Why the Springboks won the World Cup according to Smith the real guru in NZ Rugby

The following article appeared in the NZ Herald -in it Smith gave an explanation of why NZ lost against Ebgland and I highlighted what he said about SA winning the Cup:-

"Coaching legend Wayne Smith - the man credited as the power behind the throne during the most recent All Black glory years - has detailed the tactical error which led to the big World Cup semifinal defeat against England.

He also revealed what he believes was the Springboks' trick play which fooled England before they even kicked off in the final.

In a lengthy interview from Japan with Newstalk ZB's Martin Devlin, Smith - who was a key lieutenant for World Cup-winning coaches Graham Henry and Steve Hansen - said the public and media had underrated the All Blacks' ability to get up game after game during a golden decade.

But cracks had started to appear before the World Cup, with mounting losses and the retirement of seven greats after the 2015 triumph suggesting "there were going to be some tough moments".

Smith, himself a former All Blacks head coach, picked out a key tactical ploy which he believes backfired on the All Blacks as they were smashed by England in Yokohama.

"Whilst we played outstandingly against Ireland (in the quarter-final), the tactical plan that day worked because those outside backs from Ireland rushed up with out-to-in defence all the way to Anton Lienert-Brown in the midfield," he told Devlin.

"This gave the All Blacks that relief zone out wide through cross-field kicks or passing over the top but unfortunately the English watched that game too and they had a defensive plan that countered that attacking strategy. Therein lay the issues I think.

"Essentially from what I understand - I'm not close to the environment anymore – and through reading and looking at stuff, that plan of having two All Black forwards standing up flat and then passing way behind them to the 10 who then played wide, was put together for teams like Ireland rushing up, and gave them the chance to outflank them.

"Those two forwards are the players you generally rely on to keep the ball alive in the tackle. They would take the offload or make the cleanout to give you the lightning-quick ball you are after."

Instead, Smith said, the All Blacks had to rely on slow possession - a key contributor to the surprise defeat.

"But because they were 10 metres ahead of the attack they were late arriving to all those breakdowns. It gave us slow ball and didn't really give us a chance to keep the ball alive. It probably was the reason we lost so convincingly," Smith told Devlin.

"Everybody talks about us losing the gain line – we clearly did. We got tackled 10 or 15 metres behind the gain line probably nine times in the game. From that we got slow ball or lost the ball. But that's the reason – those forwards were out of the game and not able to give any support.

"Also (England assistant coach) John Mitchell had their defence numbering up from the outside so rather than rolling the dice and everyone rushing in to make the tackles, generally - although not all the time – they had that outside man-marked.

"It took away the cross-field kick and our ability to pass over the top, which put us in trouble. We didn't have any solutions to it and kept getting smacked behind the lines."

The All Blacks weren't able to change to Plan B after the halftime break, Smith said.

"So can you change? Yes, you can change. They came out from halftime and changed the pattern, we hit shorter and tried to penetrate in closer. But as with any tactical plan, it's stuck in the brain and it's pretty difficult to get wholesale changes.

"That's what happened – we went back to moving it wide in that second half and it just didn't work."

Smith also believes South Africa used the warm-up period before the final to fool England by having their halfbacks Faf du Klerk and Herschel Jantjies put up a stream of high kicks.

"(South Africa) showed in the final they were the best team in the tournament because they were able to adapt," he said.

"They changed from kicking every second ball to actually playing some footy and using the skills they've got.

"It was a clever plan – I watched de Klerk and Jantjies warm-up and they did half an hour of box kicking with the English coaches watching them. They didn't practice a pass, yet seldom boxed kicked (in the game). They sucked a few people in before the final."

That highlighted part gave a very real situation as seen by an expert.  It really was brilliant of Erasmus - half an hour of box kicking practice in the warm-ups by De Klerk and Jantjies without practicing a single pass.  They did suck the whole English staff in - plus a lot of their players and it turned out they lost because of clever strategy and tricking of all the English. 

Maybe the trickery started already in the Welsh test and that bamboozled the English as well.         

And we have duds on site claiming that Erasmus is an average and even  poor coach.  LMAO 

Mike, I was the only one here to speculate that Rassie might pull a switch-up in the final. 

