Imagine for a moment that Morne Steyn was still the 90% kicker that he has been virtually his entire career.
Imagine Bryan Habana had not put down a pass with the tryline at his mercy in the fifth minute of Saturday evening’s game.
Imagine Deon Greyling had taken up tiddlywinks instead of rugby.
By my estimation, the Boks left 25+ points on the park on Saturday evening. If 50% of these opportunities had been taken, this weekend past’s clash would have had an entirely different complexion.
Heyneke Meyer has been much maligned on electing to play what is perceived as an anachronistic gameplan. However, can a gameplan that yielded so many opportunities against the number one team in the world trulybe considered out-dated? Or is there a still space for a forward-orientated, kick-and-chase game in the “modern” era?
Place yourself in his shoes for a moment. You realise that the opponents you will play most often are the All Blacks and Wallabies, both teams that play a wide game (the Wallabies at every opportunity, the All Blacks after a few phases and usually off setpiece ball). What’s your plan to engineer a win? Do you follow a gameplan that your opponents devised (i.e. try beat your opponents at their own game)? Or do you develop your own gameplan?
Considering that the wide game is part of the DNA of Union in New Zealand and Australia, I would think it would be obvious that Wallaby and All Black teams are very familiar with defending against opponents putting width on the ball at pace. Understandably, he decided to pursue a different tack.
Against the Wallabies:
-The Wallabies pack (rightly or wrongly) are perceived to be substandard compared to other top tier teams.
-The Wallabies backline in recent year is comprised of relatively small though quick players.
A Bok plan against the Wallabies should be orientated in creating as many attacking setpieces in Wallabies territory as possible and running big ball carriers through the gold backline. A kick and chase game plan would get the Boks into the right areas of the park to look to force a mistake from the Wallabies. However, I would argue that the gameplan should be modified to kicking the ball out and dead against Beale and co. and have Bekker and co. look to disrupt lineouts or Francois Steyn dominate a tackle (forcing a knock-on or penalty).
Against the All Blacks:
– The All Blacks seem vulnerable to rolling mauls, as evidenced on Saturday and against Los Pumas. This argues for kicking close to the touchline, limiting the fielding player’s angle of clearance -which is possible with a quick chase- and setting up attacking lineouts.
– The Boks defence was generally able to contain the All Blacks back three. Consider how much ball was kicked onto the likes of Dagg, Savea and Jane. Then consider that only one try (Dagg’s opening try) was scored from the glut of possession handed to the most potent back three in world rugby. It is also worth noting that around eight shots at goal were manufactured by kicking onto the All Black back three. Had Morne Steyn kicked like an international quality flyhalf, Steve Hansen would have cause for some soul searching come Sunday morning.
I feel that Heyneke Meyer’s thinking in adopting an “outdated” gameplan actually makes sense. As evidenced against the All Blacks on Saturday, it does yield the opportunities to reap dividends on the scoreboard. His failure in my opinion is in his selection:
1. Flyhalf. The gameplan adopted by Heyneke Meyer is orientated on manufacturing shots on goal. For it to succeed, these opportunities need to be converted into points. After seven games to prove his class, I think he can drop Morne with a clear conscience. Selecting a goal-kicker who can’t kick goals makes no sense. If memory serves, Johan Goosen can kick ’em from 55 metres out, get him off the pine and into the starting line-up. Alternatively, what does Elton Jantjies have to do to gain selection for the Boks? I understand he is an accomplished goal-kicker, and I was very impressed with the way he managed the Lions backline during the Super season. Either of those two would be preferable to a non-performing Morne.
2. Locks and fetchers. The gameplan he is trying to implement centres around creating opportunities from kicks. This means having locks that can steal opposition ball at the lineout (ala Victor Matfield) or a fetcher who can win “holding-on” penalties if the full back gets sacked in possession. Currently, the Boks are playing Bekker who hasn’t delivered a steal for the Boks as yet and Meyer has elected to leave Brussow at home. Francois Louw, in my opinion, made enough of a contribution to warrant a relook at the “no-fetcher” policy. And surely Victor Matfield can be convinced to help out with the technical lineout work?
