Why de Villiers is right, the Boks need change

Benjamin said | August 23rd 2008 @ 3:34am | Report comment

Photn, firstly I don’t think SA actually intimidate any teams, and I wouldn’t imagine they have for years either. Professional rugby has created identikit players. All second rows are 6′6 and 18 stone. All props can roughly bench press the same, so I think that the assumption that SA have the baddest, biggest team around is part of the problem. It is also arguable that SA were not that great in the 1st place, and that they are now being found out.

Secondly it’s all right saying this change is imperative but I think it’s a smokescreen to hide Devillier’s failings. The ABs showed last week, and the test before that winning rugby simply requires accurate rucking, numbers, committed defence and sensible kicking. This is exactly the sort of rugby that SA could excel at. Frankly there is no need for SA to be all singing and all dancing. Furthermore if Devilliers is constantly moaning about how White’s team played dull rugby and how the team were spoonfed then why would he try and play a completely new brand with effectively the same players and why would he bring in Muir as backs coach, a man who made the Sharks look like a backward tractor? It is a mistake on Devilliers’ part to assume that change is necessary.

Thirdly, and without wanting to come across as rude, that SA have put together so many bad performances since the test season began, and have taken so many bad options shows that the players are not up to it. I understand that Rome wasn’t built in a day but these players are all professionals. If they cannot master certain skills then it is unlikely that Devilliers is going to change that. Every team does need more than one plan, you’re right, but there is a difference in slight variations and a game plan that is completely alien to a nation.

Fourthly, I wouldn’t call that NZ team sub standard, because that would further highlight the ineptitude of that SA team. As far as I am concerned Woodcock, Hore, Thorn, Williams, McCaw, Carter, Smith and Muliaina are all excellent players. It is also probably fair to say that they are more skillful than their SA counterparts. Pieterson even struggles with passing backwards, chest height to his full back. You cannot turn a pigs ear into a silk purse. That is exactly the same mistake that Ashton made with England. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it. If PDV had actually picked a decent squad and played a SA game of rugby then I imagine SA would have been challenging for the 3N title instead of the current debacle.

LeftArmSpinner said | August 23rd 2008 @ 7:23am | Report comment

Sub standard AB’s. Yeh….. right. Photon, you may reconsider your description given that this supposedly sub standard team has just comprehensively wiped both the Wallabies and Boks.

Yes, PdV is correct in his strategy. The ELV’s make it more effective. However, it may result in him having to be the sacrificial lamb when it takes more time to implement than was expected. All part of a natural cycle.

Personally, I prefer a combination of subtley different strategies, chosen for individual opponents, locations and playing conditions.

Benjamin said | August 23rd 2008 @ 7:30am | Report comment

LAS, it is probably more accurate that PDV is incorrect in his strategy, and that is why SA look so awful. He’s hardly an innovator and even if he was trying to teach SA this amazing new brand of rugby the point remains that the players did not seem to recognise the basics - forwards hitting rucks in numbers which allows quick ball. You cannot play running rugby without that foundation and that clearly wasn’t in place. In my mind that suggests there is no such thing as a SA masterplan in the mind of PDV, or evidently judging by the S14, in Muir’s mind either.

USRugbyFan said | August 23rd 2008 @ 1:25pm | Report comment

PdV needs to realize that you shouldn’t run the ball at every point on the field. If you’re inside your own half, you should probably kick for territory or to force the other team to make a mistake. Open it up in the opposition’s half. I thought that was Winning Rugby 101, but I guess PdV disagrees.

Sam Taulelei said | August 23rd 2008 @ 4:46pm | Report comment

Photon

I respect the passion you have for your beloved Boks as we all share the same for our own national team. If you remember in another post earlier in the year assessing the merits of each team in winning the Tri Nations I mentioned that SA’s chances would depend on how the SA players adjusted to their new coach, his methods and gameplan and on top of that adjusting to the demands of playing rugby under the ELV’s.

When SA was reintroduced to international rugby they honestly believed that they could still compete at the top level and had the talent and skill to match any team. What they discovered that all those years in the wilderness had left them very vulnerable to how the game was being played and had moved on.

Since Kitch Christie there has been an assembly line of national coaches who all had their own ideas about how to play the game and what style best suited their players. They naturally tried to emulate successful styles played by other countries and I wouldn’t be surprised if players weren’t confused about how they were meant to play the game especially as there was little co-oordination with the coaches at Currie Cup and Super 12 level. It wasn’t until Jake White restored SA’s rugby identity by returning to their traditional strengths that they began to taste more consistent success.

NZ also suffered some lean years from 1998 - 2002 particularly against Australia and we fell into the same trap of trying to copy a foreign style of rugby which didn’t suit our players instead of developing a style of game that suited our strengths.

Every coach will have a period when success is inconsistent and PDV will also have to carry the burden of always being compared to Jake White who delivered rugby’s biggest prize to SA. An appropriate adage is that to ‘win the war you sometimes have to lose a few battles’ PDV may rethink his strategy and swallow his pride if he’s proven wrong - and that’s the sign of a great coach - but for now he’s determined to transform how SA play rugby and change his players habits of a lifetime. I applaud that, Robbie Deans is doing the same, so is Warren Gatland and even Graham Henry.

