Following last week’s terrific Test match between the All Blacks and Springboks, I was surprised by the number of subsequent articles that referred to the marked superiority of the South African scrum.
As the days went by, this became a progressively more annoying pebble in my shoe, as it didn’t tally with my take on the game.
To be sure, there was one point in the first half where the All Blacks scrum did get marched backwards. And then, after Sam Whitelock was sinbinned but before the uncontested scrums, South Africa took proper advantage of the weight of numbers. However, apart from that I had thought things relatively even.
So, armed with my trusty fast-forward and rewind buttons, I had another look at the match scrums up to the point of non-contestation. And this is what I found…
During those 61 minutes there were 12 scrums, of which six were fed by each team. Apart from the one scrum where it all went horribly wrong for New Zealand (scrum 3), and the two scrums at the three-quarter mark where it was seven-against-eight, things were, as I had thought, largely even.
There were three (other) collapses, but of those only one was reset, with the referee waving play on for the other two. And the All Blacks gave away one free kick for early engagement.
On the whole, the scrummaging was positive, for which both teams, and the referee, deserve praise.
Which suggests the problem of scrum 3 was a momentary lack of concentration rather than an ongoing problem.
In fact, in a couple of other cases the All Blacks had the better of it, most notably on scrum 6 where they moved forward and got the left side up with a very useful second shove, allowing Kieran Read to make a strong charge off the back.
But what I also noticed when I went back was that the South African commentators – Matthew Pearce and Bobby Skinstad – formed an early opinion that South Africa were well on top in this facet of play, and then repeatedly talked about this ‘dominance’ for the rest of the match.
For example, the commentators responded to scrum 6 (the best All Black scrum, mentioned above) with “good pressure from the South African scrum”, and “not allowing the All Black scrum any momentum.” Read’s ensuing charge was then presented as recovering a bad situation.
I was watching in the UK, but if this was what the rest of the world was also ‘enjoying’, I wonder if Pearce’s and Skinstad’s ‘enthusiasm’ for the South African cause had a wider impact on how the scrums were perceived.
I didn’t pick up on this when I was watching live, because after about 30 minutes I could take the commentators’ cheerleading no more and hit the mute button.
I am aware that commentary-bias is a problem in many countries (including my own), but as has been the case recently in Australia, the commentary on this occasion was truly dire.
My absolute ‘highlight’ was when Pearce felt moved to say: “Can’t wait to see a driving maul, Bob. Frankly, the All Blacks don’t enjoy it much.”
Sorry Matthew, but if I want to listen to people in a pub while I watch a rugby match, I can go to a pub. When I am listening to a ‘proper’ rugby commentary, I expect something a little more sophisticated.
Well fear not, dear reader, for I know the way forward, and it is not difficult or complicated. With Justin Marshall, for example, in the commentary box, either in addition to or instead of Skinstad, the problem would have been solved.
Having both nations ‘represented’ would at one stroke get rid of the worst excesses, and with any luck would lead to more enlightenment all round. Please, Sky, you know it makes sense.
