Apart from learning South Africa have no breakdown coach specialist and how seems to make a big difference, what else did we learn from the Springboks’ recent Tests against Ireland?
In no apparent order, allow me to ramble, ruminate, rant, and rave.
First, let us all acknowledge the Springboks have lost their mystique as a ferocious, dangerously physical team. Sébastien Chabal said once nobody is a real Test rugby player until they have experienced the terror of touring South Africa. But those days are gone.
The Irish were not, in any way, not even for a minute, intimidated by this vintage of the Boks. The Irish blindside flank Rhys Ruddock threw his opposite number Siya Kolisi around like it was WWE. The heir to the hardman jersey of the hardest Bok ever, Frik du Preez, desert runner Jan Ellis, rabid tackler Ruben Kruger, Juan Smith, and ‘Bone Collector’ Willem Alberts is tossed around like a rag doll?
Various Bok forwards were cradled in Devin Toner’s arms as newborn lambs in the first Test. The only Boks who retained physical superiority in contact were our three young, promising locks (Eben Etzebeth has missed only two tackles in 2016, in all matches, and the quality of his tackles was superior) and cannonball winger, Ruan Combrinck.
Only about 20 minutes of ultra-physical, straightened, defender-bouncing, and pacey rugby (out of 240 minutes) followed by 20 minutes of aggressive tackling, finally, managed to save the series.
Warren Whiteley is good at making tackles, but not necessarily in mastering tackles. Pieter-Steph du Toit carried the ball, but missed far too many tackles. Most of the Boks’ tackles were passive, until the last stanza in Port Elizabeth.
The Bok tacklers in the first two Tests looked like they were making too many decisions, a sure sign of overcomplicating instructions or dueling coaching messages or youth. At Ellis Park, Kolisi looked as if he was doing algebra when he approached a breakdown.
Lesson: Bok rugby will never be good rugby if physically dominated.
Yet after each Test, coach Allister Coetzee and his captain, Adriaan Strauss, focused on words like “clinical” and avoiding “silly” penalties and sticking to our structures. What structure was it that was governing our breakdown?
The Boks’ breakdown approach is a real mess. This is not a criticism of one player. But losing 26 turnovers and winning six is an indictment of South Africa’s breakdown regimen. Francois Louw won three turnovers, but where was his help?
Twelve Irishmen won a turnover, only four Boks did likewise. South Africa’s breakdown coach, Richie Gray, was not retained by SARU. So, he went back to Scotland. Gray had helped Heyneke Meyer turn the breakdown into a strength for four years after it was a weakness for three.
So, the Boks have Matt Proudfoot (a set-piece guru) nominally in charge of the breakdown, but Johann van Graan leading all attack issues and Mzwandile Stick (his first 15s coaching gig) in charge of the no-turnover backs, and Jacques Nienaber ruling the defence.
What was the unifying theme? When arriving at the tackle point, was Frans Malherbe thinking of catching an offload, cleaning the tackler, preventing the Toner choke, or just standing guard for Faf de Klerk?
Is that an attack (van Graan) or breakdown (Proudfoot) instruction?
Looking at the England-Australia series, it looked like Eddie Jones had his team operating like a low-slung tank at the breakdown when on attack, but often committed only one or two English defenders when Australia had the ball. So, 13 or 14 strong English defenders were realigned at each breakdown. Decisions were kept simple.
Arriving at a scrum or lineout offers simplicity; set pieces can be rote learning. But breakdown decisions are massive in today’s game, and the matrix includes different body positions. The Boks arriving at the breakdown looked at sea, except for Etzebeth, Louw, Jaco Kriel, and Whiteley. The Bok backs never really even competed over the ball.
Lesson: The breakdown needs a real specialist coach to simplify arriving players’ decisions and body heights.
