The South African podcaster Harry Jones recently posted a video to social media detailing the country’s rugby philosophy.
A fan, whom Jones labels the Potchefstroom Poet, lays it out for those who have not been initiated in the ways of the ‘Bok: “We f**k them up in front, easy. We make our first-time tackles. And then, we spread the ball. Easy.
“Rugby is not hard.”
Libations may have influenced this particular bard when dumbing down the rugby DNA of an entire nation. But he isn’t wrong.
Irish citizens including Paul Murphy TD freed by Egyptian authorities after detention over Gaza march
Iran warns US, UK and France against trying to stop strikes on Israel
Fontaines DC’s Grian Chatten: ‘Romance took a lot out of us. It was like a bomb went off, and then that silence’
Iran retaliates with strikes against Israel as Netanyahu vows to continue for ‘as many days as it takes’
Twice in the last four years, Jake White and his Bulls have faced Leinster in URC knockout games. Twice they have ended Leo Cullen and friends’ seasons. The secret sauce? See our lairy lyricist.
The Bulls laid siege to Leinster’s forward pack in a way which has become stereotypical of South African sides. The Irish province couldn’t cope. Should the Bulls revert to type? If they do, are Leinster better equipped to deal with the onslaught?
Against the Sharks last week, the Bulls did not just rely on set-piece, forward dominance and an astute kicking game
Let’s start by succeeding where our muse failed; putting some statistical meat on the bones of the Bulls’ success. They fall into the South African blueprint of looking to play without the ball, kicking aplenty and being ruthlessly efficient when they do earn opportunities to strike.
In last year’s semi-final at Loftus Versfeld, the Bulls made 112 carries to Leinster’s 131. They kicked 42 times in open play, Leinster 37. The South African side’s kick-to-pass ratio was 1:3. Leinster’s was 1:5. The kicking game worked, the Bulls earning 59 per cent of the game’s territory. Just 34 per cent of their possession came in their own half.
Despite the deficiency in attacking volume, the Bulls made almost the same number of metres post-contact as Leinster (231 vs 236) while working more line breaks (eight vs six).
The identity of those doing the attacking damage is telling. For most sides, the ‘best’ runners, those who make the most metres, are found in the back three. They often have acres of space to run back kicks against faraway defensive lines.
Not the Bulls. In that 2024 semi-final, their top metre-maker was number eight Cameron Hanekom. Their outhalf, Johan Goosen, was number two. Third was another backrow, Elrigh Louw. The most effective back three player was wing Devon Williams, the team’s fourth best metre-maker. He made less than half the yardage of Hanekom (39 metres vs 83). By contrast, Leinster’s top four carriers that day were James Lowe, Jimmy O’Brien, Jamie Osborne and Caelan Doris.
The Bulls do spread the ball, as our poet suggested, but only after the big boys do the main damage up front. They have the lowest figure in the URC for number of phases which travel beyond the second receiver (6.1 per cent).
The one area not yet referenced is the set-piece. Unsurprisingly, the Bulls love a scrum. Videos of their frontrow battle with the Sharks last week have gone viral. They have historically targeted Leinster’s dead ball platform. With good reason. This year, 68.3 per cent of the province’s tries have come from set-piece, joint highest in the URC.
In 2024, the Bulls held Leinster to a 67 per cent scrum success rate. In 2022, the lineout was the problem, Leinster ending with a success rate of 78 per cent.
In that 2022 upset at the RDS, unsurprisingly the Bulls outkicked Leinster 31-25. Less predictable was Leinster still earning 70 per cent of territory while only holding 48 per cent of possession. Then, Leinster’s profligacy was more of an issue than where the game was played. They coughed up possession 18 times (compared to 13 in 2024). True to form, though, the Bulls’ best runner at the RDS was their number eight, Elrigh Louw. Leinster’s was Jimmy O’Brien.
Here’s where things get interesting. Against the Sharks last week, the Bulls did not just rely on set-piece, forward dominance and an astute kicking game. They still kicked plenty (once for every 2.9 passes, more often than their victory over Leinster last year) and let the opposition dominate the ball.
Yet they also threw 13 offloads. Four of their top five metre-makers were backs, with wing Sebastian de Klerk leading the way. They also scored an ambitious try off a de Klerk cross-kick.
The smart money is for these flourishes to remain precisely that, rather than the dominant gameplan. Can Leinster counteract?
They back themselves against anyone when it comes to the strength of the forward pack. In that semi-final defeat last year, Leinster made more dominant tackles (and by default had a better dominant tackle percentage) than a South African side which values strong defence above all else.
More recently, Leinster’s dominant tackle (9.6 per game) and carry (37.4 per cent) rate leave them mid-table in the global professional rankings this season. The attacking figure is better than the Bulls, the defensive figure worse.
Should the Bulls revert to type? If they do, are Leinster better equipped to deal with the onslaught?
These stats do include all Leinster games this year, including earlier URC run-outs with weaker XVs. Leinster are not as strong as they’d like on Saturday. Caelan Doris, Tadhg Furlong and Hugo Keenan are out. The Bulls, though, are missing Hanekom, their backrow wrecking ball recently named URC young player of the year.
Set-piece wise, Leinster are once again middle of the global pack for this season’s lineout (83.5 per cent) and scrum (90.2) success rates. The Bulls beat them at both. It remains to be seen if Leinster’s improved total of scrum penalties this year - 54, eight behind the Bulls on 62 - represents enough of an uptick.
Historical figures give us a fairly solid idea of how the Bulls think they can beat Leinster. More recent numbers present one or two kernels of comfort for Leinster. Other figures could be used to draw a more negative conclusion.
As always with damned stats - which have a propensity to lie - we’ll have to wait until the game itself to see which argument is proved right.
