second try). Phillips’ try came next (74^th minute) but the Lions then ran out of time.

Overall, the Boks points came from a weak scrum followed by bad rucking and defence, a dreadful maul defence, a turnover on Bowe, two scrummaging penalties called on Vickery and the barge by Croft. Pienaar also missed a kick from a third Vickery penalty. Significant yardage in penalty kicks was also given up.

The South African attitude and subs have been cited as a key factor.

Attitude is one thing - and the Boks certainly seemed to take on a jovial/mocking one during the second half - but the idea that the substitutions changed the game is hard to buy, especially given that the Lions put in 10 solid minutes (46-57) before the first key change was made.

Here they are: Jaque Fourie for de Villiers 57, Morne Steyn for Ruan Pienaar 64, Ricky Januarie for Fourie Du Preez 70, G Steenkamp for Mtawarira 64, D Carstens for John Smit 65, Andreas Bekker for Bakkies Botha 57, Danie Rossouw for Heinrich Brussow 51.

The first change – Danie Rossouw for the largely ineffective Heinrich Brussow came in the 51^st minute and was largely down to the Boks desire to stiffen up their pack with the Lions starting to get on top. The Steenkamp for Mtawarira change took place long after ‘The Beast’ had ceased to be an effective weapon in the scrum.

Smit and Pienaar both subsequently rejoined the game in the final 10 minutes, with Pienaar replacing the disappointing Adrian Jacobs.

Ricky Januarie did end up giving the Lions a scrum in the Boks half late on. On the other hand Fourie Du Preez had signally failed to live up to his reputation up to that point and the impact of his removal was marginal at best.

Boks still had key men on the field in the final quarter

To reiterate; the Boks had Victor Matfield, Pierre Spies, Bismarck Du Plessis and Juan Smith on the field throughout, and Brussow had done very little. At best, it can be conceded that the removal of Botha may have had an impact.

In fact, the Boks might have struggled even more withouth the changes. Several Springbok forwards were spotted sucking for air as the match entered it's final third.

So: did the Boks almost chuck it way with changes, or did the Lions give themselves a chance to play by replacing their tight-head?

For my money, the Lions played with a severe handicap in the first 45 minutes. That handicap was largely down to the coaches selecting the wrong team and persisting with Vickery long after it became obvious he would not hold up against Mtawirara – with the referee giving him no help whatsoever. Many observers would have started Luke Fitzgerald ahead of Ugo Monye and that might also have given the Lions a better chance.

This week’s match will be a truer reflection of which of these sides is genuinely the better.