In light of the Springboks’ ongoing deployment of the “Bomb Squad,” renowned author Stephen Jones has joined calls to cut back on substitutes.
South Africa has faced some criticism in recent years for their choice to add a lot of forwards on their bench.
They have frequently used the 6-2 split, which was crucial to their victory in the 2019 Rugby World Cup. Four years later, they developed the 7-1.
Before utilising it against the All Blacks in the worldwide championship final, the Boks tested it against them in a World Cup warm-up.
Return of tactic
That strategy was then shelved by Rassie Erasmus. That was before scrum-half Grant Williams was the only back among the substitutes for Sunday’s Autumn Nations Series match against Scotland.
After bringing in six of the seven forwards at once, Jones criticised South Africa’s head coach for his “arrogant” team selection and requested World Rugby to intervene.
Erasmus’s behaviours were undoubtedly haughty. He can afford to be arrogant because he has enough money. In his column for The Times, he stated, “The Boks are an ugly bunch to outsiders, and Erasmus himself was banned for criticising referees.”
“How can the sport eliminate bomb squads wherever they congregate? Huge players nearly always win against normal-sized ones, which is both a truism and an intrinsic shortcoming of the modern game.
“As we await the findings of numerous high-level medical investigations, it is also possible that rugby, at its elite level, is creating potentially terrible illnesses. Everyone knows that the sheer number of players at the present is making the sport more risky to play.
“The solutions ought to be simple, right? The amount of substitutes permitted on the pitch must be strictly enforced by rugby. The fact that most clubs finish games with fewer than half of their starters left on the pitch still seems absurd given how much the number of allowed substitutions has increased.
It wasn’t supposed to be that way; in rugby, you were supposed to tire out, make room, and if your opponent beat you in the power game, why should you have brought on new players? It’s way too many to have eight replacements per game.
Criticism of Williams and Wood
Jones has attempted to rekindle the discussion on the number of replacements in rugby, as Matt Williams and Keith Wood have been the most vocal about the Springboks’ strategy, especially prior to and during the World Cup last year.
“There is still a chance for sanity,” he continued. They have to alter. Only four forward replacements and one back should be permitted, even for professional teams.
“This would allow rugby to redevelop that fantastic player type, the utility back, who could play in multiple positions, while still allowing safety up front (only seasoned props should prop).” Healey, Austin?
“No matter how conceited they may be, nobody needs to replace the entire pack. Really, nobody needs three extra backs. As usual, players would need to train to complete the entire course. The additional room would change the cadence and give liveliness.
“Rugby is a challenging game. It loses itself and veers more violently the more substitutes it permits. Put an end to the bomb squad.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE
