Four Tests, Four Lessons. Here's What Rugby’s Greatest Rivalry Taught Us

When Rugby’s Greatest Rivalry was first announced, there was always the danger that the hype might outweigh the reality. Instead, it delivered. Four Test matches between the Springboks and All Blacks, packed stadiums, thousands of travelling Kiwis and a genuine sense that we were watching something a little different to the usual international rugby window. It felt like an occasion from beginning to end and, perhaps most importantly, it reminded everyone why South Africa against New Zealand remains the fixture that means just a little bit more to both rugby nations.

Perhaps the best part was everything around the rugby. South Africans and New Zealanders have spent more than a century trying to knock lumps out of each other on a rugby field, but there remains a genuine respect between the two nations. You could see it between the players and coaches, but particularly amongst the supporters. Having so many New Zealanders make the trip to South Africa added enormously to the tour, and there was a camaraderie between the two sets of fans that sometimes gets lost when you spend too much time reading rugby Twitter or scrolling through Facebook comments.

Of course, things occasionally get a little ridiculous on social media. One scrum penalty apparently proves the entire history of New Zealand rugby is finished, while one All Blacks line break means the Springboks have suddenly been “found out”. That is probably never going to change, and perhaps a little bit of nonsense is part of what makes a rivalry a rivalry. But inside the stadiums, around the braais and over a few beers, this tour reminded us that the rivalry is built on enormous mutual respect. The Springboks ultimately walked away with the bragging rights and a 3–1 series victory, but across four Tests we also learned quite a bit about where the two greatest rugby nations on the planet currently stand.

1. The Springboks no longer have one way to beat you

For years, opposition supporters have tried to reduce Springbok rugby to a fairly simple formula: scrum, penalty, lineout, maul, repeat. When that description stopped quite fitting, the conversation shifted towards tactical kicking, contestable bombs and South Africa feeding off the scraps. Then Tony De Bruin (Brown) arrived and the Boks started throwing the ball around, suddenly attacking from deep and putting forwards into spaces we were more accustomed to seeing occupied by outside backs, and the temptation was to decide that this was now the way South Africa wanted to play.

The truth is far more interesting. Perhaps the biggest development in this Springbok side is not simply that they can attack or that they have added Tony-Ball to the traditional South African game. It is that they now have the personnel, experience and confidence to completely change the way they are playing during a Test match. The Boks don't have to decide before kick-off whether they are going to beat you through their forwards, kick you into submission or try to run you off your feet. They can make that decision as the game develops and, increasingly, change it more than once during the same match.

When things become too loose, they can go back to basics, slow the game down, find touch, squeeze you at the set piece and force you to play from uncomfortable parts of the field. When the game opens up, they can play Tony-ball. There are forwards comfortable handling in wide channels (who can forget those hands from Ox in FNB), backs capable of attacking from virtually anywhere and enough playmakers scattered across the side to identify space and exploit it. If neither approach is quite working, they have the experience to change direction again rather than stubbornly continuing with a plan that the opposition has already figured out.

That adaptability might be the biggest difference between this Springbok side and some of the great Bok teams that came before it. They are no longer trying to impose one particular style of rugby for 80 minutes. They are trying to understand what the game requires at that particular moment and then selecting the appropriate weapon. In many ways, they have developed a toolbox rather than a single game plan, and the scary part for the rest of the world is that they increasingly seem to know exactly when to reach for each tool.

That makes South Africa incredibly difficult to prepare for. You are no longer simply preparing your back three to survive a Springbok kicking bombardment or preparing your pack for an afternoon of scrums and mauls. You have to prepare for all of it, while also knowing that the Boks themselves might not know which version they are going to need until the Test is underway. That maturity, more than any particular attacking shape or tactical innovation, might be the most important development in the current Springbok side.

2. The gap between the Boks and All Blacks isn't nearly as big as some would have you believe

A 3–1 series victory is significant, and the Boks thoroughly deserve the bragging rights that come with it. But anyone looking purely at that scoreline and concluding that there is suddenly daylight between the Springboks and All Blacks probably wasn't watching closely enough. New Zealand remain a massive threat and, importantly, there are signs that the All Blacks are rediscovering what has historically made them so dangerous: their ability to attack with ball in hand.

Give this All Blacks side space and they can hurt you incredibly quickly. Their instinct to attack, keep the ball alive, flood channels with support runners and punish defensive errors remains ingrained in New Zealand rugby. There were periods throughout this series when the Boks simply couldn't contain it. The speed at which New Zealand can turn a seemingly harmless possession into an attacking opportunity remains frightening, and if they continue developing that side of their game they are going to cause plenty of problems for South Africa and everyone else over the next year. There also seems to be no answer to the threat that is Will Jordan, he may very well become the first player to score 100 test tries.

The third Test perhaps illustrates the point better than anything else. By halftime, each side had won one Test in the series and the score on the day was locked at 12–12. At that exact moment, there was virtually nothing separating the two teams. South Africa eventually found another gear and ultimately deserved to win the series, but it is important to remember that all four Tests were played in South Africa. Home-ground advantage counts in international rugby and it certainly counts when these two nations play one another.

The next time the Springboks face the All Blacks in next year's Rugby Championship, the equation changes completely. New Zealand will have had another year in their system, another year to address the weaknesses exposed during this tour and, crucially, they will have the benefit of playing in front of their own supporters. South Africa cannot simply arrive with the level that was good enough to win this series and expect the same outcome. They will have to take another step forward entirely, because we can be absolutely certain that New Zealand will.

