The game is

going to be won or lost in two areas, the breakdown and in defence. This is my take, our defence has been good but it must be even better against a bullish English attack and then the breakdown, surprisingly, has not been our strongest suit  because Marx has not been firing throughout the tournament. If he comes good and works in tandem with Duanne then we'd have a better chance of securing a win. Vermeulen on his own is not enough to win at the breakdown. For that reason I believe Rassie should have started with Marx, it might be too late by the time he comes on, scoreboard pressure might crush all hope of a fightback. We really don't want England to score first and hold the Boks scoreless going into the break.

Bokke!

Agreed,  but I don't rule out a significant card. One can sense the pressure rising ....these boys a re loaded for bear.

Marx had his best game of the Bok season, in the last 20 minutes vs Wales . Hopefully he is in form, and hopefully, he gets more game time.

Marx still premier hooker in world rugby in my books...  not quite sure why you bench him unless it is a impact thing in last 30... could be too late by then tho - this pom team actually CAN score tries.....

Their breakdown work is super impressive - as a neutral this weekend only want a fair game - but if I was to offer odds - The Prisoners of Millbank (correct etymology ... apparently) very strong favourites.............

I see it a little differently: Our breakdown work has actually been exceptional. That has been the key facet that has brought us to the final. It will be the key to diminishing the strike power of England. Our defence is regarded highly, but I don't regard our systems as the best in the world, nor do I believe we have the personnel to truly execute those systems to their potential. We are a big target that is vulnerable to being moved around and exploited on weak one-on-one matchups. Teams have been waking up to this, especially around the fringes. If we can slow down England's ball, even for a second or two, it is the difference between being on the back foot, and knocking them back. If we can achieve that, our line will be tougher to break down. We've got to do to England as they did to us in the 2007 final: Devolve the game into a trench war. We played on our terms in the pool game and scythed through them; in the final they fought tooth and nail at the breakdown, which became an even contest, we couldn't assert our superior strike power. The roles are reversed now, and we must do what they couldn't. They start very quickly, this is their style under Eddie - though it apparently comes down to the hunger of their players as opposed to a direct instruction. If we can prevent that fast start, as we did in Twickenham, we'll make life uncomfortable for them. From there, it's anyone's game. We aren't built to come back from a deficit, but we can keep a team at arms length under the aforementioned conditions. It'll be nervy if we do, as we have a history of capitulating under Rassie, or just barely escaping in the dying moments of a test. 

Good point Sharkbok, forgot about that one, I have bad memories of Boks being sin-binned in crucial games , Brendon Venter, Danie Rossouw and lastly Victor Matfield,  so yes it's something  we can't ignore.

Apart from that I think Rassie is guilty of an error in judgment in starting with Bongi, not that he's a bad player it's just that Marx in form has the X-Factor. If we all agree that the breakdown is where it's at then Marx is the man not Bongi.

Lol

The key "facet that brought us to the final" was having to beat Japan and then delivering the most error ridden game in recent memory against a Wales side that was just as bad.

The only thing that will beat England this weekend is nerves.

Of course one wants the Boks to win but much of this analysis is based on literal second tier opposition.

We've beaten Wales on neutral ground. That's it. Just Wales. And by a margin that could hardly be slimmer.

My assessment goes further back. Wales, in November, comprehensively overpowered us, but England didn't. We never got to see that strong Welsh side in the semi, but we do have the tools to take on England at the breakdown. There are many ways of viewing this, and one split second can change everything, but we have proven we can overpower England's pack. We cannot stand toe-to-toe with them in running game, so we dominate the breakdown and collisions, dragging them into an arm-wrestle. We can realistically win that kind of game. If England get an early lead, particularly through a try, well, then that really does change everything. The first ten two twenty minutes will be very crucial. 

 "Wales, in November, comprehensively overpowered us" and hadn't we just been done in by Gardner?

That was the final game of the EOYT. Probably, all things being equal, the most likely game a team is to lose in a season.

The problem is Aug, If England hang with us, even at 30-40% possession, they will have enough ball while shifting the contact point quickly and often. Exactly how the Abs always beat us. Part of why this current(Bok's) strategy is so weird to me. So the answer is to kick to them? Surely not. The obvious answer is to not slow their ball down. That's plan B. The very obvious plan A is, DENY THEM ANY BALL!!!