It could be that it won’t be until there is a natural cleanout of some players from Jake White’s era that we won’t see the true fruits of his labour. SA has always possessed the talent, the players just haven’t expressed it at the top level.

Sluggy said | August 23rd 2008 @ 6:17pm | Report comment

“[lost] to a side even the most biased Kiwi will admit is sub-standard.. ”

Haven’t seen much evidence of that happening around here

The break down will be critical if the last two Oz games are anything to go by.

sheek said | August 23rd 2008 @ 8:54pm | Report comment

Photon,

What surprises me is that the Boks have often had wonderfully athletic backline players, but their talents have been subjugated for the greater glory of ensuring victory by conservative means.

From my viewpoint, Boks teams chose massive forwards to strangle the life out of opposing teams like an Anaconda. Exhausted, & without sufficiently good ball to work with, teams would be steamrolled in the last 10-15 minutes. This was after the Boks had already built a good lead through field position, taking advantage of penalty & drop goals.

Occasionally, like in 1937 & 1951/52, the Boks produced a backline the equal of any that has been seen on a rugby field. Ironically, I reckon the Boks had a great backline in the 1980s, but unfortunately, because of anti-apartheid bans, they were seldom seen, & rarely overseas.

A composite backline from the 1980s - Divan Serfontein at #9, Naas Botha at #10, Danie Gerber with either Willie or Michael du Plessis in the centres, Ray Mordt & Carel du Plessis on the wings, & Johan Heunis at fullback, is pretty close to as good a Bok backline that has ever taken the field.

And what about black great Errol Tobias? He was before his time. In fact, I would have him at #12 between Botha & Gerber.

Funny, I’ve often thought God punished SA for apartheid, by giving them the best cricket team they ever had in the 1970s, & arguably the best rugby team they ever had in the 1980s. Except that neither team was often seen because of international sanctions. In that case, we were all the losers.

I can only imagine how different the inaugural 1987 Rugby World Cup would have been, with the Boks involved, & Mark Ella & Michael O’Connor still playing for the Wallabies.

Benjamin said | August 23rd 2008 @ 9:36pm | Report comment

Sam, I think the main problem is the play of the S14 sides. You cannot consistently play a certain domestic style and then play another one that competently with the national side. Much like the problem with the lack of a genuine 7 - it is a national issue and as such will take a while to overcome.

Having said that, I do not buy into this PDV talk of expansive, liberal rugby. Were that the case then I’m convinced we would not have seen so many sub-standard options etc. For example - you cannot play running rugby without securing the ball. The forwards must not clutter the backline etc… and what did we see? Furthermore how can PDV claim he wants SA to play this ’style’ of rugby while employing Muir? I literally think it’s nonsense. All this talk of the White era only serves to further undermine his credibility also. Have we all forgotten his spiteful attacks on White prior to landing the Springbok job?

Re: Gatland. Although Wales played some lovely rugby in the 6N, Gatland has actually been trying to make Wales a bit more pragmatic. Having secured their 1st modern Grand Slam under Ruddock, Jenkins was convinced that all Wales had to do was throw the ball around. He called this the ‘Welsh Way’ - and if you remember how bad, rudderless and generally inneffective Wales were in the WC I think we are now seeing a parallel with SA. Both coaches seem clueless, and it would do SA the world of good were PDV to invest in a bit more realism as Gatland has done with Wales.

Peter K said | August 24th 2008 @ 10:02am | Report comment

Photon - What do you think of PDV now?
Scoring against Pumas and Tonga is a significantly easier than against the Wallabies.

Boks look like a downright rabble at the moment.

Wallabies were not that good but still easily outplayed the Boks all over the park except the 1st 15 mins.

What about Linde, blatent headbutt how stupid in front of the ref, who was useless. The guy should of been red carded. Hope he gets a long suspension.

How Elsom has been been cited for tackling Matfield in the air at the lineout is beyond me. Happens in most lineouts by both teams, and with the way he did just pulling on his arm just deserves a penalty. Compare this to Steyne tackling Mitchell in the air when catching a ball, got what he deserved when his head went into Mitchell’s knee. He was not going for the ball, always the player.

ohtani's jacket said | August 24th 2008 @ 10:16am | Report comment

Photon,

I also respect your passion for the Boks, but this is the worst World Cup hubris we’ve ever witnessed.

Peter K said | August 24th 2008 @ 10:22am | Report comment

OJ - The Boks can’t fall as far and as quick as the 2003 English team did after it won the world cup? Surely not. I think the Boks have more pride than that.

Benjamin said | August 24th 2008 @ 10:26am | Report comment

Peter, I don’t think England were that bad because they had no pride. I think they were bad because Woodman, Leonard, West, Johnson, Back, Bracken, Grayson, Luger and others retired. Hill and Wilkinson were continuously injured and various players lost form like Cohen, Thompson, Greenwood, Tindall and Vickery. PDV has basically the entire WC squad. Anyhow, England’s past, and perhaps present, woes are another issue.

ohtani's jacket said | August 24th 2008 @ 10:30am | Report comment

England had a spate of retirements and to my knowledge never boasted they would dominate world rugby. This is just like ‘96 all over again, only worse because none of the sides are as good.

