Chasing the Game or Changing the Game? – Mental Toughness Analysis

The third Test between the Springboks and All Blacks at FNB Stadium was another magnificent chapter in the rivalry between two great rugby nations. South Africa won 29–24 after the teams were level at 12–12 at half-time, taking a 2–1 lead in the four-Test series. Both sides scored four tries. (Reuters)

But the score tells only part of the story.

Viewed through my Mental Toughness model, I believe the decisive difference was the ability to chase the game while also knowing when and how to change the game.

New Zealand demonstrated why they remain one of the world’s great rugby teams. Their speed, handling, movement and ability to exploit space repeatedly stretched the Springbok defence. Ardie Savea scored twice in the first half, and Will Jordan’s second-half try put New Zealand back in front at 17–12. (Reuters)

But as the match moved into its decisive phase, something changed.

The Springboks increasingly dictated where and how the game would be played. New Zealand continued trying to create opportunities through pace, movement and invention, but they were increasingly responding to circumstances imposed upon them.

In my terminology, they were chasing the game rather than changing it.

That is an important distinction in mental toughness. Chasing the game means working harder and faster with your existing approach. Changing the game requires recognising that the conditions have altered and adapting before the contest gets away from you.

The Springboks provide an excellent example of the Controlled Aggression component of my Mental Toughness model.

Controlled Aggression is not simply about being more physical. It involves recognising an advantage and then magnifying that advantage until the opposition must find an answer.

South Africa’s scrum became precisely that weapon.

Late in the first half, the Springbok scrum drove New Zealand backwards over their own goal line and earned a penalty try, bringing the score level at 12–12. In the second half, that pressure continued. South Africa’s replacement forwards maintained the squeeze rather than merely protecting what the starting pack had established. (Reuters)

Then came the maul.

Following another period of forward pressure, the Springboks drove approximately 20 metres, and Malcolm Marx scored in the 66th minute. (Reuters)

This was not random aggression. It was controlled aggression:

Identify the strength. Raise the strength. Keep applying it until it changes the game.

For me, another significant feature of the Springbok performance was composure.

The All Blacks started ferociously. South Africa also had to absorb the early yellow card to Sacha Feinberg-Mngomezulu, the loss of Cheslin Kolbe, and periods when New Zealand’s attacking game looked extremely dangerous. Yet the Boks resisted the temptation to abandon their game.

Siya Kolisi later described how New Zealand had come at them “like a house on fire”, while emphasising how important it was that South Africa fought their way back into the contest. (Sky Sports)

That is composure under pressure.

Mental toughness does not mean remaining comfortable. It means retaining enough clarity under discomfort to continue making good decisions.

The Springboks also demonstrated another important principle: confidence does not require you to beat the opposition at their own game.

New Zealand remained exceptionally dangerous with the ball. South Africa did not need to prove that they could play more “All Black rugby” than the All Blacks.

Instead, they increasingly moved the contest towards areas in which they possessed an advantage: scrum pressure, mauling, physical confrontation, territory and game management.

That takes confidence.

There was also an interesting contrast in competence.

The All Blacks showed exceptional competence in creating possibilities.

The Springboks became increasingly competent at converting pressure into outcomes.

That difference became important as the match tightened.

New Zealand kept asking:

Can we create something?

South Africa increasingly asked:

Can you stop us doing this again?

By the final quarter, the answer was becoming increasingly clear.

This was not a victory because South Africa somehow possessed more courage than New Zealand. That would be simplistic and disrespectful to an outstanding All Black team.

Instead, I believe the Springboks managed the changing conditions of the contest better.

They demonstrated Concentration by staying with their strategy.

They demonstrated Controlled Aggression by magnifying their scrum and maul advantage.

They demonstrated Composure by absorbing New Zealand’s early assault without abandoning their plan.

They demonstrated Confidence by trusting their strengths rather than trying to imitate the opposition.

And they demonstrated Competence and Commitment by repeatedly converting those strengths into pressure when the match was at its most demanding.

There is, however, a warning for South Africa.

Much of what won this Test came from established Springbok strengths. Scrum dominance, mauling, physicality and territorial pressure are formidable weapons. But mental toughness also requires what I describe as divine discontent: the willingness to ask what new strengths must be developed before existing strengths are neutralised.

That question becomes particularly important when looking towards the next Rugby World Cup.

For now, however, this wonderful Test offered a powerful lesson:

When pressure rises, working harder at what you have always done may help you chase the game. Mental toughness requires something more: knowing when to magnify your strengths, when to adapt, and when to change the game.

That, in my view, was the difference at FNB Stadium.

Dr Steve Harris
PhD Mental Toughness
Author, Mental Toughness – The Force Multiplier