So, with the dust having finally settled on this year’s Super Rugby tournament (well, it has for those of us here in the Republic, I imagine the party’s still going strong in Australia, particularly in Queensland), the rugby world’s focus shifts to the ever-approaching Rugby World Cup.
Before I continue, I must give a hearty congratulations to both the Queensland Reds for a truly stunning victory.
Also, a congratulations to the runners up the Crusaders, for achieving what I believe almost no other team in world sport would manage: coming within a whisker of winning a tournament without playing a single game at home.
For that my Kiwi friends I, along with a whole swathe of South Africans, salute you.
As for the Reds, I can unashamedly say that I broke the mold of most ‘Saffers’ and actually supported them (its normally unthinkable for a South African to back Australia in anything at all), behind all the South African sides of course, purely because of the ‘brand of footy’ they played.
I wondered whether they would continue with the same style in the cauldron of a final and, not only did they stick to their guns, they triumphed.
What does this have to do with Rugby World Cup 2011?
Throughout the season, and indeed during the post-mortems of games featuring the Wallabies and All Blacks last year (particularly those where the Springboks came up second-best to the Australasians), a number of the South African (SA) rugby scribes have intimated that the attacking brand of football that put the ‘Boks and many of the SA Super Rugby provincial sides to the sword in recent times is not the type of rugby that will win a World Cup.
Judging by the history of rugby union’s showpiece event, this sentiment has merit.
Almost all the finals that have been contested since 1987 have been won on the back of resolute defense, ferocious physicality, and sheer attritional dominance without much running or throwing the ball around.
In the two Rugby World Cup finals that South Africa has contested, a try was scored in neither, and the Bokke emerged victorious in both.
This is a large part of the reason why many rugby people in this country do not feel all that intimidated by the All Blacks, Wallabies, or any other side in the world intending to use an expansive game plan to hold the William Webb Ellis trophy aloft.
Indeed, there is even a sense of contained smugness in some quarters here regarding the success of Queensland in this year’s Super Rugby tournament, one that, if put into words, would say something like “Yeah, let the Aussies have their fun. We’ll see who and what type of rugga will triumph in New Zealand in October”.
Darren Scott, Supersport’s primary rugby anchor, even went as far as to say, after the final in Brisbane, that “The Aussies can have the Super Rugby title, the All Blacks can take the Tri Nations, and we’ll be happy to hang onto the World Cup.”
After the various other losses that the Boks suffered last year at the hands of their Tri Nations counterparts, Scott also occasionally queried whether the type of football that was continually seeing them end up on the wrong end of the scoreboard would win the World Cup, and most of his analysts usually believed that it wouldn’t.
In the latest episode of “Road to New Zealand”, Supersport’s monthly RWC 2011 build-up program, the network’s other rugby anchor, Matthew Pearce, put the same question forward to his guests.
All agreed that it was unlikely that expansive rugby would ultimately triumph in New Zealand.
Dan Retief, also a guest on the show and one of SA’s most respected rugby observers, was particularly adamant that this World Cup, despite the evolution of the game over the past few years that has encouraged ball-in-hand football instead of ten-man football, will be won as it has often been in the past: through unwavering defense and attrition.
His reasoning for this was that the enormity of the occasions of WC knock-out games would overwhelm the referees, cause them to go into their shells, give an excess of penalties, and subsequently cause games to degenerate into kicking fests.
Whether Retief’s theory will eventuate will only be seen in NZ come October, but I would like to think that the officials have enough experience and temperament to not be overwhelmed by the big occasions.
Now, I am not so disillusioned as to believe that any sport played at the highest level, when the stakes are at their highest, and when failure is simply not an option, can always accommodate flashy and flamboyant play.
Of course, in these instances tight game-plans that minimise error will be the law of the land, but the conservatism of the powers that be in SA rugby is quite distressing at times.
In the same episode of “Road to New Zealand” that featured Retief, there was a segment in which Bok vice-captain Victor Matfield was interviewed.
He made it unequivocally clear that he believed that the Boks should stick to their traditional strengths and not try to copy the rugby played by the Wallabies and the ABs.
