A bit harsh on Jantjies I feel. Based on (admittedly limited) viewing of Super Rugby, Jantjies is the only playmaker 10 in SA. The rest are either kicking 10s or crash ball 10s. Jantjies passes the players around him into space and on occasion beats defenders himself (note: beats, not steamrolls) and then sets up the players outside. Butch James is the last time SA had a passing flyhalf (but he couldn’t beat a defender worth a damn, unless it was route 1) For the SA backline to create tries, they need Jantjies at 10.

Goosen seems leaner than the last time he played at 10 for SA. I hope that means that he won’t be as brittle at this level and actually manages to have an extended, injury free run. I like the idea of having a THIRD playmaker at 15 for the Boks (the second being Faf in the mold of the playmaker 9, Fourie du Preez, which worked well for the Boks under Jake White) who can rotate into first receiver on later phases or offer a deep out-the-back/counter-run option. I also like the idea of having a siege gun kicker at 15 (in the mold of Frans Steyn).

Leave the backline composition as is for mine. You need a crash ball runner (Like a Nonu did previously for the ABs or TK for the Wallabies) for situations when the defense rushes up. de Allende fulfills this role and adds (somewhat limited) creativity on attack occasionally. Mapoe is a balanced runner/distributor in the wider channels. There were moments in the match where the centers seemed to combine well (that break out from behind their own tryline springs to mind). I think they need at least the rest of the year to see if they can develop that instinctive combination that the best center partners develop.

The only chink is possibly Habana. But he’s a classy player, he’ll come right with a couple of International games under his belt.

Fair call on the skipper. Strauss seems somewhat lacklustre as a leader. As much as Jean de Villiers was a great servant of the game, SA have really struggled filling the leadership boots John Smit left behind upon retirement. Whiteley seems to effortlessly inspire the players around him with his mere presence. I agree that he needs a crack at being skipper.

We were debating whether Barrett should start at 15 since I assume Cruden will start at 10 when fit. Barrett vs anyone else besides as Cruden’s understudy is another debate altogether and perhaps one that is much easier to settle in Barrett’s favour as pointed out….

tactic doesn’t seem to work that well for Willie le Roux…FB stands too far removed from the action for it to be a consistent solution I think…

Think I saw a headline somewhere saying that Barrett is likely to start at 10 this weekend to give Cruden a break. Perhaps irrelevant to this discussions as we’re debating Barrett starting at 15.

I think the costs of having Barrett on field starting outweighs the the benefit.

These costs include:

1. Shifting the best 15 in the world out of position. Also include other positions that will need to be juggled to fit Barrett in. Incumbent 14 may have to be shifted to 11.

2. Losing the ability to finish strong by losing Barrett on the bench

3. Losing the ability to cover multiple positions from the bench. Are there players that can be pulled into the 23 that will fill the gap on the bench that Barrett will leave?

4. Whose spot will Barrett be taking? Assuming all players are fit and available, is Barrett providing more X-factor and defensive cover than the 14 options out there?

I do agree that this is all theoretical and that Barrett needs to be given a run starting to fully quantify the cost vs benefit. My gut feel (based on little empirical evidence) is that it’s best to play Barrett off the bench though.

What is interesting is that the Ford – Farrell combination seems to be working for England at the moment. 10-12 playmaker combination is a configuration that Australia usually runs with great success, so it’s a little unsettling seeing England (through Aussie Eddie Jones) running the same configuration AGAINST Australia and yielding results while Australia chooses to ignore the need for a second playmaker in the backline.

Just have a look at Heyneke Meyer’s Springboks circa 2015 to see how limited a 1 playmaker setup can be…

I suspect the thinking in the AB camp is that Barrett is best of the bench, playing the last 20 when he has tired defenses to run at / manipulate with his playmaking ability.

Also, it’s arguable that better players keep him out of a starting berth: Ben Smith at 15. Could possibly move Smith to 14 to make space for Barrett, but why would you move the best 15 in the world to his second best position to make place for anyone?

And I’m not sure that a 15 Barrett 14 B Smith combination is better than a 15 B Smith 14 Naholo/NMS combination (I know that NMS is out atm).

Barrett is delivering the goods from the bench. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.

“I also think it’s where Pierre Spies should have played his international rugby, not at 8.” only problem with that is that Spies has never dominated a collision in his entire international career. He’s great in open space, not so much in traffic. Prone to running laterally rather than taking on defenders head-on.

I’ll be honest: I assumed the team listed here was for satirical purposes. Author’s responses have made me reconsider this opinion (though I’m not quite convinced that the author isn’t having a poke at Roar readers). Just in case the author is serious with this team:

Consider:

Every time the ball goes dead/is knocked on, the Wallabies will surrender possession to opponents. Every. Time.

Every time the ball goes out of the field of play, it’s opponent’s possession. Every. Time.

Does having an extra 2 loose forwards on the field make up for the possession lost on set pieces? Probably not due to:
– Diminishing marginal returns
– Loose forward fatigue due to being scrummed into the deck at every scrum.
– Being cleared out at the break down by opponent’s bigger second row players and not having the protection of your own heavy weights.
– Flagging morale due to being owned by opponents in the tight phases of play.