3. Full back. Zane Kirchener delivers a solid performance at fullback. He’s safe under the high ball and gets fair distance on his clearances. However, he is prone to placing nothing up-and-unders that don’t achieve the goals of the gameplan. I think Kirchener either needs to be coached into adding a line-kick to his repertoire or a new fullback needs to be found. I enjoy Lambie’s running instincts, and I think he could grow into a great fullback for the Republic…but he’s going to need a lot more than 5-10 minutes in a lost game to grow his ability.
I liked Kirchener’s option for a drop-goal in the match. Popping over the odd three points from a failed clearance makes opposing players less adventurous in their approach to clearing, going for a sure out rather than distance. Meyer could think about moving Francois Steyn to 15, Jean de Villiers to 12 and JP Pietersen to 13. This setup would probably compliment the gameplan better than the current setup.
From a southern hemisphere point of view, there can be few arguments that the gameplan Heyneke Meyer is looking to adopt is not particularly attractive. However, the lack of aesthetic appeal should not blinker our appreciation of its effectiveness and feasibility as a counter to the dominance of the All Black style of playing the game.
richard
Guest
As a nzer, I get tired of the constant criticism of the playing style of the boks. The reality is you play to your strengths, which in the bok's case is a game based around a strong forward pack and a five - eighth who can direct play and kick goals i.e percentage footy. This gameplan, in my eyes, is a more reliable way of consistently winning tests as it relies on a team, first and foremost doing the basics. One thing I will say though, is there seems to be a perception among nzers that sa supporters think the ab's play a wide game ( which they do) at the expense of doing the hard yards first (which they don't). If this were the case, the ab's would lose a lot more tests than they do. Looking forward to the return game in sa, should be a beauty!
Ivan, our problem with no protection for the wide ball has a lot to do with the fact that we get the ball so far behind the advantage line that when we get the ball to the centres they are forced to drift even wider and gets isolated due to the lateral drift of the attack. If Goosen is standing flatter on attack and oofloads on the gainline the isolation is not so obvious because our attack doesn't drift. Inside running lines are far easier to run onto a ball when they recieve the ball on the line rather than way behind. You must also not forget when players aren't drifting to the outside the other backs are also there to protect te ball, unless of course yu run away from your supporting runners.
IvanN
Roar Guru
The Stormers OWNED all when they were playing a Burger, Louw, Vermeulen loose combo. replace Burger with a like for like Alerts and you have a combo that works really well. If the Boks can get Bismarck and Coenie back in, With Bakkies and Andries (eben impact), I believe we have a serious dogfight pack. Beast,Biz,Coenie,Bakkies,Andries,Flo,Willem,Duane = 950kg of bliksem.
IvanN
Roar Guru
dont forget, that Brussow has been Man of the match in every game he has played against NZ, and has consistently out played McCaw. He has not lost to NZ either.
IvanN
Roar Guru
as a saffa it annoys me too. But we have to think about this. We are committing allot of meat to the breakdowns, and winning the collissions. good. But now hte ball comes into the backline, and we go wide - how will we secure a ball thats gone wide, with 3 or 4 kiwis there to attack the ball, but no springbok heavies ? What we gain in breakdowns, we lose in protecting wide ball, hence we play a close and tight game, to give our heavies time to get to the rucks. What we should look at, is allowing just 1 or 2 heavies to remain central, and get to the wide breakdowns. IT takes a bit of smarts, to know how to get the ball back, or even when its needed - ie - you know that if you go to ground now, youre outnumbered, so dont take the hit - swing the ball back. I think we will get there, but lets not assume that owning the breakdowns, winnign the ball is entirely a reason to swing it as fast as possible to the wing. Another point, is that Jean cant seem to run straight, i suspect he may have two left feet, and hes a righty. Thats where Jacques Fourie and JP Pietersen are good, they run straight and instantly give the wing space. Jean needs to do allot to keep his place. If i was HM id rest him, and let Strauss take over as captain
WayneO
Guest
If we do happen to win at home I really hope that we do not have a situation where suddenly everyone thinks Meyer got it right. Winning at home at altitude is almost a given. But it does not make season. Losing at home at altitude will be unforgivable.
chris
Guest
The annoying thing is that the situation in question can be interpreted as the game-plan working. The previous kicks had effectively created the space needed to counter-attack by thinning out the front line defenders, yet the boks did not use the opportunity created. One thing the All Blacks do extremely well spot space and to get the decision makers to move the ball to where the space is. This is often very hard to off phase play or turnover ball. Failing to see the space off first phase possession is criminal though.
