Teaching old 'Boks new tricks

Jake's rugby is "expansive"? Jeez......

What team do you support Daniel? Just curious.

Get that man a bells! Yes, you saw through my intentional omission. But goes without saying the ABs score tries with their backs. The point I was trying to highlight was more that a notoriously ball-in-hand team like the ABs still have 3/6 top try scorers backs and 3 loosies. The boks were 4/6 but for all intents and purposes call it the same split in the top 6 or so. It's not as if our tries were all scored from rolling mauls. (Now the real point is actually that our top POINTS scorer was Morne Steyn - that's a more telling stat... and not one that in any way supports my argument unfortunately...)

Let's not forget (and I'm from Pietermaritzburg, so as Natal as they come) that Natal only made the Currie Cup in the last 30 years. So before that Natal style rugby was hardly something the rest of the country played. Possibly WP rugby, as a benchmark for something with flair, compared to the laager style up north. But there is a rule of thumb that when the coach is a Soutpiel, the rugby is more expansive (and we tend to win a bit more - like two world cups...), but when the coach is Afrikaans, the style we play tends to reflect that. I think Heineken is a bit different though, as he has coached in the UK, and Rassie is pretty forward thinking...

"Ben Smith scored 8 (!!), but then after that Read, Sam Cane and Messam (loosies all)." Slightly misleading, Aaron Smith & Savea scored the same number of tries as Cane & Messam.

Please let it be true. Let Sias somehow become the Wallaby ten. He is, absolutely and thoroughly, a mentally weak player. His bro is better. They both played sublime rugby together iin 2011, then he had some serious wobbles. All fine, which player doesn't right? Except Sias was dropped and then spat the dummy in a big way. So he seems to have found some form, but for a team (like the Cheetahs in 2011) that wasn't expected to win much. So he plays well in that sort of set up. But make it known that he s expected to win the game, and he falls to pieces. No, Matty T and Quade (as much as I don't feel Quade is the right option for tight test rugby) are both much better options. For my money, MT is sublime, and I would swap any of our 10s for him. He is Henry Honiball. Hard as nails and tackles like a demon, can run it up, and THEN he's a kicker, but he picks himself based on everything else, rather than kicking. So him at ten, with Beale, who can slot it (remember his 55m kick in Bloem to take the first win for Aus on the Highveld in 30 years, in 2012?), and Nic White, who can also slot it. Sweet. You don't need a fragile oke like Sias...

I think Heineken was starting to get comfortable with Lambie, but he's injured and yes you are quite right Colin, he has failed to inspire in the green jersey. He was looking quite good under Jake for the couple of games he played before he got injured. He and Reinach seem to pair quite nicely. Now that is one omission I don't understand...

Well, except for the fact that SA is the only team that has in fact taken the no 1 spot a few times from the ABs, however briefly. Since the rankings began in 2003 Aus has not ever, yes that's correct, has never held top spot. And we have held it twice since 2007, so we are in fact (statistically speaking) improving. So by your logic if this style of rugby is a relatively new development (and I will take your word for it, being only 39 and only having played provincial myself), then we have become better since adopting a structured style. I personally don't agree though, as if you look at the rugby we played last year in the RC and on the end of year tour, it is a myth that the boks only play ten man rugby. The ABs have, ironically, started playing a much more structured game in the past two years, and in the RC last year they kicked far more than the boks and ran far fewer metres with ball in hand, boks pd was +86 vs ABs +87, and tries scored 23 vs 24. Our top try scorers were Habana, Le Roux and JdV (3 a piece), followed by Kirchner (2). Then come the forwards, Bissie, Alberts et al. By comparison, for the ABs, Ben Smith scored 8 (!!), but then after that Read, Sam Cane and Messam (loosies all). So not sure where the perception comes from that the boks STILL only play ten man rugby. It just isn't factually so.

Lambie's injured, but to be fair he has failed to inspire except in the Currie Cup final last year - so HM's options are limited, but I suspect you aright - HM plays favourites and I'd put Goosen in that favourites. So far in my book Goosen has been all hype and no action but I just want the best ten in the job and if that turns out to be Goosen, well and good - but yes, we have no good tens or nines to speak of and you can't win test rugby without getting those combinations right.

