Its a topic that’s been much discussed since the last game of the Rugby Championships between South Africa and New Zealand, but I want to have one final crack at the approach South Africa must take in order to evolve their game plan.
Since the appointment of Jake White as Springbok coach in 2004, South Africa has employed a very specific game plan – strangle the opposition up front, bombard them with high kicks just outside their 22, chase hard and force errors.
Play no rugby inside your half and have a solid defence and exit strategy.
It is a basic plan that on the surface suggests there is little risk involved. Until you have a look at the various opponents and how South Africa fared against each of them.
Here are the results of South Africa against France, England, Australia and New Zealand during the tenures of Jake White, Pieter de Villiers and Heyneke Meyer up to last year when the above mentioned game plan was employed.
France.
Played 6, Won 2, Lost 3, Drawn 1
Both teams scored 15 tries
Australia
Played 25, Won 11, Lost 14
South Africa scored 51 tries
Australia scored 64 tries
New Zealand
Played 22, Won 8, Lost 14
South Africa scored 35 tries
New Zealand scored 55 tries
England
Played 13, Won 10, Lost 2, Drawn 1
South Africa scored 37 tries
England scored 13 tries.
I have taken these four teams as they have been South Africa’s greatest challenges in the modern era. England is the odd man out in the statistics above; this is due to the fact that their game plan is very similar to ours.
Our pressure and strangle game has been effective against them.
However when you look at Australia, New Zealand and France, the results show clearly that South Africa struggles with their pressure and strangle game against more adventurous teams.
The fact is you cannot keep defending your line, it is inevitable that teams running at you will find holes in your defence. So providing teams with territory and possession will ultimately provide you with more losses than wins.
You could argue that Morne Steyn and Zane Kirchner have not executed their kicks well and unless you execute this strangle and pressure game to perfection, it is doomed to failure.
If you believe new personnel who will execute the territorial kicking game better will turn the fortunes of South Africa around, then sadly, you are ignoring the most obvious aspect in the failure of this game plan – the opposition.
Yes, those darn guys who decide to improve their aerial ability and actually start learning how to deal with these up-and-unders, teams who use these up-and-unders not only to relieve pressure or set up rucks, but also to counter attack.
Therefore, if you are open-minded enough, you will admit that this game plan is antiquated and has become a liability against Australia, New Zealand and France.
Even with our defensive mind-set we have conceded 2.5 tries per match against New Zealand, Australia and France (New Zealand’s stats being slightly skewed because of 2009).
Conversely South Africa has managed to score only 1.6 tries per match versus New Zealand, 2 tries per match versus Australia and 2.5 tries per match versus France. However France’s statistic is skewed by the six tries scored by South Africa at Newlands in 2010.
I would suggest that after playing the pressure and strangle game for the best part of a decade, we would have pretty much perfected it by now. In other words, there isn’t a lot more that you can add to a defensive game plan after nine years of playing it.
Anything you add to the “strangle and suffocate, kick the leather off the ball and hope they miss it“ game plan will be incremental and hardly noticed.
If these statistics and results do not sway the most closed-minded individual then I am afraid nothing will.
For all these reasons, it is not even debatable that Heyneke Meyer HAS to continue on this path of searching for the ultimate Springbok game plan.
Our nature is to be more cautious, our nature is not to risk the whole farm, most of us will dabble in a little gambling or a small risk high equity portfolio.
So with this in mind, pushing the boundaries further than before is going to take some blind faith, and perhaps a little optimism.
Sure we may lose a few more games (it isn’t like we have been setting the world on fire in the previous nine years either), but this is a journey that we must undertake. We must support Heyneke Meyer in his endeavours to expand our attacking game, even if he experiments a little.
The fact of the matter is, if we want to beat these teams on a regular basis, only by being more attack-minded, will we outscore our opponents. We have only been doing it for a few months, and we are all part of modern society where instant gratification is the only thing we are concerned about.
We must also consider the fact that Australia may be going through a glitch, but they will be back, sooner than you think.
England is improving, their win against New Zealand at Twickenham last year a stark reminder that they are also evolving under Stuart Lancaster.
Maybe this time, it will be worth sacrificing short-term satisfaction for long-term gain.
Harry Jones
Guest
Great points. We selected a power-precision team for a 42% ball-in-play game. Then kept the ball in play 48% of the match, had to invent structure in chaotic scenarios, with a lot of broken play.
