In the last game of Rugby Championship 2015 we saw team that has evolved magnificently play a team that has failed to evolve.
I remember reading somewhere that rugby in Argentina was introduced by a group of Afrikaans South African expats in the early 1900s (perhaps someone here can confirm?). This origin story seemed about right in my mind as the Pumas played a very forwards-orientated game for a long time which mirrored the traditional South African game: Strong set piece, kicking flyhalf.
Which is why in times past I felt the Pumas had little chance against the big three southern hemisphere teams: Argentina playing SA’s game against South Africa was like, to use a poker analogy, drawing to a lower straight. And the Wallabies and All Blacks had more than enough practice against South Africa to beat the Pumas handily.
However, since 2011, the Pumas have evolved a high tempo, short passing game that floods their players through a narrow attack, keeping the ball alive.
Often, their line breaks come through a short pass to a runner aiming at the close space on either side of the defender defending the player with the ball. The first try against South Africa came from a short inside pass to the blind wing running at this space.
And where the runner gets brought down, the Pumas look to pop the ball up off the deck to the pack of support runners on the ball carrier’s shoulders. Very difficult to defend. Very effective if executed correctly.
Which is not to say that the Pumas have forsaken their traditional strengths. They won a number of scrum penalties off the Boks and the option of a drop goal by Juan Martin Hernandez to widen the scores’ gap with 20 minutes to go was astute.
Add to this harnessed ferocity at the break down, and it’s clear to see that the Bok’s loss to the Pumas had a sense of inevitability to it. If not this game, then soon.
This is probably the best I’ve ever seen Argentina play. It’s been a few years in the making (with a few near misses ala a draw last year against the Boks) and it is my sincere hope that Argentina continue to develop their games to even greater heights.
Now consider the Boks’ attempt to add another dimension to their traditional game: Heyneke Meyer’s (soft option) solution in the form of a play-making fullback and a running flyhalf.
Based on the Wallaby and All Black paradigm, a successful backline requires two play-makers.
Australia usually opts for a 12 that could play flyhalf. This allows flexibility in attack via rotation of 10 and 12 or it allows the option of 10 shoveling the ball on to 12 who can then make play-maker decisions in a wider channel, away from loose-forward traffic.
The All Blacks have opted for a second play-maker at 13 with a battering ram at 12. defence rushes up? Shovel it to Nonu to set up a new phase and hopefully get ball recycled before the defence can set.
Defence sits on its heels a bit? Skip 12 to Conrad Smith who will create space for the wing on the outside or feed the 15 running from depth. Also, the All Blacks have the option of having 15 (Ben Smith or Israel Dagg) step into 10 for variation.
Compare this to the Bok composition: Pollard has shown very little by way of creating try-scoring/line-breaking opportunities for the players around him.
His options are: Kick, run himself or pass on to 12/13. Compare this to the half-break and offload that Dan Carter managed in the build up to Nehe Milner-Skudder’s second try.
The players outside of Pollard are not play-makers either. De Villiers may have been once, but time spent running crash ball at 12 for most of his career have dulled those instincts. Similarly, De Allende is more of a runner than a creator.
Wille le Roux is probably the only player with acceptable play-maker credentials in the Bok setup. And he can be hit-or-miss. Additionally, at 15 he stands a little far removed from the action, he needs to get involved more regularly either at 10 or in the wider channels.
A game-plan based on grinding out scrum and maul penalties has merit if the defence can keep the opposition from scoring.
Ticking over 3-pointers puts pressure on opposing teams and forces them to become more desperate making them vulnerable to counter-attack. However, this style of play does not lend itself to chasing a game.
Here, you need tries and by getting the composition of the back-line wrong, the Boks will always struggle to chase a game (evidenced when the All Blacks went ahead with a few minutes left on the clock two weeks ago and this last game against the Pumas).
I’m not sure that swapping Lambie in for Pollard would remedy the situation. Personally, I feel Meyer missed a trick by not investing more in Elton Jantjies, who is more of a play-maker. Unfortunately, there do not seem to be any play-maker centres available for the Boks.
It’s probably too late for the Boks for this Rugby World Cup. However, afterwards, the new Bok coach will need develop a plan to evolve the Bok game plan. Hopefully by adding a more balanced back-line to compliment the usually strong forwards.
RobC
Roar Guru
Congrats Pot! Well deserved. What do you feel about Emerald RWC prospects. Apprehensive, gung ho, optimistic, etc?