That should excite supporters of both sides. The Springboks are currently setting the standard and have earned the right to call themselves the better side, but the All Blacks are nowhere near disappearing from the rear-view mirror. The margins remain smaller than a 3–1 scoreline might suggest, and with a World Cup quarter-final potentially waiting next year, neither side can afford to stand still.

3. New Zealand's set piece — and aerial game — needs serious attention

If there is one area where the gap did become obvious during Rugby’s Greatest Rivalry, it was in the fundamentals. New Zealand's scrum needs more power and there were simply too many moments across the series where South Africa were able to turn the scrum from a means of restarting the game into an attacking weapon. Against most international sides you might survive that weakness. Against the Springboks, eventually you are going to pay for it through penalties, territory, cards or points. You can just ask the Irish.

The lineout also let the All Blacks down at crucial moments. At this level, losing your own ball is damaging enough, but losing it against a Bok side that feeds off pressure and territory can completely change the momentum of a Test match. South Africa don't need many invitations to put you into a corner, and when your scrum and lineout are both under pressure, suddenly huge portions of your game plan become much more difficult to execute. It doesn't matter how dangerous your backs are if you cannot consistently provide them with good possession.

That raises an interesting question around the personnel New Zealand need going forward. There have been plenty of calls for Richie Mo'unga's return, and understandably so given his quality and the influence he could have on the All Blacks attack. But perhaps the phone call that could prove even more valuable is the one to Brodie Retallick. New Zealand certainly don't lack talented rugby players, but at times they appear to lack some of the grunt, authority and set-piece presence that defined their greatest sides. A player of Retallick's experience and physicality could go a long way towards addressing exactly that. Not to mention the timely return of Scott Barrett from injury.

The other major concern is their aerial defence. Whatever the current plan is, it isn't working consistently enough, and at international level that is a particularly dangerous weakness to have. South Africa repeatedly found ways to create pressure in the air, and because the Boks can now combine their kicking game with a genuine running threat, defending against them becomes increasingly complicated. New Zealand may need to rethink their entire approach to how they defend the contestable kick rather than simply trying to execute the existing system better.

Fix the scrum, stabilise the lineout and find an answer in the air, and suddenly the margins between these sides become even smaller. The All Blacks already possess enough attacking quality to hurt South Africa and everyone else for that matter. What this series showed is that their biggest improvements might not need to come from finding another superstar playmaker, but from rediscovering some of the less glamorous qualities that made previous All Blacks sides so incredibly difficult to beat.

4. Rassie Erasmus and his management team understand timing better than anyone

Perhaps the most important lesson wasn't tactical at all. Rassie Erasmus and his management team understand this Springbok squad to a T. They know their players, they understand what makes them tick and they seem to know exactly when someone needs an arm around the shoulder, when they need a challenge and, perhaps most importantly, when the entire squad needs to peak.

That last part is becoming one of the defining characteristics of this Springbok era. International rugby isn't about being at your absolute best every single Saturday of the year; it is about being at your best on the Saturdays that matter most. The Springboks haven't always looked perfect during Rassie's tenure and they certainly haven't always played perfect rugby. There have been matches where combinations haven't clicked, experiments haven't quite worked and performances have left supporters wondering whether the Boks are moving in the right direction. Yet somehow, when the really big occasion arrives, this group has an extraordinary ability to find something extra.

We saw it again in the fourth Test. With Rugby’s Greatest Rivalry there to be won and one final opportunity to put their stamp on the series, the Springboks seemed to grow an extra arm and a leg. The intensity went up, the execution improved and suddenly there was another level available that we hadn't necessarily seen throughout every minute of the preceding three Tests.

That doesn't happen by accident. It comes from understanding the physical condition of your squad, managing workloads, building depth, giving players opportunities and knowing exactly when it is time to tighten the screws.

It is also why experimentation under Rassie needs to be viewed differently. The constant changes, new combinations and occasional left-field selections aren't necessarily about producing the best possible Springbok XV for that particular Saturday. They are about ensuring that when the Test arrives where everything is on the line, the coaching staff know exactly who they can trust, what each player can give them and which combinations will work under pressure. There is a much bigger picture constantly being painted in the background, even when we don't always understand what the individual brush strokes are supposed to be.

We've seen this movie before. Twice. The Springboks have two World Cups from the last two attempts because this management group understands that trophies aren't won by peaking six months too early. They are won by getting your timing right, knowing your players and producing your best rugby when there is no tomorrow. With another World Cup getting increasingly close, Rugby’s Greatest Rivalry provided another reminder that Rassie and his management team seem to understand the art of timing better than anyone else in international rugby.

The rivalry is exactly where it should be

Maybe that is the biggest takeaway from the entire tour. The Boks won, they deserved to win, and right now they deserve to be considered the standard-setters in world rugby. But New Zealand haven't gone anywhere. The All Blacks showed enough across these four Tests to remind everyone that if they can fix their set-piece and aerial problems, their attacking game is capable of causing the every test side, enormous trouble.

The Boks, meanwhile, have become a more complete and adaptable rugby team while retaining the physical edge that has always made South Africa so difficult to beat. That might ultimately be the most encouraging thing to come out of the tour from a South African perspective. The traditional Springbok strengths haven't been replaced in the pursuit of a more expansive game; they have simply been joined by more ways to win.

And somewhere in between all of that were thousands of South Africans and New Zealanders sharing stadiums, beers, jokes and four weeks of reminding each other exactly why their country is better at rugby. For all the nonsense that sometimes surrounds the rivalry online, the tour itself showed it at its very best: fierce without being bitter, respectful without losing its edge, and competitive enough that even after a 3–1 series victory, neither side will feel particularly comfortable about what happens next.

That's Rugby’s Greatest Rivalry.