Disagree that is part on the DNA. It never was. The point I was trying to make is that the Boks for over half a century played their natural game which was the same as the ABs style. Then in came 10 man rugby and the defensive mind set. Somehow it became all about being a tough, physical guy defending the wagons. Time to get back to the ball in hand style or the Boks will always be the No 2 or 3 and not respected for their style of game. Rugby Union must be entertaining and exciting to watch and play or it will eventually wither on the vine.

Morne du Plessis was a terrific player and Captain and a great guy. Just a natural born leader.

Depends on the refs. If NZ continue to be favored, I think they'll win it.

I agree with you fredstone. Last years RC could have gone differently with just a few percentage issues. Denying NZ a 4 try bp and earning one in NZ (not saying we should have won, just reduced NZ by one and increased SA by one), would have meant going into that final game just needing a win, rather than five points. Boks play tighter more structured rugby, rather than loose NZ rugby, and job done. So it was closer than the final points standings suggested. Progress. A 2% improvement this year, on last years performance, gets the job done. That's not accepting mediocrity, but rather having even judgement. A wise senior banker once told me he viewed someone being overly self-critical as being as bad as being overly optimistic or self-congratulatory. And he was right - both are bad judgement and both lead to bad outcomes. One (over-optimism) leads to lack of action, whereas the opposite leads to changing those things that shouldn't be tampered with. I think king Solomon was the dude who had a courtier stand alongside him and, when things were bad the courtier said "this too shall pass." That makes sense obviously. But what is less intuitive was that when things went exceptionally WELL, the same courtesan said "this too shall pass." Too avoid arrogance, ego, pride getting in the way. Why is this relevant? It is better to be cautiously optimistic than speak of a new "golden age dawning" based on one performance or two. Just ask the poms...

Cheers mate, and best of everything for your son. You mind name dropping so I know who to look out for in the near future? ;)

In that sense, and this might be an unpopular thing to say but keo argues this in his book, you might argue that Harry viljoen was just ahead of his time. At least he tried to break those mental chains. Personally I'm not sure. In corporate culture you have "institutional memory" or DNA. You can tweak it and enhance it but you cannot overhaul it, not without going through a seriously rough patch for a good while. Look at the investment banks. And will the SA supporter base sacrifice at least two or more seasons just to try play a different game? And lose to Wales three times in a row after only ever having lost once? And not getting past pool stages in the RWC? Quarters even? Good luck with that. Personally, I like the structured play that is our DNA, because when it does work, the game opens up, the backs are anything but underutilized and it's the sort of rugby that wins World Cup finals anywhere, provided we get that far. Imagine trying to reign it in and play tight all of a sudden... It almost lost NZ the World Cup. I wasn't stressed for a second during the 2007 final. And all stats supported the win. Half the penalties the poms tallied up, min handling errors, line outs won and stolen, scrums, etc., all just good solid RWC finals rugby. Predictions for the weekend anybody?

In the French club season that bears no resemblance to test rugby maybe. But just as Pienaar was European player of the year a couple of times but just isn't the right tool for the starting 9 berth and has been poor, morne will (and did last week) be solid under Heineken. That's why I don't necessarily buy the kockott koolaid. He played well at the sharks and still was never considered the best choice for the bok berth, except by the most ardent sharks supporters (and I fall into that category). But I was never outraged he wasn't the bok 9. I do think he should be given the opportunity mind you, but I would still reserve judgement as undoubtedly being excellent in the European comps does not translate. Nor does being second choice. The French like flair and... well, clearly not much else, based on last week's kak-by...

Yes

Because Goosen has been shocking this year, and is only just finding form. Hm has made very clear he views Goosen (as he was pre-injury) as his future first pick. But he's had some shockers, and most importantly some shockers with the boot. Exactly what you don't need in a ten. Let him pull another game or two off the bench like last weeks and he'll start. I wouldn't start with him for tomorrow's game. All he needs is to shank a few, get rattled again, and we will have another gaffie.

SANZAR schedule the RC not the IRB.

Great post. Looking forward to seeing Serfontein go at 12. He's a big game guy I think