Mushu
Roar Pro
Chris, I can recall the exact moment in the game that you've mentioned in your first paragraph. The kick option in that situation was a poor option in my opinion. Using a kick-and-chase game plan requires either gaining territory with your kick and contesting the subsequent line-out or giving the ball enough air to allow your chasers to compete. In the situation you've outlined, the four men dropped back covered the line effectively, cutting out the option to kick for territory. Also, having that many players back reduced the Boks' ability to isolate the kick-receiver to work a turnover or a penalty. Plan B in the form of ball in hand was a go. And they didn't have to do anything flashy. A couple drives from the forwards would have sucked in the men dropped back allowing the kick option to be on again. Or the Boks could have chanced their arm with the overlap and given the ball to their quick backs. As mentioned by Biltong above, the current crop of Bok players don't seem to know when it's on out wide. Lot's of work to be done for Meyer and his coaching team I suspect.
Mushu
Roar Pro
Cheers Biltong! Interesting stats you have there. Without keeping track, I felt that the Wallabies would lead the "spreading-the-ball-wide" stakes. However, I think your inference that the Boks do not recognise opportunity out wide as well as the other SANZAR teams is probably spot on. I would expect recognition of these opportunities would be the value that a good coach would add. I recall reading somewhere (it might have been on one of your threads actually!) that when Meyer took over at Loftus, he first coached a tight game, and later added a wider game once the tight game was mastered. I believe the example cited was the hiding dished out to the Reds by the Bulls in their 2007 championship year. Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but based on this pattern, I have hopes that Boks will play attractive rugby by the next world cup. However, all this said, a wide game should not be considered as the pinnacle of rugby just because the All Blacks play the game that way. I believe a kick-and-chase game has its merits in the modern era and it does yield the opportunity to win against the best. I say the Boks should be permitted to pursue this gameplan as of all the gameplans out there, it seems the most likely to crack the All Black's prolonged reign as the number one side in the world.
Brussow has improved his all round game, he does control the maul a lot better than he did in the past, he has also added offloads to his game and has had a number of good runs for the cheethas in the currie Cup. I personally think not being picked has improved his game. I remember before Burger was injured last year and Brussow was the incumbent six, Burger also worked on his game and came back a better player.
Markus
Guest
Agreed. When on form Brussow is world class. And not just as a fetcher, his tackling is strong and his control at the back of a rolling maul is quality. The logic seems to be because he isn't 200cm and 120kg+ that he would lack the size to hit rucks in true Bakkies style. While that is true, it does not make him any less effective at securing ruck ball, both that of his own team and of the opposition.
tubby
Guest
brussuow really has not played that well this year, I have no problem with him not being sleected until he regains form. Luow is a better option at this stage, thgouh to go in with no fetcher at all is daft. without any stats to back it up, I thought they did much better at running with the ball, more phases and using the width of the field. It may not have resulted in breaks but was winning penalties. A few bad options and executions but really they did what they wanted to do to win, except kick the penalties. it's a 50/50 call on steyne starting at loftus, but really goosen should be given the chance now
Suzy Poison
Guest
Yes, I agree with you Biltong. I think Meyer will finally pick Goosen to start, surely he wouldn’t have taken him on the tour otherwise. This is who I think Meyer will pick for Loftus. Overall I don’t think he will change the pack except Bekker to partner Etzebeth. The lineouts looked better last week when Bekker came on. I disagree with one or two picks. 15. Zane Kirchner (19) 14. J.P Pietersen (47) 13. Jean De Villiers (Captain) (79) 12. Frans Steyn (55) 11. Bryan Habana (83) 10. Johan Goosen (2) 9. Frans Hougaard (25) 8. Duane Vermeulen (2) 7. Williem Alberts (15) 6. Francois Louw (12) 5. Andries Bekker (29) 4. Eben Etzebeth (6) 3. Jannie du Plessis (39) 2. Adrian Strauss (18) 1. Tendai "Beast "Mtawarira (40) Bench Coenie Oosthuizen (2) Tiaan Liebenberg (2) Flip van der Merwe (19) Marcell Coetzee (7) Ruan Pienaar (63) Morne Steyn (41) Patrick Lambie (16) If it was up to me, I would have J.P. Pietersen as outside centre, and Jean De Villiers on the bench. De Villiers like John Smit before him, needs to go. My Captain would then be Adrian Strauss, but I can’t see Meyer dropping De Villiers. I have noted at halftime the guys listen more to De Villiers than Meyer. With J.P.Pietersen moved to outside Centre, I would have Basson at wing. Seeing as they can’t move on from kick and chase, that’s Basson’s speciality anyway. Also I would have Lambie at Fullback. But I thinking Meyer will pick as many Bulls as he can at
Riccardo
Guest
Which is utterly moronic. Until he was injured Brussow owned Pocock in that RWC quarter. One of the best fetchers the game has seen.