Firstxv
Guest
Its selecting the right players for the gameplan. Meyer has moved to the new style with largely the same side from the old. Thats why the shortfalls were highlighted so obviously for this match. The fitness levels are not something the boks are used to with this style and although the AB's were also knackered theyre more used to it and have trained for it, and were obviously planning on making the fitness count in the last 20, as they do most matches. The stretched defences showed as well, the Messam try highlighting a very disorganised defence where no one really knew what their exact role was, compounded by the poor decision that got them into that situation. These are the issues that need sorting, and theyll either resolve them using the same players- essential for their core roles, or seek others.
felix
Guest
I see where you're getting at,challenging the AB in their own game you need to be brave in your selection & pick players,forwards who are extremely mobile,fit & smart,boks 2007 had all the pace & power alround except for maybe Os Durandt who was there for his scrummaging,so true I agree but look at SA rugby atm,no Juan Smith,Schalk Burger or Skinstad who could run down centres & wings after they initially missed them first time,bok rugby is in a bit of a trough as far as special players go,there is a reason why Louw & Habana are still important to boks even if they are overseas,nobody is better locally,if you recall sharks & Bulls were dominant in 2006 - 2007 thus picking a bok team was easy,Jake had half the job done for him,how could you go wrong with Burger,Habana, J.Fourie,FDP,J.Smith etc all playing better than any opposition they meart,lets face it Boks dont have a Dagg,Read,Messam C.Smith etc all playing better than anybody in the world.
Firstxv
Guest
The other thing is the game is about the merging of individual skills. All players need to be able to tackle, pass, run and even offload if possible, especially if they want to play the expansive game. Touch football, 7's teaches a lot of the individual and ball carry skills so these guys should have been doing this sort of thing since they were kids...yes even the biggest of the locks and props. No longer is rugby a game for specialists.
felix
Guest
Firstxv I agree,take a look at JDV game so many people were saying he was too old & couldnt run into gaps,I've been saying it for very long JDV is probably the quickest centre to play the game at 12,before the plan was never for him to run into gaps or offload,it was to crash & secure the ball preventing turnovers or mistakes that mite come like an intersept,HM has atleast learnt & becoming a very fast learner though he can & will play the forward oriented game plan in future.
Firstxv
Guest
In the one match it seems that match fitness, individual and team defensive abilities, and key decision making have all been highlighted as areas the Boks need to improve on if theyre to match the ABs on a consistent basis. How this is realised into the heart of South African rugby will be interesting. In short...its a lot of work. The players must develop these traits at the sxv level at least and it isnt obvious at that level that theyre missing, such is the calibre of the SA sxv sides. But they must be, because theyre apparent at the higher level. Mind you, its only apparent during the final 20 minutes vs the ABs- against other sides the Boks have been finishing the stronger side. So when looking at it that way, the margins are actually very slim, and all thats required is some attention to detail- upper the fitness levels, define the defensive patterns and strategy further. The decision making is likely to come through sharper fitness levels and attention to accuracy of execution alone. SA need to be quicker learners of the game though. Eden park 2010 should have been enough to tell the boks their methods were wrong and only 3 years and 8/9 losses later have they done anything about it. Since 2010 the boks have stubbornly stuck to limited gameplans, though generally effective against most sides though given the calibre of their sxv sides that should automatically be the case. In crucial matches theyve been found wanting, needing certain things to 'go right' before extracting an all important win...refs and red cards examples of that not happening. So the learnings from this match are crucial- they now get to look inwardly for answers and create solutions from there rather than focussing on external factors beyond their control. So while they might learn from this test and work on the required areas, they also need to learn how to learn faster, identify when things arent going right and adapt, seek out all possible alternatives rather than re-applying a once successful formula over and over again then wondering why its not getting them anywhere. Internationally, the boks are very slow learners in that respect. That will be the difference between no. 2 and a shot at a regular no.1. As in business gaining a competitive advantage is the difference bwtween winning and losing and the old adage of 'we dont do things that way'- a strong one in the Boks pro era, needs to be regulated so it doesnt impair their ability to remain competitive, stay on top of things. Options can't simply be ruled out for that sort of reasoning. Its old school thinking and stubborn and keeps the side from being on the edge of improvement.
mace 22
Guest
He is and he's got a son called richie.
felix
Guest
No Spies is not a rugby player,I'd rather have a fatty who can play rugby,he makes meters going backwards,how is a ruck inspector going to help us at the breakdowns,he is increasingly getting softer on tackle situations,Barret would of run straight through him,no thanks to basically all the bulls players,De Allende looks better than Serfontein & he isnt even a bok,clarification & picking players with an allround ability,I think prop is the only position where you can be a great scrumager,clear rucks that are close & tackle can get you to a world cup,Spies is useless,last time he competed vs Vermeulen he got smashed so badly I felt pain in my eyes watching.No spies no no.