Peter K said | August 24th 2008 @ 10:32am | Report comment

Benjamin - I did not mean to imply England did not have pride. Their fall was because as you put it all the retirements. Let’s face it they won with all the taunts of a Dad’s army ringing i their ears for good reason. A lot were in their mid thirties.

This is not the case for the Boks, i.e. very few retirements, and then not of their best players.

The reason I mention pride is that the Boks have a lot, and sooner or later they will rebel against their stupid coach, like England did against Ashton.

Peter K said | August 24th 2008 @ 10:36am | Report comment

OJ - You are correct. Boks, AB’s, English, French are all playing significantly worse than last year.
Wallabies have improved slightly but made to look a lot better in comparison.
Welsh and Irish have improved as well.

Benjamin said | August 24th 2008 @ 10:40am | Report comment

Peter, I know you weren’t implying anything negative but I always felt sorry for poor England after that WC. Their decline summed up everything that was wrong with English rugby. Only one way down and all that. I blame Woodward frankly.

It will be interesting to see what happens with PDV and the players but after today I see the players as equally guilty. England got to the recent WC final because the elder players guided the squad. This SA squad is completely rudderless and after seeing some of today’s incidents I would wager completely brainless as well. The whole squad-coach is a shambles and it’s to the detriment of rugby union.

Peter K said | August 24th 2008 @ 10:53am | Report comment

I looked at a few SA sites.

On one of them PDV was quoted as saying there is no real difference between winning and losing, you just feel a bit worse.
He is now blaming the loss to how tired the players are after such a heavy schedule.

Well as coach he should cut down contact in training. He also rotated players for the Pumas game.

There is an enormous backlash against him. Rightly so. I didn’t think coaches could get much worse than steddy eddie but PDV makes Jones look like a messiah. At least steddie eddie took 3-5 years to bring the Wallabies down, its taken PDV 1 season.

Mind you to survive all he has to do is start more coloured players regardless of results.

Benjamin said | August 24th 2008 @ 11:05am | Report comment

A few days ago he threatened to drop all the senior players and straight after the game he said that doing that would not be tenable. Why say it then? His press bytes are full of inconsistencies and hypocrisy. I thought White was always rather arrogant and sometimes rude but he often managed to be quite dignified in the moments that counted. Not PDV.

Peter K said | August 24th 2008 @ 11:19am | Report comment

Benjamin - I am looking forward to reading what Photon, Temba and other Bok supporters post on the game.

Justin said | August 24th 2008 @ 1:15pm | Report comment

If SA get beaten again next weekend (and lets face it it is a distinct reality) will PDV survive?

USRugbyFan said | August 24th 2008 @ 2:49pm | Report comment

Yes, the powers that be are dead set on transforming SA Rugby from a “white” sport into a sport that “reflects the makeup of the nation”.

Darryl said | August 24th 2008 @ 3:13pm | Report comment

Photon,

This is nonsense that we need to play a completely different style of rugby under the ELV’s. There is nothing wrong with a style (call it conservative if you want) that relies on good ol’ forward strength and structure - and backline flair and we have the players for both.

This talk of trying to change the style is indeed just a smoke screen as somebody said earlier. The real blatantly obvious problem is that SA *still* have not figured out how to play the breakdown properly, and the ELV’s are simply making it blatantly obvious - and PdV and his coaching staff seem incapable of realizing this, and/or fixing this problem. Watch an AB or Wallaby take the ball into contact - they keep the ball in play for a few extra seconds so their support can arrive, before going to ground. SA players seem to go to ground on contact, giving players like McCaw, Smith, Waugh etc, a field day - excuse the pun. Our breakdown play is atrocious. In all our defeats our breakdown play has been the single biggest problem. Were it not for that Januarie try, we would have acknowledged the same even in our sole victory in this 3N.

But PdV hides behind this ‘changing of style’ excuse. It’s nonsense, and everybody but him knows it.

Sluggy said | August 24th 2008 @ 6:52pm | Report comment

Darryl, I don’t think it was just the breakdown - to be sure it was a critical area - but the Boks skewered a few scoring chances with poor handling and knock-ons at critical times, passes going behind the man, and at least one 3 man overlap butchered.

They say many of those things are not things which a national team coach should be teaching, but interestingly, since the arrival of Deans at the Wallabies, they have been doing drills which emphasise correct execution of the basic skills rather than tricky manouvres… the 100 move play book has apparently been ejected with a lot of other detritis from previous regimes. On the other hand, breakdown technique can be coached, but the selectors need to come to the party and put a side on the field who have the speed to get there and compete.

That being said, despite the breakdown, if the Boks had taken the chances squandered by poor individual skills they could have scored two more tries and been within a kick of winning it. It reminded me of the Wallabies/England QF in 2007 – the Wallabies just didn’t put it together that day in similar fashion. Some of that is no doubt caused by the pressure exerted by the opposition, some by having a crappy day, some by por skill execution.

