Publications
Partners
Rob Houwing
It is an uncomfortable fact now that most top-tier opponents of the Springboks consider the world champions just a little vulnerable at the set scrum.
To use rugby techno-speak, it is an area they believe they can “target”. Hence some do … and pretty successfully.
No, it wasn’t the lone reason France so convincingly (except on the scoreboard, maybe) downed the Boks in Toulouse, but it certainly helped, didn’t it? Some say the scrum represents a rugby team’s spine; bend it or break it and you expose yourself to broader collapse.
It is a strange state of affairs when you consider that not too many months ago a revved-up Springbok eight – yes, with captain and redeployed former hooker John Smit already wearing the tighthead prop jersey – was virtually running the British and Irish Lions pack into humiliating retreat at scrum-time in the first Test of the series in Durban.
Sadly, we may have to assume, almost half a year on, that that event (including Phil Vickery’s nightmare day at the office against a Beast Mtawarira at his loosehead-side pomp) was a blissful aberration, one that put the Boks on the crucial front foot for a series they eventually very narrowly claimed.
Since then, it is the South African scrum, by and large, that has gone backwards, both figuratively and literally.
To put it bluntly, the Springbok front row suddenly looks like a questionable unit too obviously made up of a prop and two hookers, rather than two props and a hooker. And some would argue that, since Smit’s transition, basically it is.
And it is a mightily complex issue. Everybody knows that the popular, so often triumphant skipper’s switch was primarily aimed at extending his shelf-life to the 2011 World Cup.
Why not? The troops at his command, probably virtually to a man, spiritedly want the not-exactly-geriatric 31-year-old to head up the defence of that trophy – South Africa’s opportunity to be the first team to retain it.
It was argued, not without merit, that as advancing years slightly dimmed his explosiveness in the looser play, bulking him up further to play at No 3 was the appropriate route to accommodating his impressive and usually deserving Sharks team-mate Bismarck du Plessis at hooker.
Every now and then – remember that epic, exquisitely-timed second-half heave against New Zealand at Hamilton? – it looks as though it might just be working.
Rather more often, alas, I believe it does not.
Let’s face it, many of us breathe a sigh of relief these days when the Bok scrum simply holds steady at a “pressure” juncture against a key foe … never mind actually advances, for that has become increasingly rare.
Certainly there is a good case for not giving up on Smit as an internationally-worthy tighthead yet.
Remember that the poor man has not even had a full season beneath his belt exclusively in that spot, and they do say the best tightheads only get better with experience.
Smit may well also be suffering himself under the weight of general over-play this year, which would hardly aid his quest to prove his worth in the new role.
Nor is it appropriate to heap all the blame on Smit - simply because he is the new kid on the right-shoulder block and it is just assumed he is labouring - for Bok scrumming inadequacies.
In this area it takes at least (the tight) five to tango, and Mtawarira on the other side of the front row has been well off his A-game in recent weeks.
Alternative school of thought
An alternative school of thought – and it does already exist – ventures that Smit simply will not cut it at No 3, that continuation is futile and pro-active gestures, however brutal or unpalatable, are required fairly urgently to remedy the situation.
So, do you summarily dump “Barney”? Try bouncing that off those who go to war with him, and for him, and you may well collect a shiner for your troubles.
I share the sentiment that his leadership, which has carried the country to the top of the world, after all, remains indispensible while he is still available to the cause.
What, then, is the solution? Just a thought: why is there this obsessive belief, in some circles, that Smit is henceforth a prop and only a prop, and a return to hooker is completely out of the question?
Is some flexibility – a bit of horses for courses, even – not an option? Scrum giants Argentina, for example, have a reasonably well-established reputation for schooling various front-rankers in the art of both prop and hooker responsibilities and then stationing them as they see fit for the occasion.
There are plenty of instances -- and the heavier pitches of Europe are coincidentally cases in point -- where fielding of an earthy, less “run-around” No 2 still pays some dividends, and to hell with the minor sacrifice in mobility.
It is not as though Du Plessis is playing champagne rugby himself presently at hooker: indeed, it has been a year marked by fits of both true brilliance and obvious mediocrity from him.
Would Smit really be too rusty on the important lineout-throwing front? Admittedly from afar, and not pretending to be scientifically well-versed in these things, I suspect not.
And, against a Martin Castrogiovanni-inspired Italian scrummaging pack who gave the All Blacks no shortage of problems this very weekend, is Smit back in the middle with CJ van der Linde (if fit after his reported hamstring strain against Saracens) at tighthead really such an insane idea for Udine on Saturday?
A Bok front row made up of three props … hmm, for steeliness and solidity’s sake when it is seemingly needed, there’s a rather inviting thought, actually.
Rob is Sport24's chief writer
Disclaimer: Sport24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on Sport24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Sport24.
