Let me start off by saying I am no expert, but then again you don’t need to be an expert to see what is wrong with South African rugby.
South African rugby teams, bar the Cheetahs and to some extent the Sharks, play the same style of rugby we have been playing for the last decade, possibly longer. The past weekend was once again a clear reminder that South African rugby has not evolved at all.
Defence
There is a myth that South African rugby is based on defensive tactics. The myth suggests that South Africa has the most aggressive and effective defence in world rugby and to beat them you need to find a way to breach it.
The sobering reality is that this myth is just that; a myth. If this was Mythbusters, chances are this myth would not even be considered plausible, but would just be completely busted.
This weekend during the Sharks and Reds clash as quickly as you could say “Oh my goodness” the Sharks had conceded four tries against the Reds. They were all scored within 33 minutes.
The sad thing is this is the third time this season that the Sharks have conceded a four try bonus point in the first half of a match.
The Kings, who have been heaped with much praise over the season for their gutsy performances, have conceded 47 tries in 11 matches.
The Cheetahs and Bulls have been acceptable, with an average of roughly two tries conceded per match.
Finally the Stormers, known to be the best defensive unit in Super Rugby, may currently hold onto their title; but if Bryan Habana continues to break the defensive line as he did once again this weekend I doubt they will remain so by end of the season.
The first problem for the South African franchises in defence is that they do not keep their discipline.
The rush and drift defence is only effective if every player plays their part and keeps the defensive line intact. If any player decides to leave the line it immediately creates a hole for the outside attacking runner to come in on the angle, receive the pass and go through untouched.
The responsibility of the halfback in most cases is be a sweeper. In other words he is the one man, particularly when the rush defence is employed, to sweep for the chip kick or grubber.
This weekend the Sharks, Kings and Cheetahs were caught out an alarming number of times with a kick through that resulted in a try.
Now I would understand if it happened once, but with the Cheetahs it happened several times in succession. How do you not figure out a sweeper must be put in place?
Standing off at the ruck and not committing numbers to the breakdown has two effects. The first is that it allows the opponent to operate under no pressure, something no team should be allowed to do.
The halfback is a pivotal player in any team, none more so than for the Reds.
The Force showed just how a world-class player in Genia can be negated when he is put under pressure, and yet this weekend the Sharks put no pressure on Genia. Did the coaching staff of the Sharks not review that match?
The other result of not committing numbers to the breakdown is quick ball, something you do not want to face as a defending team.
Deon Fourie, who for some reason had raised the ire of Chris Pollock before the game even started, was the lone ranger in trying to compete for ball at the breakdown, and every time he competed he was penalised.
Once again, are the lights on and nobody home? What must it take for South African teams to employ a little bit of intelligence on a rugby field?
It was clear from the start, when Deon Fourie received his second reprimand in as many minutes in the first half, that he is not the man to play in contentious areas of the game.
Stay away from rucks, keep to the offside line and don’t look at the referee.
The South Africans must show intelligence and adaptability on defence. Neither was on display this weekend.
Ruck time is contentious at the best of times, so either you commit enough numbers to the breakdown to blow the opponent totally off the ball or commit no numbers, the one-off player has no chance, he will be off his feet in no time and if the referee has but a suspicion that you are slowing down ball you will be penalised.
The one time it is necessary to keep discipline is on the defensive line. Willie le Roux and Bryan Habana showed exactly how not to do it this weekend.
Regarding the sweeper, the number of tries scored against South African team this year from a chip kick into the space behind the defensive line is alarming to say the least.
Attack
The idea of attack is in reality a simple one: you want to create space and get a runner into a gap. It doesn’t sound like a complicated issue, does it?
Well you’re wrong. The number of tries scored from mauls by South African sides proves that finding space is apparently much more challenging than you would expect.
The Bulls, Kings, Stormers and Sharks use the maul as their primary weapon to score tries. Now that in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. But if you become predictable, or when teams find ways to halt mauls legally or illegally you need a plan B.
The Bulls will tell you that they use their big forwards to run through the middle, then when they have done that for the umpteenth time they will use a centre to bash it up through the midfield.
After that has been done a few times, there might be space on the outside and a try can be scored. The problem with this plan is that it only works if the opponent is physically inferior and starts falling off tackles.
If none of that happens, chances are at some point they might be awarded a penalty and be able build an innings from there.
South African teams have one move to create an extra man on the outside, and it is where the halfback drifts across, passes to either the fly half or inside centre, runs in behind them and collects the ball again.
“Ingenious,” you might say. Sorry to disappoint, but I am only being sarcastic.
When you look at the New Zealand teams, their only criterion for when a back should receive the ball is that he is runnning at pace.
You only need to look at the Stormers’ backline moves this past weekend to notice how many times their back line received the ball in a stationary position.
The ball goes wide and by the time the wing receives (if he ever does receive) the ball, they are way behind the advantage line and often isolated.
I could likely carry on like this and point out more areas of inadequacy from South African team, but it will take up far too much time and space.
The point is, South African rugby needs a mind shift.
They need to go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate what they are doing, because in my very humble opinion, as a rugby loving nation, we are not performing anywhere near our potential.
Predictability, low risk rugby and defensive game plans are slowly starting to diminish South Africa as a force in world rugby.
Stanley Robson
Roar Rookie
Oops! Auto-correction needed. Instead of Frans Ludeke (current Bulls coach) my comment should read Heineke Meyer (current Springbok coach). I was criticizing the wrong Blue Bull, but he probably deserved it anyways :)
Stanley Robson
Roar Rookie
I'd love to see Nick Mallet there instead of Coetzee - he would be my dream coach for the Stormers. But IMO the best times for SA rugby always seemed to coincide with SA rugby being infused by strong infuence from the Gauteng (Transvaal) Lions. In the early nineties, and in 1995 in particular, we had Kitch Christie, Francois Pienaar and Hennie Le Roux, and Louis Luyt (love him or hate him). To emphasize the point you have been making all this time, these guys were all forward thinking in their approach to the game and how it should be managed. With Frans Ludeke (a Blue Bull) at the helm I always feared and knew that conservatism (forward dominated play with an emphasis on defence and a kicking game) would be at the order of the day. We had Strauli (remember Kamp Staaldraad) also a Blue Bull man. He did us really proud in 2003. I will admit I am not a Blue Bull fan - despise them even. SA played its best rugby under coaches like Christie (Jo'burg), White (Jo'burg) and Mallet (Cape Town). Notice the Jo'burg connection in Christie and White. When Gauteng and Province dominated SA rugby the national side flourished. When the Bulls dominated it turned conservative and the Boks under-performed. With Macintosh (a Durban-Natal man) it showed innovation but mixed success. It has always been true that the regional (laager) mentality will always affect the way our Springbok team will be managed. Old traditions die hard (or not at all). I wonder what the present Springbok management team has learned from the likes of Mallet, Christie and White?They are probably trying to "reinvent" the way a champion team is created. I enjoyed your article. Lots of truths there.
What worries me who is going to be the next coach, I have a feling it is going to be Allistair Coetzee. More conservatism.
fredstone
Guest
Ya know, I hope not. The stormers are buggered, they keep al the wrong oakes and let the good ones go, katrikillis and pollard are prime examples, and they keep on with grant, who's just not got it. Spotting talent is half of what makes a good coach I think. Plumtree plays backline players outa position and then when he's got a bunch of lightweight loosies he goes and plays meyer bosman instead of frans, and expects who to get him over the gainline? Keegan? Most overated excuse for a loosie I've ever seen, spies misses less tackles than him and he's faster. I don't know about the lions' new coaching staff but we'll find out when they play the kings and I got this sneaky suspicion jantjies se bubble gan gebars word deur katrikillis. Ludeke has systems in place, so that's what he's trusting in, he seems very rigid, but that may have been meyer, may not have been, can't say. Meyer did spot a lot of talent though, and he gives okes a chance, u just gota be the right size and body type. So he's not without his faults and preconceptions. But he's better than snorre and jake white and plumtree and the oak from the cape and gert small who did absolutely nothing with the talent he had at his disposal in the cape. I didn't really rate naka, but this last season has been an eye opener. Durban was probably the most revealing game. But at the same instance the hurricanes game was a real disappointment. But does the cheetahs stand a realistic chance? Nope, none whatsoever, and next season they'll have to build again. So will he ever get a chance to coach the springboks, we'll like the dog said in the toyota add in your dreams boy.
Agree with you on Frans Ludeke, The defining moment for me was when Naas Botha said on Super sport at the start of the season that he was at a Bulls training camp and Ludeke said he isn't going to change anything, they believe in their game plan and will stick to it. It isn't that I have a problem with them believing in what they do, it is more the case of in spite of all the evidence out there, he remains inflexible and unwilling to adapt. It reminds me of the guy tat goes out with his fishing boat every day to the same spot, he as done it for thirty years and that is where he has been making his living so the fact that the fishing stocks have depleted due to overfishing for centuries and that there now is a thing called a fish finder he is simply just stubborn and not prepared to accept there is another way of catching fish. I think Meyer falls in the same category, it is my way or the highway. What these coaches don't get, it is not about changing the fundamentals of the way we play, keep 90% of it where it is, but utilise space, not only rely on force to break through, that is probably the best way I can describe it, use the space better, if at all.