The Springboks looked very tense, and just didn’t put it together. Individuals (Burger and Linde) went the thug route instead of channeling their aggression into hard physical defense and contact work. Being physically dominant in a game does not mean punching and headbutting.

PdV seems very excitable and often says things which are ill thought, don’t make sense or are inconsistent with his previous utterences. Perhaps he is just a poor communicator, or perhaps his poor expression is symptomatic of muddle-headed thinking. I’m starting to think the latter. If so, then he’s got to go. If thats not politically acceptable, then there should be some quiet backroom work done so that he stays in place, but the coaching really gets done by someone else. He can have all the credit if they get better, and blame the assistant if they don’t.

Incidentally, what have the current assistant coaches been doing or saying? We often hear from Hansen and Smith, but not so much from the Oz or Bok assistants. Perhaps they will be the sacrificial lambs at this point, so they can bring in a new ‘assistant’ to do the coaching while PdV keeps the rest of us entertained.

Peter K said | August 24th 2008 @ 7:43pm | Report comment

Sluggy - If you are going to look at blown chances. Wallabies easily blew at least 2 tries as well.
Also the 1st Jacob try was the softest, the team had got a good lead, dropped intensity and got lazy and did not bother to man up in ruck defence.

The score was a good reflection of the 2 teams, the Boks were not close, nor should the score have been.

Big Kev said | August 24th 2008 @ 7:53pm | Report comment

Peter, Sluggy - to be fair the first try was lost forward before the line…. I think SA got the rub of the green as far as the ref was concerned without a doubt. Otherwise they would have played with 14 men for at least 20 minutes!

Danny said | August 24th 2008 @ 9:45pm | Report comment

Photon

Sub-standard is a relative concept I guess.

In an ideal world my AB team would have Hayman, Jack, Collins, Mauger and Rocket man in and maybe a few others but I’m certainly not accepting the team is sub standard. Not as good as the 2006 vintage to be sure.

Problem for SA is you read too much of your own press. Being WC champs doesn’t make you world number 1 - you have to earn that. And earning number one ranking means you have to win games, home and away, over time, all the time, ongoing.

This current Bok setup is acting like winning is their birthright.

Sluggy said | August 24th 2008 @ 9:58pm | Report comment

Peter, I was not trying to diminish the Wallaby effort, and you are correct they fluffed a couple. My point is that the Boks were not close not only because they were outplayed at the breakdown, but also because they failed to pass it to one another or hold on to it when they did get it, and lost their defensive shape late in the game.

As Deans said after the game, he was happy with the physical and mental effort displayed. But I expect he’ll be working on restarts, kick chases and defense around the inside channels over the next week. And that drop in concentration.

Chris Ash, Syd Aust said | August 24th 2008 @ 10:13pm | Report comment

Whats with Shaclk burgur and the squirrel grip around george smiths (i think) nuts - he is the most dirty player in world rugby hands down! Last 3N in SA (the one where steyne won with a freak drop goal) he blatantly eye gouged matt giteau when “Attempting” to palm him in the face (when fingers mind you instead of with the heal of your hand)

I think i heard mortlock thru the refs mic giving it too shaclk after the squirrel incident on sat nit (fox sports 1 Au) - anyone else?

Hes also constantly swinging at people around the ruck - it just makes him look like such a bad player in my opinion, yes he’s built like a brick you kno wat, but i have no respect for him!

can someone let me kno why he gets away with all this (and during the world cup he gets 3 weeks for taking a player out in the air against Samoa - which wasnt even as bad as what steyne did in my opinion too)

ohtani's jacket said | August 24th 2008 @ 10:33pm | Report comment

Both times South Africa have won the Cup, there’s been boasts about the Boks returning to their past glory, but those former glories belong to a different era, a time when sides played South Africa once every 5 or 6 years and the Boks were a mystery. Ever since the game turned professional, South Africa have struggled to churn out the wins, largely because their Union is more political than professional, but also because they’re so damn predictable.

The blueprint was there to beat the Boks at Newlands and Australia didn’t have to do much more.

De Villiers may have the right idea trying to change the South Africa mindset, but you can’t switch to a running game overnight. You need to have the players first. I’m not convinced that De Villiers is playing the guys he wants. Transformation isn’t the only pressure on this Springboks side, there’s also external and internal pressure to include the core of the World Cup winning side. If De Villiers survives, we may see him wield the axe.

TembaVJ said | August 25th 2008 @ 10:36am | Report comment

Lets for a moment imagine Robbie Deans coached the Springboks this year, would things have gone done the same way? I am unwilling to share Benjamin’s dislike of the Springboks and I do believe that they have the potential to be the best. For the first time as far as rugby goes I am happy to live in Melbourne as I don’t have to suffer the embarrassment walking into the office this morning.
On ya to the Wallabies and to Deans, one more win in SA would give them the 3N, I hope they achieve this as it would be good for Rugby in Australia. As for PDV… I don’t think he has what it takes.

Jerry said | August 25th 2008 @ 10:45am | Report comment

Chris - I think it was Smith himself giving Schalk the talking to after the grabbing incident. The tackle of his in the WC was way worse than Steyn’s effort on Saturday though.