The genius behind the plan was that Rassie probably told the guys that they have to box kick their way to the final if they wanted to have a chance of winning it.

So it's about more than just box kicking during the warm ups. It's about the long con.

It's about willing to risk losing to Wales in the semis so as to secure the psychological upper hand in the final.

That's where the genius is. For me anyway.

And that's where Rassie is a tier or two ahead of Meyer. 

Just to add. Can you imagine Eddie's predicament at half time?

With 40 mins to go...The Boks may revert back to box kicking or they could keep playing with the ball in hand a bit more.

So what advice could he give them? Haha very funny.

Disagree Plum.....we thought the box kick was the best way to beat NZ and Wales. No team in a WC semi that is close at half time is going to persist with a suboptimal strategy and risk losing, just to set up a fake for the next match.

Eraser did the thing that he thought assured a semi final win.

Then an unexpected thing happened. A wave of criticism hit the Boks describing our rugby as boring and ugly. Also the nature of England's dominance of NZ suggested we would have to play more rugby. No doubt the box kick thing was set up as a fake, but only after those events transpired.

There was plenty of innovative stuff in our final, but a tournament long box kick fake was not one of them. 

So Erasmus is a dud coach Mozart and what Smith said is of no account at all.  

I do not necessarily agree with Plums version.   There was a lot of ball in hand play in all the other tests - bar the All Blacks where the game was factually lost by poor defense by Mostert in particular,  

The other reason why I do not necessarily agree with what Plum say,   The Springboks had the highest try scoring record in the WC and of the 5 tries they scored 37 was scored by backline players,  That means that in the Round Robin matches there was not as many kicks as some believe.

However, your comments are particularly nonsensical.   No coach worth his salt will be influenced  by "a wave of criticism" as implied by you.   There were doubts expressed about why the Wales game was played on a different plan to the previous games - but Erasmus gave a perfectly logical explanation.  He claimed that the losses against Wales over the past three years were due to the trying of the Springboks to beat Wales through pace, but failed  and the wrong style of rugby used, hence the reason for the change.  Only duds and fools argued with that.   

Fact is Smith indicates it was clever - and I rather believe him and not you in this case.  How you get to where Erasmus was forced into the fake is really amazing,    That could only be a distortion if ever there was one - but then we are used to that kind of story from you.    

Carry on - AO and you are always distorting everything relating to Erasmus and this is no different,

By the way - it is about 100%  better than what either White and Meyer would have done.  Fact is in the final in 2007 White was deceived by the English and they turned the game into an arm wrestle without White knowing how to counter them - the English dictated  the game plan for the test, and White fell for it,   The English gave away too many convertible penalties - in all other aspects their performance was on par with the Springboks. 

Meyer would not even think about  anything remotely near to a game plan and he would not have made changes like Erasmus did.   Amazing really how you and AO continue to try to downplay the role of Erasmus in winning of the final,            

We played 3 games at the WC....the rest was a duck shoot. In the first 2 games.....we box kicked into oblivion. In the final we varied our tactics to the extent that we did a bit of phase play once we were inside the opponents half.....backline play was mostly on turnover ball. Springbok rugby.

I'll try find both Semi Finals as well

I think there was a variety of explanations given on how the Springboks managed to pull it off,  There were various explanations given and in all cases the situation relates to -

*   scrumming superiority - especially in the first half - the heroes being Beast and Malherbe;

*   defensive structure  to which virtually everybody agrees on;

*   disruptive performance of Du Toit - emphasized by both the OOM and in the video above;

*   the way the forwards and backline players combine in ball handling in the case of both tries scored; and

*    the fact that Erasmus outwitted the English,  

The one thing was something the video reflects on is the driving maul that was formed on the English 22 in the middle of the field.   Apparently many years ago somebody tried the strategy and it worked,  Nobody else tried it again - but Erasmus did it at Munster,    Even though Mozart argued against it and still seems to deride Erasmus for some reason or other,  the issue raised by Smith in the article above is a real scenario that Erasmus outwitted the English,   Who would have given  De Klerk and Jantjies instructions not to pass the ball and just kick for half an hour during the warm-up.   That came clearly from Erasmus and it worked,  

Nienaber does a  great job as the defense  coach - and there is no doubt he is ranked very high worldwide in that capacity - but defense is not the only reason why the Springboks won the WC Trophy - there were a combination of factors and that combination comes from the coaching staff as a whole under the leadership of Erasmus.