Firstxv
Guest
Ben oz and France are suffering from player drought presently but for sure what gave them both many big wins was their ability to move the ball from far out. France have scored some incredible long range tries.
Dave H
Guest
I hope more SA fans feel the same as you BB and from talking to the inlaws that is the case, at least in Sharks country.
Harry Jones
Guest
True
Popeye
Guest
God might be a Kiwi?
Crackle
Guest
Yes I did notice those, quite surprising really from a rough looking front row character like Hore. I thought he had a great game for a gentleman of his age :-)
Ben.S
Roar Guru
'I have taken these four teams as they have been South Africa’s greatest challenges in the modern era. England is the odd man out in the statistics above; this is due to the fact that their game plan is very similar to ours. Our pressure and strangle game has been effective against them. However when you look at Australia, New Zealand and France' Well this doesn't make a great deal of sense. SA had the wood over England from 2004 through to 2010 where there were basically only 2 close games. This happened because England were in a poor spiral through Robinson and Ashton just like we SA were from 1999-2003. Since the 2010 game the matches have invariably been very, very close. And Australia and France adventurous? When have you ever seen France play adventurous rugby? SA have struggled against them because they play similar games, not different styles. England don't play a similar style to SA either.
Harry Jones
Guest
France named squad: Forwards: (16): Thomas Domingo (Clermont), Yannick Forestier (Castres), Benjamin Kayser (Clermont), Dimitri Szarzewski (Racing-Mtro), Nicolas Mas (Montpellier), Rabah Slimani (Stade Franais), Alexandre Flanquart (Stade Franais), Yoann Maestri (Toulouse), Pascal Pap (Stade Franais), Sebastien Vahaamahina (Perpignan), Thierry Dusautoir (Toulouse), Bernard Le Roux (Racing-Mtro), Yannick Nyanga (Toulouse), Fulgence Ouedraogo (Montpellier), Damian Chouly (Perpignan), Louis Picamoles (Toulouse), Backs:(14): Jean-Marc Doussain (Toulouse), Maxime Machenaud (Racing-Mtro), Morgan Parra (Clermont), Camille Lopez (Perpignan), Remi Tals (Castres), Mathieu Bastareaud (Toulon), Gael Fickou (Toulouse), Wesley Fofana (Clermont), Florian Fritz (Toulouse), Maxime Mermoz (Toulon), Maxime Mdard (Toulouse), Sofiane Guitoune (Perpignan), Brice Dulin (Castres), Yoann Huget (Toulouse).
Harry Jones
Guest
No, Spies is a leaper at the back of the lineouts and a big sprinter. We have plenty of lineout options. Arno Botha is the best sub for Vermeulen. Spies cannot or does not offload or link.
Harry Jones
Guest
Here's an unpredictable, fast and tireless Bok team: 15 Gio 14 JPP 13 JdV 12 Frans (kicker) 11 Habs 10 le Roux 09 Cobus 08 Burger 07 Kolisi 06 Louw 05 Alberts 04 Eben 03 Coenie 02 BduP 01 Beast
Jason, agree pretty much with all of that. I think Spies could be more effective in open spaces, but apart from being athletic does he have the necessary skills? I think Kirhcner and steyn just based on their decision making alone should be replaced.
jason8
Guest
BB.... i agree with you on this. Its the way forward and a few tweaks will be needed Ie: fitness levels and correct players to play the faster game. I also had no problem with this loss as they guys left nothing out on the field. It has to be said that maybe chasing four tries was a bit too ambitious and maybe focusing on the attack/ defense balance is what we should be trying to achieve EVERY game, the rest will sort itself out. Back to the players, Kirchner, Steyn, have been surprisingly better than i thought under this expansive style but still think we should now be looking ahead and saying we need more attacking players in general in the back row and the backline. Funny enough i caught myself wondering whether Spies would have enjoyed this game ( im not his biggest fan in the tight exchanges)... his pace would have been crucial in the wide defense too. Alberts is a great last 25 min sub let him come on and bash holes in a tiring defense. All in all i would rather lose like we did than being bloody boring.
mace 22
Guest
This talk about teams needing to up their fitness is all of a sudden in vogue. Where has it been over the last four years or even longer. The all blacks have been the fittest team over the entire duration. You'd think that teams would have come to the realization that they needed to increase their fitness levels years ago. I also don't think that that alone is the panacea for teams. The all blacks get exhausted as much if not more than other teams ( due to their uptempo style ), but what makes them specail, is their thought process doesn't deminish as their body tires. This is an area that can't be taught it has to be developed from a young age and through their entire playing career.