Pursuit of a championship title cost the Springboks a vital test win against the All Blacks at Ellis Park on the weekend because they abandoned their traditional style of play in pursuit of a holy grail win that was always going to be a bridge too far.
Take nothing away from the All Blacks. They were superb and deserving winners. But this is not a blog about how wonderful the All Blacks are; it’s about how trying to match the All Blacks at their own game is not the way to beat them.
I would go as far to suggest that the All Blacks struck a crippling blow against the Springbok Rugby World Cup hopes this weekend. The Springboks went into the game with belief, and the hollow look in Jean de Villiers eyes after the game said it all – it will take them a long time to come back from this.
A week ago, the Pumas showed the Springboks how to beat the All Blacks. Of course, Argentina does not have the strike power that South Africa possess, and hence the Pumas weren’t able to capitalise on their set piece dominance.
Bryan Habana, South Africa’s primary strike weapon, was also obviously a key player in the Springbok game plan at Ellis Park; and when he retired injured, the Springboks seemed to lose their way a little.
In my view, set pieces are like aircraft carriers. You use them as staging points to set-up your air strikes. You don’t strike from way behind your own lines – unless you have the fuel and the weaponry to do so. The Springboks have strike power which can be used from anywhere on the field – as they showed – but which is not necessarily suited for it.
Several factors played in to the All Blacks hands:
1. The Springboks did not attack with the maul often enough. Yes, the few attempts they made were undone by the All Blacks, but not without warnings from the referee about infringing. Inexplicably, after just a three or four such attacks, they seemed to abandon it.
2. They did not make enough of their superiority in the scrum by turning it into an attack weapon, although the arrival of Adriaan Strauss nullified this advantage to an extent.
3. The substitution of the du Plessis brothers at a crucial moment was mind boggling. The substitutes – as good as Adriaan Strauss is – were not as hungry or fired up as the du Plessis brothers were, particularly in the moment of substitution. Strauss is not the scrummager that Bismarck du Plessis is.
5. The conditioning of the Springboks were simply not up to the running game they tried to play. You do not abandon a structured, slower style of game without paying for it with different stresses and demands on your body and on your defensive structure.
As a result, the Springboks started making errors, dropping balls and losing the line-outs towards the end of the game because they were spent – and then the All Blacks stepped up a gear.
6. Morne Steyn had an average game, Fourie du Preez did not deliver to his usual standard and Juandre Kruger was poor, but I would suggest that’s because they ended up having to play to an unfamiliar game plan.
7. The Springboks have been criticised for their defence on Saturday, but an All Black backline in full flight is extremely difficult to counter even when a team is focused on defence and is fresh – the Boks were neither towards the end.
It comes back to a question I posed in a previous blog about which is more important, a test or tournament? The Springboks decided that a tournament trophy was more important than a test win – even though it was always an almost impossible task.
Possibly Springbok coach Heyneke Meyer is listening too much to the strident voices demanding more running rugby. The Ellis Park test would suggest so.
In trying to win the war the Springboks lost the battle and probably suffered a body blow in the overall “conflict”, which is ironic considering that it was Meyer who said that he’d rather take an ugly win over a pretty loss.
I don’t doubt there’s a few Springbok fans out there wishing they’d seen just a little more ugly.
realnews
Guest
One area where the ABs have improved immensely since 2010 is under the high ball. When SA were beating the ABs in 2008-2009 they used the up-and-under to their advantage but since then the ABs have improved so much that it is now a very dangerous tactic to employ. SA (and all other teams) really need to up their game in this area to compete. Surely it is a relatively simple area to improve compared to other parts of the game. I can't understand why it has taken other teams so long to adapt.
Old Bugger
Guest
CK No worries mate. But, there is an irony to all posts that seek an expansive style for the SB's. From the history of RWC's, except for the '87 and '99 finals where IMO, expansive styles were played and tries scored were the norm, the remaining RWC finals were won on the back of forward orientated, defensive, kick for territtory and boot penalties/field goals, to secure the win. The 2011 game which did produce a try a piece, was in essence, a brutal affair with both sides intent on winning the forward and territory battles mixed with the occasional back line thrust. It sometimes looks like all the attacking and expansive styles are played out in the semi's and come finals day, the mindset of the opposing coaches appears to outline a gameplan that is a forward orientated and defensive style that relies on pressuring their opponents to make mistakes and give up the dreaded penalty. I guess, that's what winning at all costs, comes down to......more the pity really for the one game that IMO, should herald the attributes of such a marvellous and wonderful contact sport, to all other sporting fraternities about how it can be played...as a complete game of rugby.
Colin Kennedy
Roar Guru
Agree with BB, again, this is turning into a habit...
richard
Guest
It's called pragmatism.The RWC is a completely different beast from standard test footy.You only had to look at the last tournament,and the manner in which the AB's played in both the SF and Final.With so much on the line,teams tighten up,and everyone raises their game. Don't expect too much free-flowing rugby come the knock-out stages of the RWC.it's simply not going to happen as there is too much at stake.
mace 22
Guest
Gees wish somebody would inform the all blacks of that strategy. They hardly ever finish a game with a superior possession or territory than the opposition.