He believes that if the Boks remain steadfast in this philosophy, they will be the first side ever to retain rugby union’s “Holy Grail”.
My brother, an unashamed supporter of the Wallabies and Australian rugby in general (our family is Ghanaian in origin, so he feels no obligation to support the Boks), stopped watching the last RWC final in which the Boks triumphed to go and play some videogames; much to my outrage.
In the months immediately after the final, I would argue with him for hours on end, defending the conservatism that saw the Boks home in the end.
He, still bitter about the way that England so unceremoniously bundled the Wallabies out of RWC 2007, continually said I was blinded by patriotism and that there was no flair at all involved in the Boks win, which I so staunchly believed there was.
Four years on, in hindsight, I can honestly say that the only way you would’ve enjoyed the 2007 RWC final was if you were South African; and you better believe we loved everything about it.
But, with the desire for attacking rugby that I have, of late there has been a single question that has been dogging me regarding this year’s RWC tournament. What do I want to win the 2011 RWC: the Boks, or attacking rugby?
By all indications, the Boks (judging by Matfield’s sentiments) will not be out to entertain, and they as well as many of their fans do not care how they keep Bill in SA. And that’s probably how it should be.
But, assuming we see more of what we did in ’07 and the Boks do retain their title as world champions, will this be good for the game from an entertainment perspective? Probably not.
What worries me as much as the ramifications that this would have on global rugby’s merit as a spectacle is the possible implications this could have on the way we play rugby in this country.
In Bob Skinstad’s most recent column on Supersport titled “‘Coaching-out’ the Imagination”, he questions whether flair is too often coached out of South Africa’s elite players once they make it to the top level.
As someone who has played at the very highest levels for South Africa, his views offer valid confirmation for what I have long suspected to be the case with the Boks: that flair and freedom of expression come a very definitive second to winning matches.
The following extract from that article is particularly poignant: “You see, for too long South African rugby has been subject to restrictive coaching. Players fulfil their role, get a pat on the back and move on to the next match.
“How is it that the most creative moment (in the Stormers’ semi-final against the Crusaders) came from a makeshift loose forward (Schalk Brits) who arrived from Saracens only six days before kick-off? Are we coaching the imagination out of our players?”
Skinstad himself was a particularly skilled, wide-running and exciting backrower in his hey-day, so it really is no surprise that he strongly advocates a brand of football akin to what the Reds produced in 2010 and 2011; exciting play coupled with the very necessary starch that is needed to grind out inevitably tight games.
But it has become evident, particularly after the dismal season the Boks had last year, that a few other prominent rugby writers in the Republic have become steadily frustrated at the Boks’ inability or lack of will to evolve their game and build on their strengths in order to become a more multi-dimensional side.
Reporters such as Gavin Rich and Clinton van der Berg have had their articles, dating back from the 2010 end of year tour, tinged with sentiments such as “the Springbok’s inability to evolve their game” or “the Australasian sides having so much more to offer than their South African counterparts”.
These views have quite accurately articulated my own increasing frustration with the overall lack of potency and imagination by South African backlines at the highest level, particularly with regards to the Springboks.
In fact, it is the national side that is the greatest culprit of this, as the Super Rugby sides have shown that they are more than capable of playing effective attacking rugby, if not in quite as dazzling a manner as the Australasian sides.
But even at Super Rugby level this year, some of SA’s most established and celebrated attackers have been most definitely overshadowed by their antipodean counterparts.
For example, whilst Jacques Fourie and Jean de Villiers have made some great plays this season, they combined to nowhere near the devastating levels they have in the past, when together they’d tear apart defenses with astonishing ease and panache.
Indeed the brightest lights in the Stormers’ backline this year were two of their smallest players: Juan de Jongh and Gio Aplon.
Whilst these two scintillating players will definitely be in the RWC squad, and will likely feature in the match 22’s for the games at the business-end of the tournament (should the Boks make it that far), don’t expect them to start any of those games unless injuries alter circumstances.
They are, even by my own reckoning, I’ll admit, possible defensive liabilities not because of their endeavor or technique, but simply because of their lack of bulk.