Derm
Roar Guru
Great win by Argentina. I was not surprised completely because I think the Pumas have had this win inside them for some time - yesterday, they got a chance to play and strike. With the three tests played yesterday - Aus v NZ, Wal v Irl and SA v Arg the World Rugby rankings had a bit of a shake-up during the day. Australia's win against NZ saw them jump into second spot and move SA and Ireland down one spot each to 3rd and 4th. Then Ireland's win in Wales moved them into second spot for the first time ever - above Australia and South Africa. And then Argentina's win - whilst not moving them up the rankings, brought SA down below England into 5th spot. Rankings table now looks like: 1. NZ 92.72 2. Irl 86.89 3. Aus 86.84 4. Eng 85.40 5. SA 84.37 6. Wales 82.94 7. France 79.74 8. Arg 79.17 Next week's set of tests will no doubt bring further changes to those current rankings. Australia - if they lose - would likely hold onto third spot, since an SA win in Buenos Aires would only improve them to 85.15 (14pts or less). Ireland - play Scotland in Dublin, so no points to be gained for them with a win, but plenty to lose if they get turned over by the Scots. England play France at Twickenham, and victory would give them a minor points boost. A loss would likely move them down a spot below SA.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Missed the live game and haven't commented on this one as I'm still reeling from the result. It's not just the win, it's the ease of it. Warning bells were there from the start of the match even. And for the first two matches Argie hardly fired a shot. Surreal.
NaBUru38
Guest
Remember that half of the Pumas will play for the Super Rugby team. You are warned.
wardad
Guest
Congrats to the Pumas and a great day for their fans ,and I really feel for our SA friends a bit of a shock for us all .
Bakkies
Guest
The Boks also got out of gaol against the Welsh and they got their revenge last November
RobC
Roar Guru
Thank you sir. I was merely trying to make sense of the game. Cos I was thinking it was gonna be a big Bok win! Man, was I really off. btw if White goes to Arg, I hope he returns our Aussie players back from Montpellier! :p
Mushu
Roar Pro
Also, more kicks and tackles by pumas corroborate your jakeball call. Fair play to you sir! white should seek copyright compensation and possibly seek asylum in Argentina :P
RobC
Roar Guru
you can check on my game blog Mushu. Or here: http://www.sanzarrugby.com/therugbychampionship/match-centre/?season=2016&competition=214&match=2871 You'll find by game's end, it was 60% Boks, 70% in Pumas territory. I think the stats are different in 2H after the four tries were scored. Kicking myself for not recording the half time stats, as I normally do. I dont think Pumas followed Mr White's manual 100%, but I think they certainly photocopied more than whats allowed in copyright law haha
Mushu
Roar Pro
Your comments have forced me to reevaluate my opinion! I think I felt that the Argentinian defense was not as dominant as say a bok defense circa 2007 or a Brumbies defense circa 2013...however, I will freely admit that this is based on impression rather than backed by stats. Similarly, I would need to check a possessions and territory stat to check if the Argentinian game conforms to the hallmarks of Jakeball (i.e. Boks with the lion share of the possession and the Pumas with more time spent in opponents' territory) but I'm failing with the Google. Never the less I definitely agree that the Pumas deserve more credit for engineering the win! Boks, in my opinion, lacked desire, but they were effectively punished and frustrated by the Pumas.
RobC
Roar Guru
Mushu, I believe all points you mentioned are all ticked. I would just add set piece. Which one did you think Pumas missed? To round off the characteristics you mentioned. I would summ three tactical principles with Jake White - leaving aside the man management bit: - Set piece power - Rucking esp in defence: conceding penalties instead of tries, and flooding / slowing the rucks. - Score any kinda points when you're in the attacking half. Tries first, then penalties within 55m radius, or drop goal All boxes checked leading to four tries However, my point with respect, is: - This is not just about the Boks attack being bad. - This was more about Pumas playing really well and gave Boks little / no chance - Also an equal portion of expecting a poorer Pumas team. If there was a couple of things: - Maybe not use Koch who was playing injured..? - Defence. Boks lost because of poor defence against an excellent Pumas attack. Not attack. If Bok was happy to take penalties instead of going for tries in 1H, then they must also ensure Pumas do not score 7 pointers. They were trading 3s for 7s. After the 4th try. It was too late.
