On this day in 1995: Springboks win first-ever World Cup
The win was historic – not just for rugby, but for a country emerging from decades of apartheid.
On June 24, 1995, the Springboks won the Rugby World Cup for the first time, beating New Zealand 15-12 in extra time at Ellis Park in Johannesburg. The victory came just three years after South Africa returned to international rugby following apartheid-era sporting isolation.
The Springboks opened their tournament with a 27-18 win over reigning champions Australia at Newlands, with tries from winger Pieter Hendriks and flyhalf Joel Stransky. They followed that result with pool-stage victories over Romania and Canada to top their group, although the final pool match—dubbed the 'Battle of Boet Erasmus'—turned ugly. Hooker James Dalton was sent off during a mass brawl against Canada, and Hendriks later received a suspension.
Chester Williams replaced Hendriks for the quarter-final against Samoa and made an immediate impact, scoring four tries in a 42-14 win at Ellis Park. The match proved costly, with several players picking up injuries, including fullback Andre Joubert, who fractured his hand.
Despite his injury, Joubert returned for the semi-final in Durban against France—a match nearly postponed due to torrential rain. In difficult conditions, the Springboks controlled territory and managed a 19-15 win. Stransky contributed 14 points with the boot, while the Springboks' forwards contained the French pack in the wet.
In the other semi-final, the All Blacks comfortably beat England 45-29 at Newlands, with winger Jonah Lomu scoring four tries in a dominant performance. Lomu's pace and power became the central focus ahead of the final, where he was expected to be the deciding factor.
The final kicked off at a packed Ellis Park, with both teams opting for tactical, physical rugby. South Africa's game plan focused on shutting down Lomu early, with Joost van der Westhuizen and James Small combining to tackle the winger repeatedly and limit his impact.
Stransky and New Zealand's Andrew Mehrtens exchanged penalties throughout the match, with the score tied 9-9 at full time. The game moved into extra time, where both teams added one penalty each to stay level at 12-12.
With just over 10 minutes left in the second period of extra time, Stransky received the ball in space and kicked a clean drop goal from 30 metres out. That kick gave the Springboks a 15-12 lead, which they held until the final whistle.
After the final whistle, President Nelson Mandela walked onto the field wearing a Springbok jersey bearing captain Francois Pienaar's No 6. He handed the Webb Ellis Cup to Pienaar in front of a full stadium and a global television audience.
The win marked the Springboks' first Rugby World Cup title and their return to the global sporting stage. It was also the first time a host nation had won the tournament since the inaugural event in 1987.
The 1995 final remains one of rugby's most memorable matches—defined by disciplined defence, tactical kicking, and a decisive moment in extra time.
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 0211.
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The South African
11 minutes ago
- The South African
England to 'copy' Springboks' 7-1 bomb squad
The concept of the 'bomb squad' first came into the rugby conversation when the Springboks utilised a 6-2 forwards-to-backs split on the bench during the 2019 World Cup, while this was elevated even further in recent times when Rassie Erasmus occasionally opted for a 7-1 substitutes set up. Although there have been some critics of this tactic – mainly from overseas pundits – there have been a number of other clubs and countries who have begun to experiment with a bench that is also packed with forwards, coupled with versatile backs. Now, according to The Telegraph , England are planning to also try out a 7-1 split as coach Steve Borthwick apparently wants to be able to include as many back-rowers as possible in his match-day squad considering this is an area where they have plenty of depth. In aiming for maximum flexibility, it's also reported that Borthwick is training props to deputise at hooker, while also prioritising some players who have the ability to cover more than one position. It all sounds a bit familiar, doesn't it? As part of recent World Rugby workshops looking at law changes, it was stated that the governing body was looking at the role of the replacements. In what will come as a huge relief to the Springboks and their fans, World Rugby's chief executive, Alan Gilpin, told The Guardian that there are no medical grounds to outlaw this bench configuration. 'We looked at it from a science, medicine perspective. Was there a distinctive view that a bunch of fresh players coming on with 20‑30 minutes to go is going to create a more injurious position, and the science said that's not the case. 'So there was no reason from that perspective to look at how we might do replacements differently. Ultimately, there are a lot of different ways to win a rugby match.' Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 0211. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
The Citizen
41 minutes ago
- The Citizen
OPINION: Controversial refereeing decision leaves rugby fans scratching their heads
The late try allowed the visiting British and Irish Lions to win the second Test against Australia and thus the series, with a game to go. Referee Andrea Piardi, left, speaks with the players during the Test between the British and Irish Lions and Australia in Melbourne on Saturday. Picture: Izhar Khan/You see, this is why rugby is so confusing. And infuriating. And simply too difficult to understand for the casual observer. It's nothing new of course. The problem is there are just too many laws, too many things that depend on one human's beliefs, thoughts and observations. I'm of course referring to the decisions that get made in rugby matches. As hard as World Rugby tries to get it right, with strict rules in place about what constitutes foul play, it's not black and white and thus is open to interpretation and subjective thought. And depending on who you support, you'll either believe the referee and officials got the decision right or you'll say they got it completely wrong. So, if you're a British and Irish Lions supporter you'll agree that referee Andrea Piardi made the right call in allowing Hugo Keenan's late winning try to stand against the Wallabies in Melbourne on Saturday in the second Test despite an alleged dangerous clean-out at a ruck moments before. In the lead up to the try, the Lions' Jac Morgan flew into a ruck that was being contested by Wallabies flanker Carlo Tizzano who was attempting to win a turnover, with the contact sending the latter flying out of the ruck. While the incident was reviewed, Piardi and his officiating team deemed it to be a fair clean-out. Another look at the cleanout. Again, perfectly good. # — Tight Five Rugby (@TightFive_Rugby) July 26, 2025 'Different decision on another day' Well, was it, and did they get it spot on? Or did the referee and his team not have the guts to make a hard result-changing, career-changing, potential series-changing decision? If you watched the match and saw the incident you'll know that in many Test matches and throughout the United Rugby Championship, clean-outs like the one mentioned here result in penalties and yellow cards to offending players. While Lions boss Andy Farrell described the win as 'fairytale stuff' and 'what we have dreamed of', Australia coach Joe Schmidt said, 'We can all see clear contact with the back of the neck which might be a different decision on another day and another time. I'm just gutted.' What decision would have been made if the scoreline was different and if the incident took place in the 20th minute and not the 80th? That's rugby for you, so hard to understand sometimes.