Backline is also problematic. Successful backlines in recent times have at least two playmakers. One in the halves (almost always the 10, with Fourie du Preez being the no. 9 anomaly in recent times) and one in the centres (toomua/Beale at 12 for Aussie set ups and Conrad Smith at 13 for AB set ups). Arguably, the lack of a double playmaker was the undoing of Bok backlines under Heyneke Meyer. But that’s a debate for another day.

In the proposed backline above, the only playmaker is Foley. The rest are bashers (who have their value in being able to buckle the defensive line and create more space for the playmakers) or runners (who work best playing off a playmaker). With only one playmaker, defensive teams will be able to shutdown this backline eventually by applying pressure to Foley, since he (Foley) won’t have the option to move the ball to a playmaker in a wider channel (where they may be more space). This backline needs another playmaker (CLL, Beale, Toomua) at 12 with a hard running option (kuridrani for mine, based on experience, but Kerevi will probably get the job done too) at 13.

Ireland to top their group I think. France to blow the tournament wide open by pulling off their one brilliant game per RWC and beat the ABs.

Argentina will probably “surprise” Ireland and lose to Australia in the Semis. France mentally go home after their big quarter final result and lose to SA.

Probably SA vs Australia in the final as mentioned in the article.

If the French don’t beat the ABs in the quarters, the ABs have the tournament in the bag.

Suzy, at the start of the year, I had ABs, Boks or England winning the RWC.

My argument being: ABs are always favourites and any team that wants to take the Bill from them has to be able to beat them. At the start of the year, ABs had only recorded losses to England and the Boks since 2011’s RWC.

I will freely admit that this logic is a little flawed in that in both 2003 and 2007 the winning nations did not have to beat the All Blacks to secure the trophy. However, I felt that contenders for the cup couldn’t leave it to chance, they had to have the constitution to beat the ABs.

For this reason I discounted (and still discount) Ireland and Wale’s chances to win the Bill. Since the start of the year, I add Australia to the pool of “could win it” and leave the Boks in more for historic reasons than based on recent form.

I discount France’s chances of winning due to the erratic nature of their game play and results. To win the RWC, a team needs to be able to string together 7 wins on the trot. I’m not sure the French have this in them. The only impact I can see from France is a QF “upset” against the ABs (another iffy call considering the French contested the last RWC final). Which would throw the tournament wide open in terms of who could win it.

All of my arguments here are very shaky. But that’s a given in the game of predicting the future.

I’ve just realised that I’m predicting one of the previous winners to win it again this year. Hardly earth-shattering. 😛

Only four SH teams that get any regular airtime on the telly. It’s hard to gauge where the other SH teams are if you haven’t seen them play. That said though, I’m banking on at least one upset (preferably against a Northern Hemisphere team!) from one of the Islander teams. I’m especially thrilled at the prospect of Tim Nanai-Williams combining with Alesana Tuilagi in the back three for Samoa. Huge TNW fan…

No.

Not having the tenacity to hold onto a lead (in both the games against the Wallabies and the All Blacks) says mental frailty to me. However, I do agree that the current iteration of Boks seem to be lacking a more developed game plan on attack. Once the first avenue is thwarted, there’s no evidence of plan B. Perhaps Meyer should check if Eddie Jones has a gap in his schedule for say the next few weeks?

Genia was the best in the world in his position for a season or two…that has to count in his favour…

To be fair, im not sure that the Wallabies would have won with the A team on the park from the get go. ABs very seldom lose two in a row and virtually never lose at home. So, its probably safe to say that the AB did not win just because they were playing a B team. There’s no way of knowing for sure, but the stats lead to belief that regardless, ABs would have won over the weekend though probably by a smaller margin. A likelihood that probably figured strongly into Cheika’s decision to play a trial team.

I attribute the Wallabies being in touch most of the first half to the generalisation that the ABs usually start a game slow.

As to the A team still copping it from the ABs a couple of points:

1. The game was well and truly lost by the time the A team was on the park fully. 30 minutes left ornit, there was no coming back from that.

2. Mentally, the players must have realised that they were going into the game with a trial team. While the players getting a chance are likely to try their hearts out to influence the coach, once the possibles left the field it there would be little incentive for the probables to push hard.

fair point Etienne. Though, we’ll never get strictly similar circumstances with which to test different flyhalves. In some regards historic bias from previous performances play a part. I feel hernandez has performed with distinction at 10 and deserves a run at this RWC in the position (assuming he wants to play 10).

A similar argument can be made for Quade Cooper. I noted before the game that the odds were stacked against him getting a “chance” to stake a claim for 10 against a first choice AB team (Nonu at 12) thirsting for revenge in NZ. Point is, Cooper’s is historically too hit-or-miss which is overlookable at Franchise level but not at international level. He could easily punish a second tier side but could be a liability against a top 5 team that is a real contender at this year’s RWC. And getting carded as a 10 is a huge no no.