Chinmay Hejmadi
Roar Guru
Very well summed up, Mushu. The Boks have some exciting talent in their backline, but they seem to be caught between two stools - to play their traditional game or to be more expansive (or even emulate the All Blacks) and they end up doing neither properly. As such, they don't seem to be the finished product, but I think with a more well-thought-out gameplan and vision for the Boks, they could improve. Perhaps by 2019, but that's a long long way away. I would still stick with Pollard though, but I feel De Villiers has to go. And they could possibly accommodate Lambie in their backline too by shifting Le Roux out to the wing and playing Lambie at 15. A backline of Pollard, De Allende, Kriel, Le Roux and Lambie will be very exciting, albeit a bit unbalanced. Let's see what Meyer does.
Mushu
Roar Pro
My understanding of "Jakeball" is a game plan with the following characteristic: - Very resolute defense. This is the cornerstone of Jakeball. The aim is to asphyxiate opponents, frustrating them into mistakes that yield point scoring opportunities. - Prioritise territory over possession. Forcing mistakes is the main method of scoring, so the team needs to be within kicking range to Capitalize. JakeWhite coached teams have no issue with handing over possession to opponents because they back their defensive structures to force point scoring opportunities. - Take all points on offer. Pressure is built on the score board which means go for goal when ever possible. 60 metres out? No problem, unpack the francois steyn/Jesse Mogg/ nic white siege gun. Just get points on the board as quickly and regularly as possible. - tries come from opponent mistakes. - its better to give away 3 points on defense than a try. I'm not sure that the Pumas checked all of these points, but the certainly built up considerable scoreboard pressure that forced errors from the sometimes floundering Boks. As a side note, I think the biggest contribution that Jake White makes to a team he coaches is not the Jakeball blueprint, but rather winning hearts and minds. White's first action at a new team is usually to connect the team to the traditions and winning history of the team. This involved bringing back 95 world cup winning prop, Os du Randt when he coached the Boks and involving Steve Larkham when he coached the Brumbies. White is also ver good at understanding what makes players tick. Francois Steyn and Ben Mowen are examples of White extracting the best from his players. Which leads to a comparison with Heyneke Meyer. I think Meyer is a tactically and technically astute coach. He devises clever plays and understand how the game works. Where he seems to be failing though is securing the hearts and minds of his players. Jean de Villiers alluded to this in his post-match comments about working on the mental side. A coach with technical expertise can always be brought in to consult (ala eddie jones in 2007), but its difficult to get a consultant to secure the team's investment on behalf of the head coach...
Chinmay Hejmadi
Roar Guru
Yep. Especially last year's test match in Argentina which they lost 34-32 or something like that. It was similar to yesterday's game : Pumas scrummaged strongly and won numerous penalties and outfoxed the Boks for the first hour or so. Unfortunately they ran out of steam in the final quarter there, which I expected to happen this time too, but their advantage on the scoreboard was just too great this time around. Hats off to them, this should galvanise Argentina after a few poor results. Semifinal run in the World Cup again?
Mushu
Roar Pro
Ah! Seems my hazy recollections of the article i read on the origins of Puma rugby was off base. From other comments, it seems there was a 1960's connection with Bok rugby. Thanks for setting me straight! Regardless of origin though, i think its's fair to draw comparisons on style of play of the Pumas and Boks in years gone by. Seems (in my opinion anyway) that these styles have diverged in recent years, paying dividends for the Pumas.
superba
Guest
It had to come sooner or later . Since the RC started the Boks have got out of jail twice against Argentina - once with a late penalty by Morne Steyn and once with an intercept try by Francois Steyn.If memory serves me correctly . Both games in Argentina.
RobC
Roar Guru
Hi Mushu, Pumas played classic Jakeball, in the Shark Tin. For the first 60', there was no cycle speed for the SBs, whilst Pumas were lapping it up on attack. Also, giving up penalties instead of tries. As a result: - Old men Pumas flankers outfoxed the Spring bokrowers. - Boy mountain Lavanini out beasted Eben. Thankfully for SB, Lood also playing
superba
Guest
It went further than that . In the 1960s South African coach Izak van Heerden went to Argentina for four years coaching Argentinian rugby . The Pumas used to send a team to SA regularly to play the Junior Springboksin the 60s - games I used to watch .
RobC
Roar Guru
Im with you Hoy. Pollard is the man, along with Lambie. Pumas had a good game, and SB underestimated their attack potency And a 101 careless handling error by SB, as they were chasing the match.
mace 22
Guest
My god the worlds gone insane. Someone punch me in the face and wake me up. Either I'm in a nightmare or I've died and gone to hell. If the RWC was going to be closest one yet, what does yesterdays results do to the comp.. '