South Africa v New Zealand. Rugby's Greatest Rivalry, Test One

 It's rare that a single stat really sums up the match so completely. But at the end of this match, if you look at the points per entry into the 22, one side had 0.7, the other 3.6, and the side with the higher value won, comfortably, 33-16 and five tries to one.

If you watched the match, it's probably fair to say that one adage initially seemed to have been pretty thoroughly demolished: the South African forwards were largely dominant, at least in the set piece. They smashed the All Black scrum. The stats say that the AB won a slightly higher percentage, but don't record the number of scrum penalties that they conceded. The stats record the Boks only had 4 scrums and won 3 for 75%, the AB 14 and won 11 for 78%. I’m not going back to count scrum penalties specifically, I am pretty sure only one of the ten the Boks conceded was at the scrum, maybe two. The AB conceded 14 penalties, and they weren’t all at the scrum, but it’s possible as many as ten were. So trusting that initial stat is a risky.

The Boks also had a higher percentage of lineout wins (93% to 79%) and whilst this can be a problematic stat, it doesn’t show how good the ball was, they were all pretty clean service, whether to a maul or a tap back to the player in the half-back position so it's a reasonable indicator of effectiveness in this match. I'm a bit surprised it was that much better, but by eye, the Boks were better at lineout, and stole a few of the AB's throws.

However, despite that set piece dominance, those points per entry have an important explanation. The All Blacks lost 14 turnovers (that’s basically knocks on, passes into touch and other similar errors) and won 14 too (that's essentially steals and penalties at the breakdown). There's a pleasing sort of symmetry there. The Boks lost 23 turnovers and only won 5. That's a total of 19 turnovers going to the Boks and 37 to the AB. Ouch. There were a mix of reasons in there, on both sides, juggled kick receptions and so on that you'd say were expected, a few dropped balls in the inevitable huge hits, a few bad passes here and there. All of that was probably about even, probably advantage Boks under the high ball, advantage AB in the big hits but overall, nothing really in it. 

Fourteen turnovers lost from the All Blacks is a bit higher than you might expect from a tier one nation, but not outrageous, especially in such a physical match. For the Boks, 23 lost is incredibly high. I’m going to call out Jordy Barrett in particular, who stripped the ball several times in the tackle, I think it was five, including one that saved a try directly as he stripped Marx who was over the line, and won a breakdown turnover too. That said, the AB back row were immense, protecting the AB ball and effectively stealing the Bok's ball basically every three minutes. To the outrage of the SA commentators, one of those times was when the AB picked up a ball when the Boks messed up a ruck. Everyone had gone to ground leaving the ball the exposed - since no one was on their feet it was no longer a ruck and the ABs reacted fastest and just picked the ball up from the midst of the pile of bodies. Correct understanding of the laws.

Whilst speaking about the laws, I just want to mention Matt Carley. I thought he had an excellent game. I'm sure if you go through every decision, there are typically about 300 in a rugby match, you can find some he got wrong, but all the big ones were right, even when he overruled the TMO twice. I thought that Ardie was, arguably, lucky not to get a penalty against him - I have certainly seen penalties given for that kind of tackle before, and recently - but I think no penalty was the right call. 

At half-time the score was 13-12 and it looked like that was lucky for the All Blacks. They were being beaten up all over the park. The only note of caution for anyone that has watched the All Blacks for any length of time was that, whilst we've seen the Boks turn in some stellar second half performances in the last few years, they weren't really taking their chances. The All Blacks were essentially taking every chance they created. If they could tweak things slightly and create a few more chances and remain ruthless it could get ugly. And that's essentially what happened. The Boks added a penalty early on, and from there it was one way traffic. A charge down of a box kick by Holland, the ball bounced straight into his hands and he basically only had to fall over to score. Another two tries, and whilst Jordan's second came from it, they were unlucky that Roigard didn't score from a sumptuous DMac break and kick. The ball just turned the wrong way on the last bounce and he couldn't ground it, but SA had taken it back, 5m scrum to NZ that they won (they won a lot of the really key ones) and a pass from Ardie across a third of the width of the pitch to Jordan made it look too easy.