True Tah said | August 25th 2008 @ 10:49am | Report comment

Jerry which “tackle of his” are you referring to - Smith or Schalla?

Chris Ash, syd Aust said | August 25th 2008 @ 10:53am | Report comment

True Tah, the samoa tackle in the air incident. (read up as i mentioned it first and Jerry was responding to me)

butch james was pretty lucky to get away with launching himself into Tiquri in the opening kick-a-thon. Yea heaps going for the ball

Jerry said | August 25th 2008 @ 10:54am | Report comment

Schalk sorry - the one he was suspended for vs Samoa. It was worse than Steyn’s which was really only a bit late. Burger’s in the WC was far worse as there was no intent to go for the ball, it was just a dodgy tackle in the air.

Benjamin said | August 25th 2008 @ 11:14am | Report comment

Dislike? That all seems rather personal. I have never voiced a dislike of SA, unlike a lot of contributors I might add, I merely think that the rugby team is poor and has long been overrated and I’m not afraid to say that. However, aside from rugby matters the general conduct of the players and the coach has been appalling during the 3N, and that is something that is an embarassment for world rugby. When I said PDV wasn’t ready for the position I was accused of anti-SA bias and other nonsense and yet now you’re not sure he’s ready…

Craig said | August 25th 2008 @ 4:55pm | Report comment

Photon,

Boet, I think we are in for some lean years.
I would love for PvD to do well, I really would. But his game plan is not suited to the mould of Springbok we produce.
He did well with the u21 for one simple reason; he didn’t have big lumbering loose forwards. At that age group most boys are the same size, becasue if you are any bigger, you get a call up to the ‘big’ grade.
Schalk and Juan are both (in the old sense) blindside flanks. They are not fetchers. The best fetcher SA has produced in years is Wikus. He should be in the squad, but is forever overlooked.

As such, we need to play to our strengths. As Deans said, the ELVs allow teams to play to strengths. We cannot and will never beat Australia nor the All Blacks in fetching contests. Where we will beat them is in physicallity battles. No matter what our mate Benjamin says, the Springboks are the most physical side in international rugby. Love it or hate it, they are and always will be so.

PvD needs to accept this. It may be boring, but the basic forward running off a ruck supported by a few of his mates sucking in the other forwards, followed by the same, followed by the same, followed by the same, until such time as there is an overlap in the backs is the way we play, and more important, the way we win.

Saturday was a tough day to be a South African. I pride mysekf on the green and gold, but this weekend there was nothing to be proud of.

Chris Ash, syd Aust said | August 25th 2008 @ 5:10pm | Report comment

havnt heard of wikus Craig, what s14 does he play for (if he does) or and what currie cup side ?
cheers

ohtani's jacket said | August 25th 2008 @ 6:05pm | Report comment

Wikus Van Heerden. He plays for the Bulls and has 14 Test caps. Played in every game in the Rugby World Cup. Has also played a bit of Tri-Nations rugby. Scored a try against the Wallabies in Sydney last year

Sluggy said | August 25th 2008 @ 7:05pm | Report comment

Oh that Wikus, pronounced VICKERS - as in the gun makers.

Craig, when you say ” the Springboks are the most physical side in international rugby” do you mean the dirtiest or that they go hard into contact situations (including tackling and mauling) with speed and urgency.? The latter is fine with me but some of the dirty stuff on Saturday was pretty brainless (and an ineffectual waste of energy).

Darryl said | August 25th 2008 @ 7:30pm | Report comment

I have to agree with Craig that there are lean years ahead for the Boks. With the focus for the Boks being on transformation, there’s no way that any Bok coach will be able to maintain excellence while still keeping the politicians at bay.

I think PdV is also clearly out of this depth at international level. Many argue this is not so offering that Jake White was equally inexperienced. But this is just pulling the wool over the eyes, since at the time of Jake White’s appointment, he had already served several ‘tours of duty’ as technical analyst for a number of Bok coaches and was internationally respected (and friends with) numerous international coaches, Clive Woodward, Eddie Jones to name a few. So he understood the challenges at international level.

I don’t agree with you Craig, that the Boks are limjited to always only playing a physical style. If you watch the style that Nick Mallett’s team played with, and even the direction we were heading when Eddie Jones was able to inject some outside influence into our backline play, we were actually playing quite attractive rugby. I think we have the best of both worlds, in that we have the forwards that could dominate up front, and the talent pool to also light up the backline, but, I don’t know… the Bok coaching staff just don’t seem to know how. That said, as proof that we can play more interesting rugby, even the Bulls are starting to play really attractive rugby, and for me as a Sharks supporter to admit this - understand, it’s a bitter pill. But seriously, I’ve been noticing the Bulls style changing in the last few games, from one of one-off bash-em-up rugby to a more Aussie-Kiwi style of running into gaps and getting over the advantage line. Whether they’ll be able to translate that style into the same success in the S14 with the Aussie and Kiwi defences remains to be seen. Since Muirs departure, my Sharks seem to have completely lost the plot, and WP (Stormers) seem to be following suit.

I’m just going to actually have to get a life again, instead of staying in and watching rugby on weekends.

