Beeno & Brendan Venter have never seen the All Blacks so Average.

Read some of the blog comments below this article on stuff NZ by Kiwi Bloggers 

They are throwing lots of handbags in the blog area.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/107755323/brendan-venter-springboks-dominated-all-blacks-and-now-have-their-number

--

However, the reality is the All Blacks won and the question is, was it a case of the Springboks choking, the All Blacks' amazing fightback ability or was it may be just as simple as poor substitutions from Rassie Erasmus?

I'm sure Erasmus will acknowledge the substitutions he made were not well thought out. In the final 10 minutes of the match, the Springboks made five substitutions compared to the All Blacks' one permanent switch.

---

As far as I am concerned the Boks should have put at least 25 - 35 points on the All Blacks in this match. The first half the All Blacks gave away lots of penalties in the red zone but were not penalised with yellow cards. The referee warned Kieren Read as he stood behind the try line for multiple penalty infringements. This should have been more kickable penalties or opportunities to setup lineout drives. This kept the scoreline close in the first half. Then at the start of the 2nd half, the Boks took total control and were attacking at will. 

If the substitutes had not been made, the Boks would have won this at a canter. The Boks are fit as they proved in New Zealand- so they could easily have kept the pace- especially as it was the All Blacks doing most of the tackling.

The bottom line is that like Meyer, Rassie makes allot of substitutions in the last 10 minutes to boost transformation stats. (even with merit players). 

Some very bruised egos in the comments section. I've been saying for years that their aerial dominance was a direct response to 2009. Israel Dagg was a key component of that dominance for a long time. He had a huge boot to kick from 22 to 22 and was unmatched in the air. 

On Saturday, we lacked aerially dominant chasers. Dyantyi, Kriel and Willie aren't good enough. We must improve this area of our game. We have great speed, so I don't see why we should be launching such shallow high balls. As a defender it's a nightmare having to turn your back, retreat and track the ball, not knowing who is competing against you. Too often our opponents didn't have to scramble at all and were in good position to support to catcher once he hit the ground and get in place for the next phase. 

André should be selected as he showed against England a great ability to press after kicks. If Rassie can tweak a few things and our back three and 13 improve their ability to compete for the high ball, we'll be extraordinarily difficult to beat. It gives our attackers a great platform. Had we more directness from 12 we would have probably scored a couple more tries. Damian ate up space which left Kriel and our wings struggling to break free. Kriel was extremely dangerous in that game, which was very unfortunate considering his inside partner was so impotent. 

I'll say, it was the most comprehensively dominated Bok showing against an All Black side for quite some time. I think we have played better rounded games at times. The 2014 model was quite daring. This one was a complete shutdown of the Kiwi game. They aren't versatile enough to combat it. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with, as New Zealanders are traditionally much better problem solvers than their South African counterparts. 

It's without question that the subs disrupted the game. Where was Willemse at the back? What did Koch do at scrum time? Or in general play? Did Papier have to make that run? On and on, examples of shocking play. 

Pollard was still up with play when the last carry into the penalty took place - you can see him moving into the flyhalf position at 76:57.

He wasn't standing in the middle of the field back there, he was still trying to get back - the only Bok to do so. He made about 40m back in 10 seconds - Willemse didn't even make 10m back in the 10 seconds between the penalty being awarded and the kick being taken.

There's little point shifting blame around for this incident. You have an inexperienced player in an unfamiliar position (I don't know how much fullback he has played). He shouldn't have been where he was, hanging around behind a ruck while the Boks' entire half of the field lay undefended to the rear. The mentality of the team, especially the rookies, at that point was wrong. We needed to close out the game, instead we were sniping the fringes and playing basketball. The kick was taken very quickly. It ended up being pinpoint and bouncing perfectly. Don't know if anyone could really have gotten back. Someone should have been there to begin with. That someone is probably the fullback.