They would, as they have been before, be targeted by the opposition. Therefore many believe they will likely function only as impact players.
The problem is that there are many other players in SA possessed of the same brilliance as Aplon and de Jongh that certainly do not lack size, but have that flamboyance coached out of them once they make it to the highest levels of the game. Take a player like Morne Steyn for instance. He was, believe it or not, considered to be one of the finest runners of the football in SA in his junior years.
Fast-forward a few years and he is seen as little more than a deadly-accurate goal- and tactical-kicker who fulfills his other roles adequately.
This containing and transformation of flair into conservatism is something that happens entirely too often in this country, which is why a player like Elton Jantjies is probably SA’s best out and out attacking five-eighth, and yet he is still no where near the class of the likes of Quade Cooper.
So when watching the razzle-dazzle play of the Reds and the Crusaders and feeling more than just a little envious, thinking “why can’t SA sides do that?”, it makes it all the more worse because South African rugby is more than capable of producing such play.
One just has to take a look at the young talent in the Republic and marvel. We just continue to shoot ourselves in the foot.
And I am increasingly coming to believe that if the Boks do win the RWC in the way that they seem to be intending to this year, this stifling of imaginative play in South Africa will continue, and we will never see players in the mould of Quade Cooper, Dan Carter, or even Carlos Spencer rise to the top in the SA.
Even more detrimental than the impact this could have on SA, are the results it could have on rugby union as a game at large.
Conservative, unimaginative play may become the law of the land and running rugby may become less and less favoured or utilized at the top flight and rugby as a spectacle may suffer even more.
Is this a dilemma that is exclusive to South African rugby? Are supporters willing to have their teams win by any means necessary, to the possible detriment of the game’s evolution? Thoughts?
oztahman
Guest
In the game of Rugby, 5 points are awarded for a try with the option of scoring an additional 2 points for a conversion. A penalty goal and drop goal are awarded 3 points each. Why are more points awarded for a try/conversion than a penalty/drop goal? because they are harder to obtain and considered more worthy than only kicking goals. Since the beginning of rugby this has been the intention. It is only the play of South Africa and England that has brought about a desire to play the safe game against the spirit of rugby.
johnb747b
Guest
'...cautioning on the run...' The best referee I ever saw handled a State Cup soccer match in Sydney. The game began spitefully. The ref didn't get excited. He called both captains to him and told them : 'I'd be grateful if you two would tell your players to play within the rules. If they continue the way they have begun they'll leave me no option other than discipline'. The game settled down and in fact featured very few free kicks. Except in extreme cases the ref would have a word in a player's ear as he passed by : 'I'm onto you, lad, knock it off or else I'll card you'. I went up to the ref after the game and urged him to apply for a job coaching referees. That was the only game of any code of football that I played or watched where both sides spontaneously clapped the ref off the field. He had the game firmly in control but he was invisible. Contrast the histrionics of some rugby refs.
johnb747b
Guest
There are still too many reasons for a poser in a fancy jersey to blow his whistle and grandstand, gesticulating flamboyantly at some obscure happening on the ground. Who gives a stuff about a hand in the ruck? Who cares if someone joins from the side? Rugby league got it right when they abandoned scrum penalties. Union got it right when lifting in the lineout was allowed. I'd suggest : * make a try in rugby worth an extra point. * reduce the value of a penalty goal by one point * reduce the value of a field goal by one point. And let referees' school espouse the virtue of letting the game roll on, cautioning on the run where possible. And may the rules be based on a philosophy of encouraging open, running rugby.
Bokke2011
Guest
I have a lot to say this morning, but I will refrain.
Cros
Guest
Attacking or Running Rugby (call it what you want), must win the Rugby World Cup. A game that just appeals to the 'die hards' or the 'purists', will eventually whither and die. For goodness sake, people want to be entertained. Yes, the result is important, but equally so is how you play the game. Let's not have a repeat of 2007. This is the showcase of Rugby, so it goes without saying, we should have something to show ! Let the team that thrills and chances their arm with positive play, lift the RWC.
