If national teams in the United Kingdom had the player resources to employ a tactic similar to South Africa’s ‘Bomb Squad’, they would. That’s the stance of former Springbok captain Corné Krige on the criticism directed at Springbok coach Rassie Erasmus and his team regarding their use of the replacements bench.
The Springboks’ use of a six-two (6-2) or seven-one (7-1) bench split in favour of forwards has been slammed repeatedly in the past by nay-sayers up north, with some alleging the Boks’ injection of fresh forwards – especially when they all come on at the same time – disregards player safety and that it gives the world champions an unfair advantage given their size. There has even been the claim that it is ‘discriminating against backs’.
While the detractors have frequently spewed their annoyance with the 6-2 split, they have been especially vocal since the Boks started making use of the 7-1 tactic, and after the back-to-back World Cup winners’ defeat over Scotland a fortnight ago – during which they went with a 7-1 split and brought on six of those forwards in one swoop – the whining continued.
Speaking to TelecomAsia Sport, Krige put all the vitriol down to simple envy.
I think it’s a bit of bitterness from the UK press and from those in the UK who think that the Bomb Squad is unfair. I think it’s just because they really do not have the depth that we have in the front row and in our tight five in particular. I know everybody is making a big thing about it, but if it is within the rules…At times Rassie does take a bit of a risk, and that risk has always paid off, so I do not understand why they are unhappy.
It stems from Professional Jealousy
South Africa arguably have more depth now than ever before, and Krige further shared his belief that the very same people who take issue with South Africa’s approach would probably jump at the chance to do the same if they could.
I think if any of them - England, Wales, or Ireland - had that depth, they would probably try and do the same. But unfortunately, they don’t, so it’s one of the things we are using to our advantage.
The incessant claims targeting the Rassie and co. not only speaks to the complainers’ inability or refusal to even consider finding a way to negate or combat the Boks’ tactics, but it also highlights how blinded they are by their overpowering loathing for the dominant South Africans, blinded enough to perpetuate illogical points.
Unreasonable Complaints
How does lowering the number of players on the bench (which is one of the suggestions that has been thrown out there in an attempt to curb the Boks’ success) increase player safety? It’s could very well be quite the contrary, actually, as there is enough research to suggest that fatigue – which naturally increases the longer a player remains on the field – increases the risk of injury.
Or are those who are unhappy with the Bomb Squad’s impact only viewing it from one perspective, in that fresh replacements pose a greater risk for the opposition’s already-fatigued players who started a match? Even so, a player can get injured at any time during a match and against any player, and one could even argue that a player who has been on the field longer is a greater risk to the opposition as that starting player’s physical and mental fatigue could lead to poor form, decision-making, or execution in a tackle or at a ruck, for example, increasing the risk of injury for players from both sides.
Then there’s the size factor. Should the Springboks be reined in purely because of their size? Would the same restrictions be expected to be enforced on another ‘big’ country like Tonga, for example, or do we only want to restrain the top team in the world?
One vexed Bomb Squad commentor, in the name of ‘safety’ and ‘redeveloping the utility back’, advocated for the reduction of the bench to four forwards and one back. Couldn’t the Springboks then boast that they are already encouraging backs to be all-rounded by only naming one or two of them among the replacements?
However you view it, let’s just hope that the Bomb Squad critics and the absurdity of their complaints aren’t granted any (further) consideration by World Rugby.