But wasn’t this series going to showcase a new Lions-style rugby? Well, we won with defence, increasing kicking (at Newlands, the ratio was 14-34 kicks by South Africa versus Ireland; in Port Elizabeth, the ratio was reversed to 28-18), accurate goal-kicking, a physical onslaught at Ellis Park, and one-off runners.
Lions played well, but not as lions. Strauss loitered at first receiver. Faf hoisted box kicks, with mixed success. Elton Jantjies never took it to the line, preferring to hold and pass inside (for one fortunate try) or launch a pinpoint cross-kick pass to JP Pietersen.
Dozens of times a Boks runner was surprised by the ball and shuffled a few feet before being tackled backwards.
Lesson 1: The big change has yet to be seen.
Lesson 2: The coaching mismatch was a chasm.
Joe Schmidt was like a driver of a Yugo keeping his ragged-out car in the race until the final lap against a McLaren, because Coetzee had no pit crew, or they were all on different schedules and nobody had brought spare tyres.
When you select no-cap or low-cap players, you don’t know what you will get. Some front, others don’t.
Jantjies was thoroughly outplayed by the Irish second-string flyhalf over 215 minutes. In fact, of all the head-to-head position-by-position advantages held by Ireland in this series, Paddy Jackson’s edge over Jantjies was the largest gap, with the possible exception of hooker (where Coetzee spurned the in-form Malcolm Marx and European star Bismarck du Plessis, both of whom would hardly play the passive, polite, pedantic choirboy style exhibited by the new Boks skipper).
A new (nice) captain leading a newish team coached by a new coach and a backline coach newer than new. Up against a well-drilled, communicative, intentional team led by Rory Best and Schmidt.
Combrinck, of course, looks like a man who likes Test footy. He said he would catch a cannonball for his country. He kicked like a cannon, ran like a mule with his bum on fire, and smiled the whole time.
Faf also looked like a Test player, but will need to sort his kicking. Whiteley has a winning temperament and these players have a knack of finding a way to get involved at squeaky bum time, in close games. Steven Kitshoff marched on and won a penalty in his first scrum and was not overawed.
On the other hand, Lionel Mapoe struggled to find the pace of international rugby, we had no backup hooker to trust, Lwazi Mvovo was out of his depth in defence, and Duane Vermeulen has been eating too many croissants.
So, winning 2-1 (even with the shame of losing the first ever Test to Ireland in South Africa) is so much better than the reverse, and ‘winning close’ is a skill all its own.
Maybe this is one thing to remember. Because the Rugby Championship shapes as a battle for second place against Australia, and how often have we won in Australia recently?
On the positive side, first phase play improved throughout the series. Exit kicks hit a nadir in the second Test, in the first half. From that point on, the Boks got out of their 22 relatively easily.
We learnt that having two big hard wings (Pietersen and Combrinck) is a necessity. We learnt that our midfield is still a mystery. Jesse Kriel must wonder what transformed him from wunderkind to the lost boy.
In contrast, Conor Murray and Jackson seamlessly formed a smooth duo and the Marshall-Olding combo clicked many a time.
Most of all, we learnt that this was a false dawn. There is much to do before the Rugby Championship in order to avoid humiliation.
Mortdale Mike
Guest
I agree with you about HM - now he is gone many are already commenting on the good things he did such as bringing in Richie Gray for breakdown work. He blooded Lood de Jager as well, and at the World Cup the Bok locks were highly regarded. He did cling to players past their best but by this year they would all be gone anyway. And I for one, will miss his passionate celebrations of any Springbok try. Like any coach, he has good points and weak points, but overall, I think he had a better pedigree than Alistair Coetzee. The problem with throwing out a coach is that you lose all the wealth of experience that he has gained. The advantage is that the new coach may see things and bring in changes that needed to be done, but you will lose in other areas.
Bakkies
Guest
Josh Strauss is a big loss. Strong ball carrier who gets over the gain line consistently, makes a load of tackles and strong in the lineout. Whiteley benefited from his departure from the Lions. Strauss was the Lions captain when they got relegated. Whiteley took over his role in the backrow.