Many people said that Erasmus studies rugby like a science and is an extremely clever rugby manager/coach.  Why are some people on site keeping  on deriding him and implied that he is a dud coach?   Maybe it is just another dose of prejudice from some of our members,

Erasmus didn't try it at Munster. He might have got the idea from that game.  It was done years before he got there.The insinuation is He may have passed it down to the Bulls to try in Super Rugby or even have got the idea from them.

@ Cera....

Sorry bud, I've watched the game from 3 different broadcasters and listened to the BBC 5live Broadcast as I think it helps to have the many different perspectives from the pundits. Still waiting to find Supersports coverage if your son or anyone else has a link.

This is the link to the radio commentary with Dawson and Grayson.https://youtu.be/ReRI_kcZQKA

"Nobody else tried it again - but Erasmus did it at Munster, "

Oh, FFS, get off your stellation and watch the clip again. It is there somewhere between 22 and 24 minutes in. Listen to what the narrator says. He says that he has no proof of his theory and that it is only a theory that he has and which he likes to believe. His theory is that when Rassie prepared for his "interview" for the Munster job, he must have come across the clip of Munster doing it during a historical game and that, according to his wishful theory, by his own admission, it stick somewhere in the back of Rassie's head. 

Xavi

Sorry I was wrong - but I think Erasmus is the type of guy that will  use it out of the blue.   Must  admit  I have never seen it been used in tests before,     

If Erasmus was using a fake strategy as opposed to the best strategy against Wales at minute 64 when we were tied.... he was truly a fool. I don't believe he was....and I do believe all the negative press helped to move our strategy.

This was a case where the critics served a function and the groupies were wrong....all those sycophants who praised the Welsh win and wanted more of the same against England.

Dave your claims now that Rassie is a genius are contrary to many of your posts before we won.  Let's keep things real shall we?

I suggested more than once Rassie could have something up his sleeve. 

I explained to the oaks a number of times that the Boks had not previously kicked up and unders all the time and that there was no reason to say they couldn't change to a more attacking game. 

Rassie out smarted Jones and anybody saying otherwise has no clue whatsoever. 

Beeno got it spot on once again. 

Bwhahahahaha. 

Mozart

Stop being impossible for a change - You have not talk enough BS yet - have you?   A New Zealand expert saw what he believed is what happens and all the time you come up with so-called press stories that forced Erasmus into listening to them.   

If the press prescribes to Erasmus or for that matter any other coach how he must coach the team he is responsible for  then any such coach is not worth being a coach.  Just a simple question - you have managed huge companies in the past.  If the newspapers tell you to take a decision - would you have listened to reporters who insist  on a line of action,   Would you have surrendered and just implement the press decision on the issue?

If your answer is no - why do you expect from Erasmus to follow press instructions on how is to do his job?   Simple really to answer,  .   .      

Sorry Mozart

Just answer the simple question I asked you above, please, 

We were much more in control against Wales in 2019 than in 2015...Wales were never in front and the scores were level for small spells only. We should have buried them in the 15 before and 15 after midway but we botched a couple of chances...we had our jitters in the semifinals...we were in control for the whole match, but for a brainfart by the ref or a foolish player....which didn't happen...there was some fuel left in the tank.

Do I think Eraser didn't like the negative press after Wales....yep, I do. Did that have a role in setting tactics...yes I think so.

 There were 4 possible permutations....winning well, winning ugly, losing well or losing ugly. The one thing no coach should want in a WC final is losing ugly...and that was on the table against Wales. The negative reactions of press and fans probably encouraged Eraser to shift somewhat towards tactics used against the minnows.

One thing is for sure...against Wales he used the tactics that he thought were most likely to produce a win.

"The other reason why I do not necessarily agree with what Plum say,   The Springboks had the highest try scoring record in the WC and of the 5 tries they scored 37 was scored by backline players, "

Yes Mike.