Several players are not going to be available next week. Arendse, de Groot and Lord all failed HIAs and are definitely out. New Zealand have called up reserves for them. Kolbe, Parker and Esterhuizen also left the field somewhat unexpectedly, but they may not be injured (Parker is recently back from injury and playing at Ellis Park for longer than expected after Lord's HIA may simply have run out of gas, likewise Esterhuizen was Arendse's sub after 9 minutes, and although he went into the midfield and bumped Kriel out to the wing, he'd trained all week as a backrow replacement and might also just have run himself into the ground). 

With about ten minutes to go, South Africa reached for the big red button. Unfortunately for them, they found the one marked "self destruct" instead of "emergency" and gave up two yellow cards in two minutes. van Staden took out the 9 on the 5m line from an offside position after a huge break by the AB and with the Boks still trying to sort their defensive lines. He would have probably got away with one or the other, but not both in such a precarious position. Moments later Reinach was carded for a deliberate knock on with an overlap. There are times when, even though it's the current interpretation, I have sympathy for an instinctive reach for the ball that's right there. But Reinach had to bend right over and stretch with only one hand and he basically slapped the ball away. It was a 5m scrum and I'm pretty sure it bounced between the 22 and 10m lines, so it was some wallop he gave it. Zero sympathy for a very deliberate, and very stupid, act. I doubt Rassie will drop him, but I hope the video review is very painful for him when they get there and he tries to explain what he was doing.

It's easy to get carried away, and some are, I have seen people proclaiming that the Boks have peaked too early for next year's RWC. This is possibly true, but this is only one match so far. Last year the AB beat SA in the first test in the TRC, at Eden Park no less. In the second test the Boks rolled out a game plan very different to what we saw yesterday, and in that first test a year ago, and put a lot of pain on the Kiwis, their worst ever home defeat in fact. We know that Rassie can change the plans, the players certainly used to be able to adapt and play in a very different style. Assuming the "sky is falling" doomsayers are wrong (although I've been one of them before, and at some point they'll be right), it's reasonable to say that this was just one match. Evaluating at the end of the tour, if they all go like this, will be more sensible. (But I hope the doomsayers are right.)

Looking ahead

The dirt trackers play the Lions on Tuesday. Next Saturday is the second test. The dirt trackers should win easily. 

The second test will be fascinating. The Bok tight five mostly did a job, but not at some critical moments. There were a number of scrums at either end that the AB won, particularly after both front rows were subbed, but earlier on too, where the AB scrum looked solid at really critical times and either the AB cleared their lines or got the ball out and scored a try. The Bokke back row and backs, not so much. Now, losing to the NZ back row might be something that is unacceptable to Rassie, but a lot of teams over the years have done that, including some great Bok teams. So no need to panic there really. But what to do with the backs? There are other options, Rassie has been building depth like crazy, but you can argue, with at least some merit, that at least some of the problems that the backs had was lack of cohesion. Another week together won't make this unit magically click like the All Blacks - who essentially played all of the Nations Championship, then have practised as this unit throughout the fortnight in South Africa and played a game as basically this unit too - they're tight, and whilst a few players have been missing until this game in South Africa, they played in July, so they're slotting back in to familiar roles. Rassie needs to find a group that will play well together or this lack of precision could well be there next week, and New Zealand really only need a few half decent chances and a good ten minutes here or there and suddenly they're scoring 30+ points, like they did yesterday. If the Boks are only scoring 16 again, because they can't take their chances against a team that they can't bully outside of the scrums, then they're going to struggle to win. 

I should also note that Australia and Argentina begin their series next week too. It's a weakened Pumas team with injuries and players rotating back to their European clubs already in what are little more than friendlies. Argentina are building some depth. But the announced team is very similar to one that ran the Boks close a few weeks ago. Australia are confident after a good game against Japan, but away to Argentina is a different match.