Bakkies
Guest
http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/international-rugby/the-amazing-story-of-how-an-irish-lions-star-ended-up-being-hunted-by-apartheids-most-dangerous-assassin-34841713.html Interesting interview with John Robbie in the Irish Indo
RobC
Roar Guru
All I would like to add about ridding HM. Watch Koochie in the next few years
RobC
Roar Guru
haha Chivas, you got me there man. Thanks for your pointers. If you dont mind, I'll continue the banter. re infatuation with SA. I guess it may seem that way, because I am fascinated with the various changes they are making. But they are not the only one. But tbh the country Im most "infatuated' with is ENG - their institutional development, programmes and total comment to grassroots before anything else. But they do not innovate much, in terms of rule making, technique and game play. NZ. They are on top of the heap. The main thing they are adding to the game is the success for others to follow. The good thing about the NZ system, it is easy to understand, because they follow best practice in institutional development and enterprises. They will only innovate on occasion to maintain their leadership Aussie? badly organised sporting system. Which is sad for a country known for institutional excellence. But pretty good for a 4th rung sport, and is generally saved by migrants. #RUGEXIT? SA. They havent made the "big decision" that NZRU made in 2000/2001 - to get everyone on the same page. Until then, it is up an down - and like Aus, they will depend on the "Great Man" to get things right. Whilst their kitchen is somewhat dysfunctional, the have the right ingredients: - They have the power that NZ is missing. - They have the fast fields that ENG is missing. - They have pride of "the nation" that Aus is missing. But they are encumbered by a social and a provincial divide. It is narrowing, but resisted by the apple carts. The first thing driving their innovations is the basic need to become #1. As a contrast, in Aus, its really only ARU & Co, who needs to become #1. The real country, doesnt mind or care. The other thing driving is their market. Its big enough for them to decide what they want to do. Create their own Varsity. Change Currie: add other countries, change schedules, tell FOX and SANZAR what to do. ENG, NZ, AU and other countries do not have the incentive or environment to make such big changes. Having said all that, whilst SA will not sustainably dominate until the institutions are well organised. They had a really good opportunity this year to reach the top for a year or two.
Suzy Poison
Guest
Biltong. 3rd in the world is crap if you expect to number one. 3rd in the world is pretty good, if you can tolerate that this is the best the Boks are gonna be in the next 4yr cycle. But I have noticed you writing about lowering your expectations. he he We all want what's best for the Boks. But apart from 95 and 2007( when we Boks didn't play either Australia or the way to final) I can't remember this "invincible" Bok period? Maybe 2009, that was a good year for Bok rugby. It didn't last long. The AB's were so quick to adapt to the Bok kicking game. It's 7yrs later and we haven't moved on.
Ryan
Roar Rookie
Harry - chuckled @the WWE reference. Good thing tombstones and DDT's are not the order in rugby hey!
Chivas
Guest
Thanks Biltong. It is sad that in my lifetime we may never see the epic battles between SA, the BIL and the AB's that we grew up with. It feels like a distant memory.
Chivas
Guest
Wonder what the world learnt from that. Innovative selections. Good thing Hansen was such good mates with HM. Probably what made him such a great coach and gave the AB's the edge in the last two RWC's :-). Seriously though, thanks for the article. Hope you keep doing the wrap for Springbok games. You are always am excellent read and I enjoy the to and fro between you all as well as hearing BB's contribution. You know he says he doesn't care sometimes... but that is like quitting on your kids. There are time you might like to and you may even say it... but truthfully there is more chance BB will become a mad soccer fan than him not caring about rugby :-).