Tell me, do you play poker?

They scored most of their tries against poor opposition. 

Had they kicked everything away against Canada and friends, it may have been a bit of a giveaway.

Versus Wales 2019....we had:

39% of possession 38% of the territory.

We made 5 clean breaks, 2 offloads, beat 16 defenders

We outgained Wales 296 to 182 ie by 114 metres.

We were tied  at minute 16 all at minute 76.

.............

Versus Wales in 2015...we had:

59% of possession 61% of the territory

We made 6 clean breaks and 7 offloads, beat 20 defenders 

We outgained Wales 543 metres to 294....ie by 249 metres.

We took the lead in the 75th minute

......

And somehow you conclude Draad that we had the game under control in 2019 and were at risk in 2015? Amazing!

There were glimpses against Wales, but we botched it. Slow poison. Boks played the long game for sure, you don't just change a gameplan in 6 days. Rassie had a plan for each possible team...it's obvious...they even planned the victory celebration tour...very little left to chance.

Our best RWC ever....my opinion.

'It's obvious'....if you are an acolyte. We played 3 games...won 2.

Mozart

What do you think Erasmus was doing in the week before the Final?   Did he just sit around and read the newspapers? 

No according with info he was watching together with his assistants every test played by England this year and they then decided what the strong points of the English team are - what the week points were and from there they would work on strategies to deal with the strong points and exploit the weak points,  

Then they explain same to the players and make sure they know exactly how to execute moves = repeat it till it is clear how to deal with the situation.   By midweek the staff met to put the final touches on the strategy execution.

What happened in the final was clear- every player was alert as to what happens and then execute the required actions accordingly,   Say for instance there is a breakdown and the Springboks sent in two players to somewhat frustrate their opponents by delaying recovery  who would go in and who will line up to defend.

That was why it worked out so well,   It was well planned, well coached and well executed,    

Do you think that the Springboks would be able to switch from Plan A to Plan B without already being coached well in both?  Smith said above =  

"(South Africa) showed in the final they were the best team in the tournament because they were able to adapt," he said.

"They changed from kicking every second ball to actually playing some footy and using the skills they've got."

'Because they were able to adapt'....and after the Wales test they needed to adapt. 

You assume we changed only because of aspects of the English game....we actually needed to adapt because we were so poor against a toothless Welsh team. That's why we were massive underdogs.

Somehow Eraser got there....and if you are so naive  as to believe he had it all planned before the WC, be my guest. Personally I think the criticism played a role.

No we played 4 and won the 3 that counted. 2019 Japan was waaaay better than 2007 Fiji.

2019 Wales waaaay better than 2007 Argie and 2019 England much more than a step above the Poms of 2007.

...my very subjective opinion..., taking away from any of these 2 grear Bok teams is very unfair ...I'm just thankful that we won.

Gre at vids from Squidge, thanks Xavi.

"Somehow Eraser got there....and if you are so naive  as to believe he had it all planned before the WC, be my guest. Personally I think the criticism played a role.

No, I'm not that naive, but I know that he planned for every conceivable eventuality and prepared his team well. I don't think criticism played that much of a role...like I said, you don't change these things on a whim...variation is one of the keystones of rugby success...this wasn't dumb luck...some luck, but not all by chance.

This team is better than some would admit.

Japan was a foregone conclusion. What we saw in the WC final was a superb team and an imaginative job from the coaching staff. An indication that we can go from being a tough nut at the WC to being the dominating team in rugby.

I think Rassie could be part of that drive...he is clearly technically competent and a good motivator. But it's going to require a full hearted effort, not part time help from the Performance Centre. 

Our opponents are not going to sit on their hands. That final will be analyzed in depth...and new tactics will emerge, particularly against the defence. To stay on top we need to grow as well. I'm not sure if Eraser wants that challenge.  

Dave every CEO who survives is aware of the views of his shareholders....and my guess is no coach likes to be referred to as stodgy and unimaginative. Least of all Rassie who likes the limel ight.

..Least of all Rassie who likes the limelight...

???

Xavi, thanks for the clips ...... baie bakgat.