Ben S
Roar Guru
Stats... I actually watched Super games this season so I don't have to rely on stats. Listen, the Bulls went through the forwards and then the ball went to Olivier. If the ball didn't go to Olivier then Steyn, standing ridiculously deeply, put up a bomb, or Hougaard or Du Preez put up a bomb. The only other option was a cross-field kick. Simply going through phases isn't an indicator of running rugby. I'm not even going to bother mention the Stormers... Prejudice? Do yourself a favour and bother to actually peruse the thread.
Bokke2011
Guest
Ben. That's because I don't disagree completely. Like I said before - the SA teams you mentioned have definately made themselves guilty of boring play, but nomore or less than the rest. I challenge you to have a look at these stats. http://www.rugbystats.com.au/rugby/super15.html Particularly the sides under attack and their matches against some of the top performing AU /NZ sides. This is important as stats can be deceiving against much weaker opposition on the day. Then look at the phases. You will see that their phase building tallies are well on par with the opposing teams in those matches in both win & lose situations - some better & some poorer. Also look at the distances over which tries were scored and you will see that it once again compares well with the AU /NZ sides. These 2 sets of stats give a pretty good indication of the amount of running /attacking rugby that was played. This is how I recall things and I try to be objective about it. If what you saw was very different, I can only assume that it's out of pure prejudice.
Tigranes
Guest
kingplaymaker one of the beauties of international rugby is the varying styles differant nations bring to the table. One of the things I've noticed about South Africa is that they do not produce great attacking/running fly-halves like say Wales in the old days. Instead their main play maker is usually the scrum half - players like Van Der Westhuizen, Du Preez, Hougaard, this is true at provincial level as well, the Cheetahs had Sarel Pretorius who was the equal top tryscorer in this years Super Rugby comp (and heading to Tahs next year).
Loftus
Guest
England? Are you sure? It's probably not the same England I'm thinking about!
Ben S
Roar Guru
Always with the chip on the shoulder syndrome... Why must one comment be taken out of context so much? I guess you missed my earlier contribution to the thread. In any case, I stand by what I said. Some of the backline play was utterly atrocious from the Sharks, Stormers and Bulls. I notice that you don't actually attempt to contradict what I say, but thanks all the same.
Ben S
Roar Guru
What risks did France take to beat NZ in 2007?
Bokke2011
Guest
@ Ben S "Appalling" - bold statement! It's ok though as we've become quite used to taking it on the chin and it doesn't have the same derailing effect on us like it used to in the early post isolation days. We'll carry on playing chess thank you and if it means we get to hold Bill one more time play, you're welcome to play and enjoy your game of checkers.
Ben S
Roar Guru
Statistics only tell half a story. Some of the backline play of the Bulls and Stormers this season has been appalling, so how many tries Basson scored is pretty irrelevant.
Bokke2011
Guest
I think everyone accusing the Boks and SA teams in general of unimaginative play are all very disillussioned. Yes, they have often made themselves guilty of boring play, but no more or no less than than anyone else. I challenge you to research and analyse statistics properly. I rememver looking at this years S15 stats about 2/3 of the way through the comp and some of the saffa teams and payers were right up there with the try count. In fact Bjorn Basson was the leader at the time. I also look at the stats in respect of 10's kicking out of hand and Dan Carter was leading in that dept. I will also happily refer you to the 2009 S14 final between the Bulls & the Chiefs. The Bulls flattenned the Chiefs in all depts and scored an abundance of tries. It made the Crusaders win over the Stormers in recent times look mild by comparison and that was a FINAL! Wake up and smell the roses people. I don't have a glass ball and can't predict who will win and how and neither can anyone else, so it's all just speculation. I can tell you one thing for certain - If you think the boks are going to hand the WWE trophee on a platter to anyone, youv'e got another thing coming. They will do whatever is needed to the best of their ability to defend it, even if it is "ugly" at times. They will no doubt also provide some spectacular displays of skill along the way and keep us as proud as ever. BoksTillDeath!!
Darwin Stubbie
Guest
and how did that work out for those teams in the final wash up ... NZ can play open rugby when required - but the selection of Slade speaks of a more conservative gameplan come the business end of the competition ...