Chivas
Guest
RobC, I was just toying with you. I don't really object to anything you say or have said. I do think you are infatuated with SA rugby to the point you make odd claims about the influence of SA rugby in regards to NZ and the world. SA rugby is and has an important place in the world, but calling them THE innovators of rugby and the like is the stuff of fairytales. If they were THE innovators of rugby, you'd think that would mean they would be ahead of the bell curve. Your knowledge and interest in SA rugby is admirable, but you don't seem to have that same respect and knowledge of other rugby nations. Certainly not sufficient to be suggesting that countries like NZ take their lead with respect to rugby from SA and that is the way you come across. NZ has it's own domestic rugby structures and style. We always have and it is not built around South African rugby. It would be odd if two rugby nations who have a long history and for whom it is a national sport have not taken certain ideas from each other and adapted them for their own. But that is not what you claim. Rather you seem to claim that SA are leaders in innovation. For the record everyone innovates and learn from everyone. The difference between you and me is you think SA is at the forefront. I don't think that has been the case for at least the last 30 years. More important than whether SA has or hasn't been as innovative as you or I believe, they have failed to adapt and evolve. Yes SA got within 2 points in Auckland. They also got flogged in SA. They have been on the receiving end of it ever since they returned from isolation with the exception of a single purple patch when the Bulls dominated SR and the Bok marched over top of the AB's in both NZ and SA. And my reference to the SA juggernaut which is going to dominate world rugby in a matter of years. This was your suggestion not mine. And that I also question even with all the innovations and close losses. Do they have potential. Sure they do. Will they fulfill it. I for one don't share your confidence regardless that I wish it were otherwise. There is nothing great about being on the top of a pile with only the odd sporadic challenge to your supremacy. That is why I wish it were otherwise and the fact that it is a national sport in SA, meaning they get it,, something NZ does not share to the same extent with any other country.
Bakkies
Guest
Nick, Goosen is contracted to Racing till 2021.
Harry Jones
Expert
Yes, and Meyer did quite a few things that are now taken for granted, like starting 19-year olds at 10 in tests against NZ (Goosen and Pollard), trying Kriel at 13 (it had some good results, some poor). hire R. Gray as BD coach, and select controversial players (now they are assumed to be no-brainers) like Willie, Duane, and Eben.
Harry Jones
Expert
great post, BB Punch Drunk is a good nickname
Harry Jones
Expert
Yes, from time to time we talk rugby on here!
OJP
Guest
Yep, I really enjoyed it too ! cheers fellas (and SP)
RobC
Roar Guru
The other is SA's elevation in 2016. That prospect disappeared with Heyneke Meyer. Even with the old fogies and unused talent, SB were the closest team in that RWC to beat them. People forget NZ won against the "hapless" HM's Boks by two points. Whilst he made grave mistakes last year, HM is still the best coach for SA for these times imo. A bridge between the old and new. Now SA will pay for demanding retribution for HM's losses, without transition. I dont see it getting better soon, esp after watching G1 vs IE. Its a pity, because SA now has the talent pool to beat the best. They even have one or two SR teams who are now able to play with the appropriate template to help achieve it. Would probably have been three if EJ coached WP/Stormers as planned. Im not sure how long its going to take for SA to bounce back. But Im pretty sure they will, stronger than ENG for example. The bellwether being the Bulls, because the Lions and Sharks are already on the programme. Stormers needs to find the coach to "replace" EJ.
Harry Jones
Expert
hahahahah
RobC
Roar Guru
Chivas, I made two points about SA Rugby, one of which you had objected, if memory serves, and that is SA is the most innovative Rugby nations in the world. As it stands today, there is no change in that: - Key parts of the Varsity rules started by them, are now being trialed by everybody. Including NZ. - SA has always been the innovator. The current scrum format, lifted lineouts - A whole host of everyday Rugby we take for granted started from SA. - The new innovation is the extended domestic season to run concurrent with SR. Whilst this is not new to NH, this is new to SANZAR
hopalong
Guest
Good summation Harry.
ScrumJunkie
Guest
Great article and great comments. So nice to read blokes actually talking about rugby...