It is an uncomfortable fact now that most top-tier opponents of the Springboks consider the world champions just a little vulnerable at the set scrum.
To use rugby techno-speak, it is an area they believe they can “target”. Hence some do … and pretty successfully.
No, it wasn’t the lone reason France so convincingly (except on the scoreboard, maybe) downed the Boks in Toulouse, but it certainly helped, didn’t it? Some say the scrum represents a rugby team’s spine; bend it or break it and you expose yourself to broader collapse.
It is a strange state of affairs when you consider that not too many months ago a revved-up Springbok eight – yes, with captain and redeployed former hooker John Smit already wearing the tighthead prop jersey – was virtually running the British and Irish Lions pack into humiliating retreat at scrum-time in the first Test of the series in Durban.
Sadly, we may have to assume, almost half a year on, that that event (including Phil Vickery’s nightmare day at the office against a Beast Mtawarira at his loosehead-side pomp) was a blissful aberration, one that put the Boks on the crucial front foot for a series they eventually very narrowly claimed.
Since then, it is the South African scrum, by and large, that has gone backwards, both figuratively and literally.
To put it bluntly, the Springbok front row suddenly looks like a questionable unit too obviously made up of a prop and two hookers, rather than two props and a hooker. And some would argue that, since Smit’s transition, basically it is.
And it is a mightily complex issue. Everybody knows that the popular, so often triumphant skipper’s switch was primarily aimed at extending his shelf-life to the 2011 World Cup.
Why not? The troops at his command, probably virtually to a man, spiritedly want the not-exactly-geriatric 31-year-old to head up the defence of that trophy – South Africa’s opportunity to be the first team to retain it.
It was argued, not without merit, that as advancing years slightly dimmed his explosiveness in the looser play, bulking him up further to play at No 3 was the appropriate route to accommodating his impressive and usually deserving Sharks team-mate Bismarck du Plessis at hooker.
Every now and then – remember that epic, exquisitely-timed second-half heave against New Zealand at Hamilton? – it looks as though it might just be working.
Rather more often, alas, I believe it does not.
Let’s face it, many of us breathe a sigh of relief these days when the Bok scrum simply holds steady at a “pressure” juncture against a key foe … never mind actually advances, for that has become increasingly rare.
Certainly there is a good case for not giving up on Smit as an internationally-worthy tighthead yet.
Remember that the poor man has not even had a full season beneath his belt exclusively in that spot, and they do say the best tightheads only get better with experience.
Smit may well also be suffering himself under the weight of general over-play this year, which would hardly aid his quest to prove his worth in the new role.
Nor is it appropriate to heap all the blame on Smit - simply because he is the new kid on the right-shoulder block and it is just assumed he is labouring - for Bok scrumming inadequacies.
In this area it takes at least (the tight) five to tango, and Mtawarira on the other side of the front row has been well off his A-game in recent weeks.
Alternative school of thought
An alternative school of thought – and it does already exist – ventures that Smit simply will not cut it at No 3, that continuation is futile and pro-active gestures, however brutal or unpalatable, are required fairly urgently to remedy the situation.
So, do you summarily dump “Barney”? Try bouncing that off those who go to war with him, and for him, and you may well collect a shiner for your troubles.
I share the sentiment that his leadership, which has carried the country to the top of the world, after all, remains indispensible while he is still available to the cause.
What, then, is the solution? Just a thought: why is there this obsessive belief, in some circles, that Smit is henceforth a prop and only a prop, and a return to hooker is completely out of the question?
Is some flexibility – a bit of horses for courses, even – not an option? Scrum giants Argentina, for example, have a reasonably well-established reputation for schooling various front-rankers in the art of both prop and hooker responsibilities and then stationing them as they see fit for the occasion.
There are plenty of instances -- and the heavier pitches of Europe are coincidentally cases in point -- where fielding of an earthy, less “run-around” No 2 still pays some dividends, and to hell with the minor sacrifice in mobility.
It is not as though Du Plessis is playing champagne rugby himself presently at hooker: indeed, it has been a year marked by fits of both true brilliance and obvious mediocrity from him.
Would Smit really be too rusty on the important lineout-throwing front? Admittedly from afar, and not pretending to be scientifically well-versed in these things, I suspect not.
And, against a Martin Castrogiovanni-inspired Italian scrummaging pack who gave the All Blacks no shortage of problems this very weekend, is Smit back in the middle with CJ van der Linde (if fit after his reported hamstring strain against Saracens) at tighthead really such an insane idea for Udine on Saturday?
A Bok front row made up of three props … hmm, for steeliness and solidity’s sake when it is seemingly needed, there’s a rather inviting thought, actually.
Rob is Sport24's chief writer
Disclaimer: Sport24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on Sport24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Sport24.