mace 22
Guest
It seems to me that I've read this article before ( quite a few times actually ) but from a australian perspective. It seems australia and south africa are suffering from the same mailaise, inacurate kicking in general play and the lack of a kick chase game. When I watch the all blacks kick even if the kick is inacurate, I have confidence that they will shut down any attempt to counter attack from the opposition team. But when they recieve a poor kick I'm also confident what ever they decide to do will end in gains by either points or territory.
Not sure, I think he has a problem with Brussow's size.
Mike
Guest
Does HM really have a policy against fetchers?
Admittedly the hype around Goosen is as much about the promise he holds but also out of pure desperation to get rid of Steyn. I agree we have a good number of Flyhalve potential at the moment, Goosen, Jantjies, Lambie, Pollard. At this point Goosen is seen as the most talented, but still you need a back up if he isn't available. We'll see what the future brings, however it starts by getting rid of Steyn.
chris
Guest
Thank you for bring up the flyhalf question as didn't feel like being comment no.70 on the other blog (jammer boltong). There seems to be a weird logic going on about the flyhalf position in South Africa. It goes as follows. 1. Goosen is the best option 2. and will hold the jersey for the next decade. 2. ,but Goosen is very young, so we don't want to risk him, 3. because he might be next Gaffie Du Toit, 4. therefor Steyn must start until Goosen is ready to take over. This is terrible argument. It doesn't necessary mean that the conclusion is wrong, it only means that doesn't support the conclusion and that alternative arguments are excluded. So lets deal with each point is turn. 1- The evidence supports this. The boy can kick like mule, has a good passing game and can scare any defence with his running game. I would accept the primary statement, but not the underlying inference. Goosen is not the only option. Had Mr and Mrs Goosen never met, would the conclusion still have held true? Jantjies or Jantjies would then have been the best option, so why then exclude them simply because of Mr and Mrs Goosen did do what they did? 2- Probaby, but... Swiel, Pollard have time to develop, Jantjies and Lambies are still only twenty-one. who knows what will happen in the future. Making decisions in 2012 for the effect it will have in the 2022 seems a little silly. 3. He might well be, so what? Does that mean that we should ignore all the upside that Goosen might present? Simply because someone else turned out to be pretty average? More average than Louis Koen, Braam van Straaten, Butch James, Derick Hougaard and, dare I say it, Morne Steyn have been? 4. Steyn is not the only option. Had the last 7 test been the first seven test of any player, that player would have been tagged as a complete failure. There is no reason to exclude Steyn from the same scrutiny simply because he has played 30 odd test of, lets be honest, middling quality.
Post
Guest
Why play Steyn when he only MIGHT turn his form around at home, when you have Goosen available and playing better in every aspect? JP Pieterson has been playing the best rugby of his at 13 this year, and JDV tries hard but isn't deliivering the goods. Bring Hougaard to 9, Gio Aplon to fullback, and stick Kirchner on the wing or replace him entirely. South Africa has the potential to create a truly explosive and dynamic backline, they need to embrace the talent they have available.