Benjamin said | August 25th 2008 @ 9:15pm | Report comment

Craig, I hate to burst your bubble but SA have not been the most physical team in the world for years. From 2000 - 2004 it was England and from 2004 onwards it has been NZ. I saw England beat SA so badly physically at Twickenham that White said it was men against boys, I remember seeing France shove the SA pack all over the field in SA. It isn’t even like SA have had a dominant scrum since … 1995. Even recently the Italy pack threw the SA 8 around. So glibly asserting that SA have always been the most physical team is a tired cliche.

However I do agree that SA should play to their forward-style strengths, but unless they have a plan B they will come unstuck badly, as in the aforementioned games.

Darryl, Mallet’s team was a decade ago and I think it’s fair to say that his team had more skilful players than the current set up. Also, the team only looked good under Jones because the forwards were in the ruck and not cluttering the back line.

Even with the pressures of transformation this SA squad should easily be competing for the 3N. You cannot have players like Du Plessis, Matfield, Smith, Spies, Du Preez, JDV and Habana and not. Transformation is a patsy as far as I’m concerned because aside from Jacobs it is the same WC xv basically. The problem lies in PDV and Muir.

Peter K said | August 25th 2008 @ 9:40pm | Report comment

Erasmus is their most tactical coach, perhaps he would adjust to the ELV’s best.

Mind you hardly matters, the ELV’s that will get passed means the Boks can revert to not needing a fetcher.
Penalties will be the order of the day and 10 man rugby since the free kicks for most options will just be a footnote in history.

ohtani's jacket said | August 25th 2008 @ 9:50pm | Report comment

I think you’re overstating things Benjamin. The Springboks owned the New Zealand and Australia scrum in the past two weeks and left a lot of sore bodies. They’re physical and they scrummage well.

Benjamin said | August 25th 2008 @ 10:07pm | Report comment

And NZ outscrummed SA in NZ. Beating up (in rugby terms) the Aussie pack isn’t anything to shout about either. So that’s a pretty flat claim. In any case, the SA scrum has only improved since ‘Beast’ turned up.

On the basis of the past few years it cannot be said that the SA scrum has been in the top bracket anymore. Argentina, Italy, NZ and England all had better scrummages and regarding physicality all international teams are physical. Therefore it is patently overstating things to suggest that SA are and always have been the most phsyical side. SA are no more physical than any other side. Not only is it a false claim, it isn’t even logical as all international forwards are roughly as strong as each other. What differences most packs is technique and that is something that SA have never had.

Glen said | August 25th 2008 @ 10:31pm | Report comment

Photon…. look at the scoreboard you goose.

Thugs and bullies always come undone.

Enough said!

ohtani's jacket said | August 25th 2008 @ 11:01pm | Report comment

The Boks scrummed well in Dunedin.

The rest of your comments were laid to waste in France last year. South Africa had the better of the Argentinian and English forwards in the World Cup. They sure as hell didn’t win with dazzlingly back play.

Benjamin said | August 25th 2008 @ 11:12pm | Report comment

No, that’s drivel. Roncero stuck VDL’s head up his arse in the scrum, and even when they played recently the Argentines dominated the breakdown. Interesting that you ignore the recent Italy test when they bashed the Boks about, in SA I might add. SA didn’t have the better of the England forwards in the WC either - and even if you think they did, England stuffed their pack basically every other time they have met since 2000. Even when England took their painters and decorators over to SA the forward battle was equal. You cannot say with any justification that SA have been a dominant pack over the last 8 years. None whatsoever.

Btw, SA won the WC because they had an easy ride, the best lineout and the best kicker. Not because they had the hardiest set of forwards. If that were the case they would have bludgeoned Tonga and Fiji into submission and the games would have not been anywhere near as close as they were.

Benjamin said | August 25th 2008 @ 11:13pm | Report comment

“that’s drivel” - you’ll have to excuse me. I disagree with you, I should have said.

Darryl said | August 25th 2008 @ 11:14pm | Report comment

I have to chime in on the comments about the SA scrum. Year after year in the SH international preseason, I hear our Bok coaching staff trumpeting how huge and domineering a scrum we will have that year, and year after year they get 0wn3d by the likes of Australia and Wales, etc. I’m so sick of hearing it now, I completely ignore it. Occassionally our scrum dominates, but we certainly do not have a generally dominant scrum. Yes, they’ve been better with the arrival of Beast, but in years gone by most teams have employed cunning techniques to overwhelm and undermine our scrum, while we always seem too dumb or too naive to find ways to beat others at their own game. Instead we moan about illegal scrumming techniques of the opponent. When will we develop cunning and technique instead of our outdated belief that brawn is better than brain?!

Darryl said | August 25th 2008 @ 11:17pm | Report comment

Ok wait a minute Benjamin. I must say I do tire of this “easy ride” line. It’s not SA’s fault that the so-called top teams tripped up when it mattered. If you’re going to make that claim then NZ didn’t deserve their World Cup win, since they never faced Australia in that World Cup. You ok with that assertion? I’m guessing not.

Benjamin said | August 25th 2008 @ 11:34pm | Report comment

Well actually Darryl I am fine with that assertion. It wasn’t a proper WC. Samoa were not included either.

