After the test between Scotland and SA Erasmus mentioned the fact that the Springboks did not sue rolling mauls in the game. So what happened in the next game - Scotland against Argentina, insofar as mauls are concerned?
Argentina used 5 rolling mauls in the test with the following results (not given in accordance of times the mauls occurred - but in gain of territory):-
Maul 1 - the maul went lightly back, but the Pumas retained the ball
Maul 2 - the maul went forward with the Pumas gaining about 4 meters
Maul 3 - the maul went forward with the Pumas gaining about 6 meters
Maul 4 - the maul went forward with the Pumas gaining about 15 meters
Maul 5 - the maul went forward with the Pumas gaining about 25 meters
So why was the Pumas capable to use mauls and the Springboks not capable of making similar use of mauls in their game against Scotland.
Throw-ins
The balls all went to the no 5 jumper position.
Set-up and progress of mauls
In all cases the catcher took the ball cleanly, came down and stood firm while the maul was formed next to and behind him. He then took control of co-ordinating and directing of the maul.
So why no mauls used by SA players against the Scots? The answer is clearly that the number 5 jumper cannot stand firm enough to allow for proper forming of the maul next to and behind him
In the only notable maul used against France - the Springboks tried to form the maul around Mostert - but the maul went backwards and Mostert lost his footing ending up with his feet in the air, so other platers had to take over the maul co-ordination and forward movement.
Frankly with the present lock combination there is no chance that the SA tight 5 can engineer successful mauls because there are crucial deficiencies preventing it from happening.