We want to slow the ball/game down, right? Cool. Is that best achieved with ball in hand or without? Obviously with. That way YOU dictate the pace of every encounter. You ensure their speed is not required and match them purely on strength with slow brutal phases. Force them to sit down at the "arm wrestling" bench with you. You can't do that without the ball.

This is where Pollard would really shine. From the tea and out of hand from penalties delivered by a ball in hand power game. That was the type of game that would have dominated Wales too. Bok forwards had no problems rumbling up with ball in hand. It appeared easy for them. There were moments where Wales seemed to just crumble.

In reality, the issue arose as soon as a phase or two didn't gain meters, we would box kick possession away. In total, and without knowing the stats, i'd guess we handed over maybe 20% possession as a result.  That's the difference between 50-50 possession and 70-30, in a game where your forwards are bullying their counterparts. I see that as a poor game plan costing a team 15-20+ points.

What am i missing?

It's weird. Like Rassie is only half buying into the power game. Even when we have enough forwards with the handling and ball protection abilities required to hold on to the ball and tank(yes tank) it forward. Its pure finals rugby. Surely a coach's dream? And Rassie has the machinery to pull it off too. And he's apparently been picking his side accordingly. So what gives?

Will we really be kicking everything away, again?

It will be interesting to see which Bok they target early on. I have a feeling Pollard's channel is going to be busy. And any team with a modicum of sense will target Mapimpi with the high ball. He seems uncertain enough under it that you might draw and nervous yellow or red card mistake out of him.

If Eng tries to burn too brightly early on, the Boks might get their arm wrestle in the final 30.

On the other hand, if they do hang with us and we just keep feeding them ball...it could be over by half time.

Rassie doesn't like static ball. Our predictable blunt running leads to a lot of very static phases that go nowhere, or we shift it wide and find no space and run the risk of a turnover - and expend considerable resources an d time retaining possession and reloading for phases in the opposite direction. The goal is simple: Kick static ball upfield. Of course, losing the ball in the air a few metres in front of you can lead to all kinds of problems, but this is similar to what Argentina implemented in 2007. They would kick behind the midfield to prevent the opposition from breaking out, and pressure them once/if they caught that ball. It helps take pressure off the defence. At present, I don't think deeper kicks would work, we are a taped up team. Allowing space to run at us would be even worse, exploiting mis-matches and giving the opposition time to reposition and support their runner. There isn't a clear way forward with the team Rassie has assembled. 

We can't literally deny England any ball, nor can we keep hold of it for many phases. So what do we do? We apply pressure through our defence and field position. Dominate the collisions, set pieces, breakdown. That's how we defeat England. A high powered attack depends on clean ball, quick ball. A couple of extra seconds slowing down their ball changes everything. 

"We can't literally deny England any ball..." No, but we can make sure don't piss possession away. Which is the point I was making.

"...nor can we keep hold of it for many phases." Why not? We've done it numerous times over the last two seasons. The ball against Wales was kicked away, not lost upfront. 

Guys Rassie has got to start with Bongi to comply with the run on (or start) color criteria as decreed by the ANC.

Sure he is a worthy hooker but the question is can the Boks  hold back the England team for 50 or 60 minutes until Marx comes on.

It is going to require a gigantic effort from all the players in Green and Gold.

Holding thumbs.

The reason why we kick so much is because our blunt and ineffective running leads to static ball, which ends up going backwards, conceding turnovers or penalties. If you review film from last year, Rassie as more open to running the ball, but we very commonly got caught well behind the gainline. Against Australia, in Brisbane, we had a glut of front foot ball and couldn't do anything with it. This is unfortunately the way this team is built and coached. I don't like it, but a deviatio n is going to fail. The more phases the lower the percentages of scoring a try, the higher the percentages for conceding penalties and turnovers. So, we kick that static ball away. Which is unfortunate, as we are not an aerially dominant team. Back in 2009, the Bulls had a 76% retrieval rate on kicks, and I mean deep bombs. So that team was able to consolidate outposts deep in the opponent half, and their effective running led to them carving up the opposition - they had an average of two linebreaks per try. If only we were coached like that team.