Rugby Tragic
Guest
Good for you Colin ...
chris
Guest
I would have look at Juandre's bank account if he chose to be that bad off kick-offs, sometimes you just fall short on the basics, nothing to do with tactics or decision making.
chris
Guest
Oh and one other point. The thing that makes this All Black side so incredibly hard to beat is that they always seem to have two "soft" tries up their sleeve. Obviously you need to stop them scoring, but if you can put points on them in the mean-time that is pretty important also.
chris
Guest
Neither are we going to beat them by sitting back and having them run at us. Moving the ball wider creates space in close (and vis a versa). From memory SA, other than the tries we actually scored, we came within a couple of meters on at four other occasions, yes we should have finished better, but we got four from eight when we needed six. Taking nothing away from the All Black scrambling defence, if we were only a little better we could have done it. It is not like we were conceding points on the counter either. Ironically it was a poor execution of a conservative option that led to the All Blacks third and fourth tries. Work on the finishing, fix the defence, line-out and kick offs and we are golden.
IvanN
Guest
We need better decision making, every time we scored we dropped out concentration and NZ scored. The try to messam near the end was crucial, perhaps we were not as far off as the score suggest - if say willie was able to evade barrets ankle tap and go in for 7, agreed there is alot to be positive about.
IvanN
Guest
We are not going to beat NZ with champagne running stuff. Our best chance would be to apply pressure in the forwards, draw defense in, then go out wide. Its not all doom n gloom though, i think that if bekker can return at lock, burger at 7, goosen at 10, jp at 14 with willie to 15 - then we will be a stronger team, felt that jannie, juandre, morne and zane let the team down a bit. You not going to beat the all blacks if even 1 player is off his best.
Fox08
Roar Rookie
This Saffer agrees with you. If it came down to pure genetics you would see 15 McCaws playing for the unbeatable Scots.
chris
Guest
Look I am not happy with the result, but as long as the boks put in good performances the results will follow. On the weekend we played a excellent All Black side, playing the best rugby they have since, god knows when and but for a couple of moments could have won the game. In the end I'd rather this performance and result than the EOYT game in 2012 or scrapping an ugly win against Scotland in June. Take this performance, build on it, iron out the kinks and the wins will come.
Ivan, I don't think that is entirely correct, we have an inferior game plan, I have never been satisfied with winning the way we have done in the past, I have been warning against this attitude since I joined the Cyberspace in 2009 due to the Lions series.
Lachie I do see it as a deterrent for the style of game we want to progress too yes. that is why I have been against Overseas players from the start.
IvanN
Guest
Once all the emotion of watching an absolute cracker of a test has settled, I feel like we are suffering from inferiority complex. Allow me to explain myself. When the Boks tour Europe every year we go there expecting to win, and when we are somewhat outplayed but manage to pull off a close win against a Scotland,Ireland or Wales - i find that those teams had many fans satisfied with the loss because of how well they played, i feel like its an inferiority complex, like these teams are happy to have come close. We should not allow that thinking into Springbok rugby. We should not be satisfied with this loss, despite playing much better, If we want to challenge NZ for their crown we must remove the okay with a loss ideology.
chris
Guest
I would also have taken a win of any sort, but I think the approach worked and if they work on it, will become the best method of beating all teams. The point you are missing is that they did find space, did put territorial pressure on the All Blacks by running the ball into their twenty two. The things that lost us the game was kick-offs, the line-out and tackling. Those factors would not have been better had we decided not to spread the ball around and should be fixed independently of the attacking game.
Good Game
Guest
Mate we were no different in 2007 for roughly the same reasons..
Lachie
Guest
Colin and BB Following up on the point made by Woodart do you see the ongoing need for the SBs to continue evolving in a more positive direction being marginalized by the growing trend of picking players for the boks who are playing in Europe Surely this effects HMs ability to standardize tactics and fitness levels not just in the SBs them selves but down through the curry cup and super 15 sides Much as I admire Hansen as a coach he does benefit from a centralized contracting system with an accompanying academy and coaching regime which produces off a production line young playes all schooled in the passing running and aerobic skills necessary to play for all the top kiwi sides - the ABs directly benefit from this Will not HMs ambitions noteworthy as they are be undermined by NH styled rugby playes returning to SA to play for the boks - I'm a kiwi but I hope not from what I saw in terms of rugby quality Saturday night
Chan Wee
Guest
" The Sharks have confirmed the appointment of former Brumbies coach, Jake White, as their new director of rugby. White's tenure will be effective from the end of October 2013. The Sharks CEO John Smit expressed his delight at the imminent arrival of the Springboks' 2007 World Cup winning coach at the Durban-based franchise. "We are immensely happy to confirm the appointment of Jake White as our new Director of Rugby," he told The Sharks' official website. "We formed a formidable relationship during my playing career and I am delighted to re-establish that partnership, which is in line with our vision to take The Sharks to the next level. "Jake is an experienced coach whose track record speaks volumes about his ability to rally his team and get the best out of them. We are pleased that he has decided to join The Sharks." Smit also shed light on the role of the Sharks' current director of rugby, Brendan Venter. "Brendan Venter's commitment to me was to drastically change our players' environment which we think he has done with extreme success," he said. "Brendan has no written contract with The Sharks which is a testament to his character and his positive motives in coaching us and we will do whatever we can to keep him involved with us for as long as possible, in any capacity." Further information pertaining to the appointment will be released later on Monday."