Regarding the 07 WC, realistically SA did have a very easy ride to the final. It isn’t SAs fault, you’re right. But following that WC there were countless statements coming from SA about how they were going to continue their dominance of world rugby, which was silly because SA were not that good prior to the WC, and are not that good now. If by these ’so called top teams’ you mean NZ their form prior to the WC and their form now indicates that they are the number one team in the world.

Darryl said | August 25th 2008 @ 11:54pm | Report comment

Benjamin, I think the mistake that is made, is the general belief that the winner of the WC, is and will be the best team for the next four years.To me the glory and the challenge of the WC is actually the ability to perform consistently over an 8 or so week compressed, highly-focused, period, and come out the winner there. It is an incredibly difficult challenge, and I have absolutely no issues with SA being the winner - I think we fully deserved it. While we will never know, I have every belief that the team and management that were in place in 2007 would have beaten Aus or NZ. Just a belief I know, but there you have it. Certainly not a belief I have about the current SA team.

Personally I think the IRB rankings are a good measurement of the best current team in the world, and by all accounts it’s been a good reflection of the best team historically. If you look at how the rankings are calculated, it’s actually quite well thought out, and the fact that NZ is the current #1 team is indeed a fair reflection. I have every expectation that Aus will steadily climb that ladder in the months to come, and sadly, I expect SA to drop further and further as time goes by. I hope I’m wrong.

Benjamin said | August 26th 2008 @ 12:01am | Report comment

Darryl, we seem to agree on quite a few points then re: SA’s continued rejection of technical scrummagers, the IRB rankings and the significance of the WC.

However, a lot of SA press, specifically Mark Keohane, decided that on the basis of the WC SA would construct a great legacy of dominance and that automatic assumption, founded on an 8 week tournament, irked me greatly.

ohtani's jacket said | August 26th 2008 @ 12:02am | Report comment

The Boks don’t struggle up front, they struggle against opposition back rows.

Anybody can find instances of a scrum struggling. The All Blacks’ scrum struggled against Scotland at Murrayfield in the World Cup and they won that Test 40-0, just as South Africa soundly beat Argentina, Italy and England.

Tonga and Fiji have (or should I say had) good loose forwards.

South Africa were easily the second best side in rugby over the past four years.

Benjamin said | August 26th 2008 @ 12:25am | Report comment

That’s funny OJ, I thought the first rule of rugby was that the front five create a platform for the back row. Is that not true? So the back row which was widely lauded as being excellent is the reason that SA struggled? Can’t see that being true.
You are obviously missing the point here which isn’t the ability of the team but that SA have not been the most physical side in World Rugby since the mid 90s. We are not just talking about scrums here but the whole package. As it stands SA have not had a dominant scrum in years. They may play kamikazi rugby at home but away they have been munched in the forwards quite consistently. That is not the mark of the most physical pack in the world. NZ did the business at home and away, in Europe, SA and Australia. Likewise in 200/1/2/3 England did the business everywhere. If people are to claim that SA’s pack has always been the biggest, meanest machine ever then it stands to reason that they should have been bullying sides left, right and centre. Home and away. That is not the case - and to blame the back row is rather bizarre.

SA easily the 2nd best side? How is that?

Benjamin said | August 26th 2008 @ 12:34am | Report comment

Oh, and furthermore…

SA beat Italy recently because Italy are not a good side, were missing players and had experienced a long season. That however has no relevance to the debate about SA’s forwards. SA are clearly a lot better than Italy but in that game the forwards stuggled badly. That is the key point.

SA beat Argentina because they are better than Argentina and also because the Argentine players were exhausted. Not having regular tournament access meant they were not used to the intensity and physicality of a semi-final perfromance. However that is also irrelevant. The forward battle was a mess and SA struggled. Your golden goose Os may have held his end up but VDL was in all sorts of trouble. The mark of the best pack in the world is solidity across the board, and SA have been unsettled far too many times in the scrum for this to be considered an isolated incident.

Similarly, SA beat England because that England side was the equivalent of Straeuli’s SA side. However there is no evidence to suggest that the forward battle was anything other than even.

Also, when mentioning the Scotland NZ game it is worth recalling the conditioning period. The Scottish scrum is one of the worst in Europe. I doubt the AB pack would have been seriously bothered by Scotland during any other period.

And… you’re right it is easy to find isolated incidents of struggling scrums but that SA were second best to England in the forwards for a good 8 years is not an isolated example.

ohtani's jacket said | August 26th 2008 @ 12:42am | Report comment

Those were Craig’s claims, I’m just saying that they’re physical.

The Boks’ back row haven’t been great. If you’re going to criticise the Boks that’s the first area I’d single out. We’ve seen that time and time again in the Tri-Nations, which, quite frankly, is the only rugby that counts in these discussions.

The Boks were second best on wins. France had a slightly better winning percentage, but I know which team I’d rate, even if the French had the better of the head-to-head Tests.

Benjamin said | August 26th 2008 @ 12:52am | Report comment

But all teams are physical now and it is boring to hear the same old nonsense that SA fans were trotting out in 1997.

The SA back row have been superb prior to this 3N. Smith was excellent during the WC and way before that, and in 2004 Burger won the IRB player prize.