fredstone
Guest
Ok, that seems a very valid point, once again though, it's about vision, the cheetahs scored some tries form deep in their own half on turnover ball this year. Plumtree's comments after the the durban game was kinda revealing about that aspect from a coaching point of view though, they seem to all dispise such tries. Then again, dan carter is predictable, how many intercepts does he throw in a season, 3 or 4 I think at least. That's a surefire try of a turnover. The crusaders played off turnover in those days they were so dominant, but since everybody has figured that one out, they haven't really done anything, ja they been there and therabouts, but are they the force they once were, I'd say nope. And they have't lost a du preez, matfield and botha, steenkamp, botha, habana and rossouw. So they're not so dominant, but they're there and thereabouts. O ja but the 'saders jus look better being there and thereabouts but they apparently have the two greatest players to have ever played the game in their midst. And kieran reed. The bulls has morne steyn and prince charming, good at what they do, but not good at adventurism and not good at vision, so because they're not good at vision the adventurism was coached outa them and that's not a bad thing neccesarily. The two new laaities that will be filling their boots in future are a diferent kettle of fish though. I'd be really dissapointed if the adventurism was coached outa them, cause they both have a lot of vision and awareness of wat's going on on the field at any given moment in time. That being said, I don't have a lot of faith in ludeke, think he's a bit of a control freak bit a bit of a lightweight. So we'll just have to wait and see. Which would you have picked, two ebersohns or one snyman, all these laaities are from grey, ne. Maybe we should get that coaching team to coach the other school coaches so we're all on the same page, have you noticed how all the backs do the same basic things well, like passing, left or right, check frans steyn out, same thing they can hit a oke ahlf the field away.
dadiggle
Guest
I do not think its that. He is a wing that is converted to scrumhalf. He is a running 9 but he's outside backs are sledgehammers. He can't box kick but the problem with him start even before he tries. He plants his left foot and that is a sign that he is going to kick and the opposition is picking it up. That thing of telling a player not to pass or to offload is not entirely true as its a natural thing. BokSmart itself tells them to try avoid a tackle rather than running into it. But some players just know one way and that is I am huge and I have been running over smaller guys since I was in grade 1 and its the only way. South Africa sent a flat line of forward runners promoting themselves to receive the ball and a deep line of backs to get the ball behind the forwards. This makes it too obvious which group is getting the ball, and allow defenders to smash the forward runners or slide off on second-man plays to cut down backs. We give too many cues away about who is to get the ball,
Dadiggle it is bothi mate, Hougaard sits on the bench because he can't kick, and Lideke doesn't want him to play his natural game. You can look at every team and make that conclusion.
dadiggle
Guest
That problem my friend is not the way we play but the players we pick.
Fred, I don't expect South Africa to move away from their strengths, all I want is for us to use the top two inches that is all. When we turn over ball let us first look to counter attack rather than go to the first habit of kicking. When we are close to the line vary your attacking line and angle, don't keep on bashing the forward pod. We can't attack with the line out maul from five meters out every time, it is predictable and as we have seen the Stormers and Sharks have been stopped regularly, even illegally and the opposition gets away with it. Last year just about 90% of the 23 tries we scored were either from individual brilliance of from one pass moves, at some point we need to expand our attack, defending against SA is so easy, 90 5 of the time there are no next pass. It is things like this that has got little to do with personnel but everything to do with attitude.
dadiggle
Guest
By picking Jacques Potgieter and Willem Alberts in his loosies, Meyer signalled that subtlety and finesse weren’t going to play a major part they are sledgehammers rather than rapiers. That is meant by predictable. Not the happenings on the field but by player choices.
fredstone
Guest
I don't neccedarily agree with you on that one. A lot of how you play the game is based on the personell you have available to you. There is probably some national mentality mixed in with that kind of blanket statement. So rather blame the what we are and where we're from than how coaches coach. The most intresting stat for me when I look at currie cups is that the bulls have since there inception played in I think close to 60% of the finals and won or drawn about two thirds of those. And that's what it's about ultimately. Now the question is how'd they do it, well by doing exactly what they're doing to this day, not rocket science, and everybody knows how they do what they do so why haven't they figured it out? And that's where Meyer comes in, you don't start to build a team and expect them to just chuck the ball around with gay abandon, because you'll lose more often than not and we'd al be jumping down his throat for playing a game not akin to our traditional strenghts blah blah blah. But then again what are our traditional strenghts? Intresting term that, well maybe we should ask danie gerber, the du plesis, gerrie germishuizen, ray mordt to name but a few if they'd rather play with a couple of big fellows like louis moolman, gert small, flippie van der merwe and vleis visagie or against them. And then ask those big oakes who'd they want at flyhalf, hell you could even ask the backs that and they'd tell you the same thing. And that's our strenght in my opinion. The reason for our bad showing since re admission is more to do with coaches wanting to play a game that they didn't have the players for. And appointing laaities that hadn't coached any serious team. And the public wanting to see wagter who then forced nick mallet to forfeit andre venter and the list goes on. So who besides meyer would be in contention, rassie? Rassie doesn't want to, he's a control freak and he knows it, so, he'd rather sit in the background. Wait I know, brendan venter, bugger, he has the same basic philosiphy as meyer, just infinetly more hilarious and caustic, but briliant, which the average rugby supporter will never pick up on, but ja well fine, let me stop rambling on. One last thought, rugby is not a contact sport, it's a collision sport and usually it gets won by the biggest bloke, ask jonah lomu, SBW and this isreal folau guy. Or should I say ask mike cat, james o'connor or katrakillis?
