The making of a bench
Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:36
Super-subs: Steyn (l) and Pienaar (r) cover the entire backline between them
Super-subs: Steyn (l) and Pienaar (r) cover the entire backline between them
There was criticism of the make-up of the Springbok bench in their first Tri-Nations match of 2008. But what makes a good bench? Paul Dobson investigates...
The selections especially criticised were those of Percy Montgomery, Bolla Conradie, Brian Mujati and Luke Watson.
What was the nature of the criticism?
By the Laws of the Game - see Law 3.5 (c), a team at this level is allowed seven replacements - seven players on the bench. They do not have an entirely free choice as two of those seven players must be suitably trained to play in specialised positions in the front row - "to ensure that on the first occasion that a replacement hooker is required and, on the first occasion that a replacement prop forward is required, the team can continue to play safely with contested scrums".
That leaves the team with a choice of five other players for the bench. Teams can choose as they wish.
There are two reasons for choosing players. First the team needs insurance against injury. Even the best of players can be injured in the first minute of a match. There needs to be cover against that.
Secondly, there is the use of bench players as substitutes. These are players used to add value to their team - impact players if you like - players to make a difference.
The Springbok bench on Saturday was: Bismarck du Plessis, Brian Mujati, Andries Bekker, Luke Watson, Bolla Conradie, François Steyn, Percy Montgomery.
In South African rugby Ollie le Roux was a great replacement player. He could do his job as a prop and add impact around about the field. He may well have been better at that than at starting a game and plodding through the 80 minutes.
Albert van den Berg could come on and do more than just win line-outs, for his speed, especially when fresh added value.
Australia have used Phil Waugh as an impact player and he does that especially well. Bob Skinstad may well have been at his best as an impact player. Imagine the impact Richie McCaw or Schalk Burger could make, but they are able to maintain a high tempo of play throughout the game.
Du Plessis and Mujati fulfilled the IRB regulations that require front row cover. But there was more to it. Both came on for injury. Du Plessis certainly added value. He had an impact all right. Mujati did not. 'Beast' Mtawarira is much more likely to have an impact, though tighthead may well then become a problem.
Bekker could cover at lock and ensure that line-outs continued smoothly. That leaves the other three places.
François Steyn could cover flyhalf, centre, wing and fullback. All of those positions were covered.
Percy Montgomery could cover flyhalf, centre, wing and fullback. That seemed a duplication of cover.
Montgomery is not an impact player. He came on and added nothing to the South African effort. That does not remove the case for starting with him in the first place.
Bolla Conradie came on. Enrico Januarie was not injured. Presumably Conradie came on to add value - to make an impact. He did not make an impact. Januarie makes an impact; Conradie does not.
Luke Watson also came on as a substitute, presumably to make an impact. It would be hard to gauge if he did or did not as he was about as anonymous as Joe van Niekerk had been. There are other loose forwards who could have had an impact - Pierre Spies and Ryan Kankowski who are on the tour. Danie Rossouw, who saved South Africa's bacon at the World Cup with a brilliant tackle, is not on tour but is the sort of player who could come on to make an impact if his sort of player was needed at that stage.
Montgomery and Steyn could have made an impact if they had been sent on to dominate the kicking game when South Africa's kicking game was so poor. But that did not seem to be the case.
Montgomery came on for Jantjes who had had a good attacking game, but Odwa Ndungane stayed on the field when he had been given the runaround by Dan Carter, something Jantjes may well have coped with better.
On tour is Ruan Pienaar who must surely be the ideal player for the bench. Put him and Steyn there and you do not need a third back as cover as those two can more than cover all positions. That would leave space for another forward, perhaps another prop when your scrummaging is so dilapidated.
The bench certainly needs clear thought. It cannot just be a place for some players to get a Test cap in the last few minutes of a Test when the result is obvious.
What do you think? What would your ideal bench be? Email us!