Daily Maverick
10 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Who will steer the R55bn marriage of MultiChoice and Canal+?
There's a new power couple in African media. After nearly five years of courting, Canal+ has finally put a ring on MultiChoice to form a pan-African content colossus with global ambitions. French media titan Canal+ has secured the final go-ahead to acquire MultiChoice in a landmark R55-billion deal. After years of quiet manoeuvring and regulatory hurdles, the merger is now a question of who controls what. The Competition Tribunal's conditional approval, granted late last week, closes the chapter on a five-year 'creeping takeover' and opens a new era in African broadcasting. Now it's a balancing act weighing foreign capital with national sovereignty on a digital scale with local content. Enter the media monarchy In return for its princely sum, Canal+, owned by the French conglomerate Vivendi, gets access to MultiChoice's 14.5 million Anglophone and Lusophone subscribers, the DStv powerhouse, sports juggernaut SuperSport, and a foothold in streaming via Showmax. MultiChoice, facing rising costs and subscriber declines, finds itself rescued by a suitor with deep pockets and pan-African ambition. Combined, the merged entity will serve more than 24 million subscribers across 50 countries — instantly becoming the largest pay-TV and streaming provider on the continent. However, if Canal+ was hoping for free access, South African regulators had other plans. The deal's approval came wrapped in layers of red tape — not as a deterrent, but as a deliberate design feature. Transformation goals Central to the regulatory conditions is the creation of LicenceCo, an independent company that will hold MultiChoice South Africa's broadcast licence. It will be majority-owned and controlled by historically disadvantaged South Africans and employees. Crucially, Canal+ has no control and no board seats. This structural firewall protects South Africa's legal requirements around media ownership, ensures transformation goals are met and serves as a template for foreign investment in other sensitive sectors. Phuthuma Nathi, the B-BBEE shareholder darling, increases its economic interest in LicenceCo to 27%, with a new employee trust added. The licence, and the local airwaves it governs, stay South African. The R30bn lobola The Competition Tribunal didn't just demand structural separation; it also extracted a commitment package valued at more than R30-billion. This includes: A three-year moratorium on retrenchments linked to the merger; Significant investment in local content production, sports broadcasting, SMME procurement and Corporate Social Investment programmes; Ongoing free-to-air broadcast access for key sporting events, safeguarding the public's ability to view major matches without a subscription; and Local skills development through Canal+'s 'University Programme', to train historically disadvantaged individuals in broadcasting and production. In a media environment where Netflix and Amazon Prime are increasingly dominant, this local-first approach is designed to future-proof South African media. Showmax, SuperSport and scale Behind the regulatory muscle lies a clear commercial imperative. MultiChoice has struggled in recent years, shedding 2.8 million linear subscribers and burning cash to prop up Showmax 2.0, its streaming reboot built on Comcast tech and bolstered by NBC Universal's 30% equity stake. Canal+ brings financial stability and scale. It also inherits Irdeto, MultiChoice's profitable cybersecurity unit, and Showmax's potential to become Africa's answer to global streamers. Vivendi, Canal+'s parent company, views this merger as critical to its own transformation and part of a plan to split into three listed entities, with Canal+ as its global growth engine. Listing Canal+ on the JSE within nine months of deal completion is a further nod to local inclusion, visibility, and capital market confidence. The shiny ring can't cover controversial holes While South Africa celebrates a structurally sound deal with tangible local benefits, not all observers are convinced. Critics warn that Canal+'s track record and the Bolloré Group's 30.4% stake in it come with baggage. Vivendi's past includes one of the largest corporate losses in history and regulatory infractions that still cast a shadow. Vincent Bolloré, the billionaire behind the curtain, faces corruption charges in France and has been accused of turning Canal+'s French media outlets into right-wing political mouthpieces. With Canal+ now embedded in South Africa's broadcasting ecosystem, some fear creeping influence over editorial independence, particularly if there are future attempts to deepen ownership or control beyond the current firewall. Marriage isn't buying a horse Mergers are easy to announce but hard to manage. However, the competition bodies have played their hand cleverly — extracting commitments, safeguarding jobs and setting a precedent for how global capital must behave when it enters South Africa's strategic sectors. The long-term test lies ahead. Can Showmax truly compete with Netflix? Can SuperSport keep its sports crown as global streamers outbid for rights? Will LicenceCo be a transformative force or a regulatory box-ticker? Will Canal+ respect the firewall, or try to chip away at it over time? The merged entity is now king of the hill in African broadcasting, but it's a kingdom that won't run on size alone. Trust, execution and transformation will be the currencies of success. DM