I also don’t see how the 3N is relevant or the only discussion that counts because some of SA’s results over the past 4 years have bordered on the disgraceful and the 3N has been so one-sided as to be pointless. SA have offered absolutely nothing to the rugby world over recent years and their play was by and large appalling. The only reason you could say that they were the 2nd best comes down to the fact that the other big hitters; France and England were equally poor. I’d have to pick France on the basis that they handled SA with ease both home and away.

ohtani's jacket said | August 26th 2008 @ 1:19am | Report comment

Judging the Springboks and Wallabies on anything other than their Tri-Nations performances is like New Zealanders judging Northern Hemisphere sides on their performances against the All Blacks.

Win or lose, I don’t put much stock in Australia or South Africa’s performances in the June or Nov Tests. The Tri-Nations is the only time when we see full strength sides play each other over a series of 2 or 3 Tests and I would argue that is the “real” Australia or the “real” South Africa.

Based on the end of year tours we should wallop them, but we don’t. South Africa have beaten New Zealand four times and Australia three, which accounts for seven of Henry’s eight losses, but the Boks were more of a nemesis to Henry prior to the World Cup, particularly in the first two years under White.

Anyway, the Boks’ back row have struggled in Tri-Nations competition. Personally I think it’s amazing how many backrowers they’ve churned through in the past five years. In the last 12 Tests against us, they’re played: Burger, AJ Venter, Cronje, van Niekerk, Britz, Smith, Tyibilika, Wannenburg, Spies, Rossouw, Skinstad, Lobberts and Watson. That’s 13 different loose forwards and more than half a dozen different combinations.

There were injuries and White rested players, but they’ve never settled on a loose forward combination and still can’t decide who their No.8 is. Burger is a one man wrecking machine, because he’s a one man wrecking machine.

ohtani's jacket said | August 26th 2008 @ 1:21am | Report comment

I forgot van Heerden. Make that 14.

Photon said | August 26th 2008 @ 1:28am | Report comment

Hi Everyone
You’ll have to excuse me, I haven’t had Web access for a while. First of all I did not mean to suggest the All Blacks and Wallabies where crap, just that this All Black is not as experienced or good as the one of twelve months back, and the Wallabies are a team at the begining of their development. I therefore feel and I may be wrong(Or just a biased Bok), that man for man this Springbok side has better players than both New Zealand and Australia at this moment in time . I just wanna point one thing out too, me saying Pieter is right and the Boks have to change their style is a valid point. That this hasn’t been carried out in an effective way is a travesty, but the point remains, we can’t expect to out do sides purely by being physically superior. Nearly every person on this blog aside from Benjamin and a few of his ilk would admit that physically no side is South Africa’s equal in rugby. Okay maybe Argentina and Italy, but the main players on the world rugby scene do not regard them as world beaters, in that Australia,New Zealand,England and the French (Inspite of this recent aberration-Losing their last 6 from 7 or whatever it is against Argentina) would expect to win most matches against those sides.

Anyway Saturday sucked, the Wallabies deserved to win, I just thought I’d bring a bit of balance to the Bok bashing. The Wallaby line out throws were niot straight on saturday, which ones you ask, nearly all of them just re watch the match you’ll see. Robinson’ try was not a try, there is no angle that shows contact of ball and line, that try being given was a disgrace. Schalk hit Elsom caus he wouldn’t let him go and was try to impede him from defending. CJ act was disgraceful, but the Wallabies were no angels on saturday and anyone who suggests they where is just a biased Aussie. Furthermore on the subject of the Aussie scrum, isn’t it interesting that test matches involving Australia against either South Africa or New Zealand average a higher (Almiost Double) scrum reset rate than matches between South Africa and New Zealand. Coincidence I think not

Anyway, later and may the Boks find a way on Saturday

Booooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkke

Benjamin said | August 26th 2008 @ 1:36am | Report comment

Well if you are judging SA on their 3N results then France must be judged on their 6N results which are far superior to SA’s results. Anyhow it’s all academic.

One of those SA wins was a late, late Pretorius kick and by then Henry had taken to fielding rotational teams so I wouldn’t put moch stock in that. The game where NZ put 40 odd points on SA, in SA, is the best illustration of how much SA troubled NZ when NZ took the contest deadly seriously. Aside from when SA won the 3N under White they were distinctly average. NZ were light years ahead.

I also don’t think there is much purchase in qualifying the SA back row. For a 3 year period or so they had settled on their best 6-7 combo in Smith and Burger. The others were examples of transformation or White’s favoured utility players or injury call-ups. NZ also fiddled with their back row; Gibbes, McCaw, Holah, Thorne, So’oialo, Lauaki etc. The significant point is how much game time each player got and I would imagine that Smith and Burger played just as much as Collins and McCaw.

By Photon
August 23rd 2008 @ 2:07am

Related articles

Recently popular

Free Email updates:

(168)

By Photon August 23rd 2008 @ 2:07am

Why de Villiers is right, the Boks need change

Related articles

Recently popular

Free Email updates:

(168)

By Photon
August 23rd 2008 @ 2:07am