dadiggle
Guest
lol
Jiggles
Roar Guru
Agree. They're far worse then the Wallabies these days.
dadiggle
Guest
Yet it still destroyed the Kiwi scrum in 2009 with that fantasy!
dadiggle
Guest
The Bulls and SA had FdP who had the ability to kick to the wings. That space opened up for Steyn to kick into and with a guy like Matfield who can take 38 percent of the opposition ball at line out time it WAS a good game plan. FdP left Steyn is exposed and SA looks uncreative. Now we are trying to create a FdP with Hougaardt. He is a running 9 but what good is it running when the outside backs are coming forwards?
jason8
Guest
Thank you mania !! 100% correct.... Heart has never really been a problem for SA teams BUT common sense has been. There is only one time right to kick and thats when there is open space to be exploited.... SA teams are criminally guilty of kicking away good possession, not noticing and exploiting overlaps and many brain fart penalties all over the park. There is definitely a skills gap too... whereas in NZ and Aus they concentrate on accuracy and handling in SA it seems to be all power and aggression. I PRAY that the Cheetahs can keep up the good work with their defense and start to make some serious inroads into this competition and teach the other franchises a thing or two about playing to the situation in front of you. why the Bulls follow such a type cast pattern is beyond me... and why does that pattern seem to become so effective at Loftus ? home advantage ? altitude ? or just increased effort in front of those little belters doing the pom poms on the touch line ? Mallet needs to get involved.... the more i see him on Supersport the more i like him, he talks straight and he has a laser like ability to diagnose exactly where the problems lie. Heineken is not the right coach for now he was the right coach for the after 2007 team and Divvy needed to go through the ranks AC should have cracked the nod ahead of him. So our problems are root stem and leaves... any farmer will tell you start with the soil - its all about development of school rugby and facilities and high quality coaching at school boy level THATS where the changes need to come.
Morning Fred, nice encouraging post, however the manner in which we choose to play rugby is not a cycle it is a conscious decision. Ludeke, Coetzee and Meyer may not be stupid, but are limited by by conservatism. You can't change that, unless they have a change in mind set.
richard
Guest
Even though it's a rugby thread, that "brilliant General Heinz Guderian" was following the masterplan of General (later Field- Marshall )Eric von Manstein,the greatest German general ever IMO.If you doubt me, google the Eastern Front and you will see what I mean.A military genius without equal,including his Soviet counterpart Georgi Zhukov. Sorry,realise it's a rugby thread but couldn't resist.
fredstone
Guest
Boys, I know not why you's are so pessimistically orientated. The last two years or so I've seen a very subtle shift in certain areas. And the picture's looking bleak for the rest of the world. I know every couple of years there's some Aussie sensation from league that's supposed to be the next big thing and that's good for them, but boys we've in the past two years or so unearthed two legends. Johan and Jan. Both are big and strong, have vision and oodles of time. And then we keep on producing your run of the mill monsters at lock, hooker, prop and some huge loosies, sad about Juan Smith though, would've like to se him knock SBW on his ass the third time and see if it had the same effect as Andre Venter had on Jonah Lomu. As for the coaching issues, I don't think it's that bad, ja Frans Ludeke is a bit of a chomp, but check the coaches box and the oak sitting next to him. Naka is doing good things with his limited budget. Ja Daar's k@k ini kaap, mar dit kom al lank. The Sharks, well they buy so much of the freestaters but then they don't know how to use them. And that's cause Plumtree is a pampoen, but ja. Oakes like Jimmy Stonehouse don't get given a chance. Ok so Heyneke, well remember the oak put things and systems in place that took the Bulls from nowhere to super champions. How much will he be allowed to do by Sarfu, well time will tell. If they had not appointed the clown (after this stupid koos from the Lions who squandered 10 million and backstabbed the whole population by turning on the alliance)we would've had a third WC title. Meyer isn't stupid and he doesn't have a snor, so understand that teams have cycles and we're at the start of a cycle, lots of young laaities just starting their journeys and if you look at the Bulls team when Meyer took over you'll find a lot of the same core personell when they beat the reds by what's still the biggest massacre ever. So give it a while the first hurdle has been overcome. Ja Argentina was unsightly, but Steve Walsh and 49-0 came to mind when I watched the game. The oak should be sent on recce selection for the next 10 years of his life.