For years the Springboks and the All Blacks enjoyed one of sport's great rivalries, but this is no longer the case.
Since 2009, when South Africa beat New Zealand three times in a row, the Springboks have beaten the All Blacks just twice, convincingly at Port Elizabeth in 2011 (18-5), and only just in Johannesburg in 2014 (27-25). New Zealand have won the other 14 games. And since the close World Cup semifinal, which South Africa lost (20-18), the All Blacks have won the past three games 57-0, 57-15 and 41-13.
How do you explain such a big gap between two teams that were once so close?
The obvious answer -- and one most critics prefer to avoid -- is player pool. New Zealand have better players to pick from. Their form and depth in Super Rugby proves this. South African provincial teams have tended to perform poorly against New Zealand ones.
No fan likes to admit that their team is starting the game with inferior raw talent. We prefer to blame things that are 'fixable': coaching, team selection, conditioning, on-field decision-making etc.
But a quick look at the sizes of the New Zealand backs versus the Springbok ones proves that South Africa simply does not have the raw talent to compete with the World Champions. Yes, size is not everything in sport and a bigger player is not necessarily a better one. But we already know that on skills, pace and execution the All Blacks give nothing away to their opponents.
They are arguably the most skilled rugby team in the world. If they're picking a big guy it's because he's as skilled as a smaller one, with the bonus of momentum in the collision. The great American football coach Vince Lombardi said: "Football is not a contact sport, dancing is a contact sport. Football is a collision sport."
In one-on-one tackle situations, all else being equal, the advantage is to the bigger player. On attack he has more chance of breaking the tackle, or of sucking in extra defenders. If he doesn't break the tackle, chances are he'll keep the momentum going forward, either with an offload, or with quick ruck ball.
On defence the bigger player is more likely to hit the attacking runner back in the tackle, either forcing a turnover or slowing the momentum of the opposition. And he has that much more chance of causing a turnover by causing the attacker to spill the ball, or by forcing the attacker into touch.
It's these one-on-one situations that the All Blacks feed off. They proved in their recent 57-0 drubbing of the Boks that they don't need possession or territory, they simply need to create as many one-on-one mismatches as possible and give their big, fast backs opportunities score tries.
Their forwards do not need to dominate the Bok forwards. If they hold their own against the big Bok pack, they can rely on their backs to do the real damage and score quick tries. T
The match stats from the 57-0 hammering in Albany bear this out. In the first half South Africa dominated territory and possession, but the All Blacks outscored them 31-0. The Boks also recycled the ball well, winning 94% of their rucks (93% for NZ).
The main statistical difference is in those one-on-one situations. Clean breaks: 15-4 (to NZ). Metres run: 564-252 (to NZ). Offloads: 11-8 (to NZ). Tackles: 83%-71% to NZ. Defenders beaten: 32-19 to NZ. NZ slipped 19 of 114 tackles, while SA missed 32 of 109, which sums up the problem for the Springboks.
Even though South Africa created five more attacking one-on-one situations, the All Blacks ended up winning the one-on-one battles 32-19, giving themselves 13 more chances to break the line and score.
It's also true that South Africa lost five lineouts (to NZ's one), and three scrums to none for NZ. But many of these where in the second half, when the All Blacks had already wrapped up the game. Tightening up on the set-pieces will not solve SA's problems.
A look at the match before this one, last year's 57-15 hammering in Durban, proves this. In that game the Boks had identical set-piece stats to NZ. But the one-on-one stats are what sets the teams apart. In that game SA had a 100% success rate in retaining ruck and maul possession, even conceding fewer turnovers than NZ.
The main -- no, the only -- difference between the two teams was what happened when one player ran at another. Metres run: 754-148 (to NZ). Offloads: 22-7 (to NZ). Clean breaks: 24-3 NZ. Defenders beaten: 40-3 (to NZ). South Africa's tackle completions were 77%, to NZ's 96%, slipping 40 tackles out of 175. The Boks can practice set-pieces, rucks and mauls until they're green in the face, but it won't help them beat the All Blacks.
From the above stats you'd assume that NZ are putting bigger, more explosive runners on the park. And you'd be right. Their players are breaking Bok tackles much easier than the other way around. Is this because the Boks have not learnt to tackle properly, or because they're being outmuscled?
In the recent match against Argentina the two NZ centres were Williams (111kgs) and Lienert-Brown (96kgs). In the recent match against Australia the Boks had Kriel (96kgs) and Serfontein (96kgs) at centre. The one match-up is even, the other is a 15kgs advantage for NZ.
It gets worse when you look at the wings. In the same matches NZ played Naholo (105kgs) and Ioane (103kg); South Africa had Leyds (78kgs) and Skosan (96kgs). In one match-up the Boks give away 7kgs to NZ; in the other they give away a massive 27kgs. It doesn't take a sport scientist to work out that if you get Naholo running at Leyds enough times, you'll create line-breaks and score tries.
And if the likes of Naholo and Ioane aren't up for the job, NZ can call on try-machine Savea (106kgs) or Laumape (103kgs). All four NZ wings are over 100kgs. South Africa does not have one wing that big.
Talking about 'men against boys' when describing the NZ-SA rivalry is no exaggeration. An average 14-year-old boy weighs 50kgs, while an average 20-year-old weighs 70kgs. That's a similar mismatch to Naholo vs Leyds. In rugby you only need to create five or six of these mismatches a game to score two or three times.
And indeed, it sometimes feels like the Boks are 14 points behind NZ before they've even started. Until the Springboks can field athletes of comparable stature and explosive running ability as the All Blacks they'll always be on the back foot.