An England v SA Affair - Headthunking Hypotheticals and Conspiracy Theories

Presupposing About Sport 

An England v SA Affair

I love a good Conspiracy Theory or Headthunking Hypothetical.

England have been quietly going about their business at rugby's showpiece event. Additionally, they've rather been keeping much to themselves, so long as we take their Press Conferences at face value. Borthwick gave a befuddled facial expression when an interviewer asked him, "How do you feel about Rassie helping you pick your squad?" So much for Rassie's mindgames, Borthwick was busy minding his own business.

However, Press Conferences are more about personality contests and pre-prepared statements than imparting practical truths. We can't simply take people's words at face value, so my first conspiracy theory is that England are hiding a big trick up their sleeves. Yes, England are underwhelming favorites. Yes, England's Rugby Football Union is in turmoil. And of course yes, Owen Farrell at 10 makes every Springbok loose-forward (and Damien de Allende) slobber at the mouth. But that press conference with Borthwick's courteous, subdued smile? And what felt like Farrell exuding...modesty? Self-restraint? Maybe even an iota of humility? It makes me beg the question if only I knew to whom to ask it - are England hiding something or are they playing the board? England have already done it once to New Zealand where they sprung a surprise. Coupled with their quiet and quite disregarded rise to the semis, who's to say they can't do it again? I think the thing that further justifies my thinking is that Borthwick mentioned how he asked Courtney Lawes to work on adding one weapon to his repertoire. The English haven't necessarily shown any of those weapons thus far. If Borthwick has requested each player to add one weapon to their armory, and presuming these players haven't brought them out yet, that's at least 22 other weapons that South African video analysers might not have on tape. Although far-fetched and easily dismissible, that's a thought that brings a little more intrigue to this match.

On the other side of the fence, I've thought myself into a headthunking corner. Rassie has named an identical side to the one that defeated France. In the past, Sir John Kirwan and Mils Miliaina spoke about "fatigue" being the biggest factor in New Zealand's underwhelming end-of-year tour last year. Surely, I mean SHORELY, fatigue will play some part in South Africa's finals experience(s) (pending a semifinal result). Should we beat England as expected, what does that mean for the squad that takes on New Zealand? If Rassie and Nienaber are handed a finals berth, will they then push this squad through to the final on the basis that these 23 gargantuan men "earned it"? Fatigue is a real thing - just look at Argentina and how they were dead on their feet 35 minutes into their semi-final. Or, presuming they get to the final, will the Nienasmus duo go with a squad that features the likes of Am, Esterhuizen, Moodie and Kleyn? A fresh squad with fresh enthusiasm, but also with the risk of running small mistakes in the process of settling. Mistakes that a team will be almost certainly punished for by an outfit like New Zealand. 

This brings me onto my second conspiracy theory. Nowhere in the World Rugby guidelines does it say that the matchday 23 has to mimic the squad announcement that preceded the game by 48 hours. The conspiracy theory I'm thinking of is that the Erasnaber couplet have once again deviously-cum-ethically cooked up a loophole. The squad that runs out tonight will look very different to the one that what was publicised. Weirder things have happened, and I'm no professional pundit, but that would turn the rugby world upside down and prove once again that rugby really is sport's version of a DIY Handbook. What ends up being constructed might not look exactly like what's in the pictures, but the final product still turns out amazingly.

P.S. Dear God. Please allow Bongi to make it through this match in one piece.