Shaun
Guest
Obviously balance is key, but to me the Stormers missing the least amount of tackles doesn't make them the best defence. It's making the key tackles (i.e when the line is broken etc), but more than that's it's not conceding penalties in kickable positions. Of the 11 penalties the Stormers gave away in the Semi, 7were kickable of which 5 were successful. In that game the Crusader also kicked 30 times to the Stormer 17 (constant midfield bombs if you remember) - pressure which turned into points. BUT like I said, obviously if you can't score points then you can never win...
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Darwin that sounds like a formula to lose. Surely the ABs have learnt you need to take a risk, as France and Australia and France before that did, in order to win?
PeterK
Roar Guru
i disagree you need balance. Stormers were the best defensive side but they did not win, they focused far too much on it. Their attack was inept. Stormers missed less tackles than Reds and Crusaders when they played them and lost. In fact Reds missed a lot of tackles through the year and still won. You need attacking players that can break down defences or take advantage of lapses or mistakes. I do agree that tries dont equate to entertainment. However constant mid field bombs , with chasers illegally bumping receivers and preying on penalties or dropped balls is boring.
Shaun
Guest
I think a definition of boring rugby needs to be established...and I don't think that is as easy at it seems. If you are talking kicking the ball too much, then QC is the flyhalf in this S15 that kicked the most possession away! What saves him from being 'boring' is his ability to select the right opportunity to be unpredictable, which was usually on counter attack after turnover ball or from fielding a kick at "fullback". I watched the S15 final, supporting the Crusaders amongst a swathe of Reds supporters on the Gold Coast. I lost count of how many times Red's supporters pleaded with Genia and Quade to stop kicking the ball away. What won the game for the Red's was DEFENCE and then 2 moments of attacking brilliance mixed with DEFENSIVE lapses from the Crusaders. Digby's try came from a poor Ellis kick combined with a very poor kick chase & some exceptional footwork & pace from Digby. Most top teams have at least 1 player with the ability to break the game open like that - SA (Aplon & Habana of old), NZ (Ranger), Aus (Digby) etc etc. Before Genia scored his match winner, he shaped to kick (which elicited a "stop F#&king kicking the ball away Genia" from a Reds supporter), the Crusaders were covering the kick well which led Genia (through some brilliance)to change tack & to take off ...and well that was that. For all QC's attacking brilliance, I think he had a shocker. Genia was pretty poor himself, however class players only need 1 good moment in a match to win it - which Genia did, for 99% of the game the crusaders did well to disrupt Genia and QC and put a lot of pressure on. The Bulls of 2009/2010 were labelled "boring" however they were the top try scorers with the highest average points scored in the history of Super rugby, yet they kicked a lot too! Rugby rules have changed so often to entice more "exciting" rugby, however time and time again, it's the teams that are the best & quickest to adapt defensively to those changes that win games. For me the reason the Reds won the trophy was not their superior attacking ability (2 tries from 2 moments of individual brilliance), but their ability to defend for 60+% of the game. Their ability to close down SBW space so that he had no-one to offload too (there were many instances where SBW managed to get his arms free to offload, but each time a Red's defender occupied the "open" space). So my point, a team that can't tackle & defend better than anybody else will 99% of the time end up on the losing side in a tournament decider, the counter to that is if you can't score you'll never win, however at finals defence (though desperation usually wins) and it's the team with the best kicker capitalising on mistakes that wins. History has proven that over the last 30 years and I personally believe that the 2011 RWC will be no different. As a rugby union supporter I cringe when I watch league teams "scrum" (call it something else PLEASE) & they don't even have lineouts! That is what makes rugby union, rugby union! Rugby is a tactical battle and is much more than just scoring tries. Just my opinion :)
PeterK
Roar Guru
I think it is a total travesty if a team MUST play running rugby to win, that basically it must have a great backline. Rugby must be able to be won by having great forwards or great backs ie playing a game that suits your strengths. Sure the law interpretations should favour an attacking game but that does not mean exclsuively a running game. Surely a team should be able to win by dominaing set pieces, having a great maul and forwards driving through the middle. If not then have we just become another form of league?