“If you get your history and tradition right at the beginning, it’s significance resonates through the ages” This is probably the cornerstone of AB success. Jake White recognized it and tried to connect the Boks and Brumbies to their history and traditions when he took over the coaching role for these respective teams.

I often wonder how much of the All Black’s sense of inevitable victory stems from the black jerseys they all don. When the physical player is spent, does the sense of not wanting to tarnish the jersey that he is a temporary care-taker of drive him to greater heights? Consider the game against Ireland in the end of year tour in 2013. Ireland had the All Blacks dead to rights, and yet the men in black still manage to burglar a victory. Possibly a desire to not be the first All Black team to lose to Ireland?

In the same vein, the psychological impact of facing the black jersey must count in the All Black’s favour. I would be interested in the ABs win stat in not-black vs their win stat in black.

‘I think it is disgraceful behavior by our Kiwi friends across the ditch” Cooper’s actions brought this sort of attention to himself. Perhaps a little more thought before engaging in off-the-ball antics next time? And to be honest, booing is not limited to Cooper. All southern hemisphere crowds are disrespectful to kickers. Shows a lack of class and a need for some soul-searching imo 😛

“Is this run on side close to our best side for the RWC? I don’t think anyone knows including Cheika” i’m fairly certain that Cheika knows this is not his best run on side. His approach to this game is as you you said, more of a “selection trial” than testing the best side. It’s probably a little unfair to Cooper that the first look in he gets is against a fired up All Black side thirsting for revenge. But, who better to test a player’s mettle against? Cooper could, in one game, play his way into the frame.

Similarly for Speight, Kane Douglas and Palu. I’m hoping it’s a cracker game and that the men in Gold manage a historic win!

“they were watching a side newly dedicated to doing the hard yards.” this is a succinct summary of what has been missing from the Wallabies over the last 5-10 years. I think Cheika deserves a lot of credit of grinding a group of show ponies into workhorses. However, this weekend is the true test of the “new philosophy’ mentioned in the article. Will the Wallabies revert to sitting on their laurels, believing their own hype? Or will the stick with the commitment to do the hard, dirty work first?

I have a sneaky suspicion that this is the case…that White-Toomua-Giteau are best combining for the last 20. However, the combo deserves a crack at a start to prove otherwise. If it falls a part at least we will have a clearer idea of how the bench should be managed. Perhaps White has matured under Cheika? maybe the Giteau element provides leadership and stability? If something has changed now ‘ s the time to test.

winning the Bledisloe would be great. But, there is a bigger trophy on offer this year. The Wallabies owe to themselves and their fans to do everything in their power to win the Bill. Even if that means sacrificing the first realistic shot at the Bledisloe in years to fine tune a run at the Bill. In my opinion anyway.

The centers that will get serious game time (i.e. knockout stages) will be Nonu and Smith starting with Malakai Fekitoa on the bench (Since he covers both 12 and 13). Barring injury, I expect Smith to play every minute of the knockout stages because of the massively influential role he plays in organizing attack in the wider channels and in marshaling the defense. Nonu will probably start ahead of Fekitoa by virtue of his years of combination with Smith and the fact that he offers limited cover from the bench because he’s more of specialist 12 (though he has played at 13 for the ABs).

With this in mind, the 4th center in the squad is largely included to pummel minnows and rest/cotton wool the first choice centers. SBW will excel against the minnows so can’t really fault a decision to include him in the squad (if this happens).

Dagg’s inclusion (again, IF this happens) also makes sense. In a knockout game I expect the back three to be: 15. Dagg, 14. Ben Smith 11. Savea because in a situation where a loss means exit from the tournament, you want the most experienced players on the park. Players who are not likely to get rattled by the occassion (because they’ve done it all before) and who could auto-pilot what they should do in every situation that arises. This is Dagg ahead of Nehe Milner Skudder or even Charles Piutau for that matter.

A similar argument would make a case for Dan Carter’s inclusion. I felt he had a zero balance game this weekend past. Sure, he messed up a couple of restarts and missed a few at goal. But he also got a half break that set up a try. I think Hanson should hedge his bets by giving Carter the first 50 minutes in the games leading up to knock outs and Sopoaga the last 30 to gain experience/combination with the players around him. Should Carter regain his confidence and consequently his ability to dictate a game, he’s the man for the knockouts. If not, Sopoaga will hopefully have the experience to take up the reins.

the last quarter of the game on Saturday showed the potential of a 9-10-12 axis made up of White-Toomua-Giteau. This axis has to start against the All Blacks in Bledisloe 2 for the following reasons:

1. To assess if White-Toomua-Giteau are the first choice combo against the best team in the world fired up and hellbent on revenge…? or is this combo just great at closing out games?

2. to give White more game time to assess if he has shaken the habit of brain fades under pressure and if he can replicate the bustle he brings in 20 minutes in a full 80 (or 60 minutes).

Rewatching the game, I found that I hardly noticed Kuridrani. If there’s one thing the Wallabies’ backline must work on this weekend, it’s figuring out why they couldn’t get a hard running, tackle busting 13 more opportunity in space.

As to the back up half-backs: in my mind, halfbacks should be played in their Super Rugby combinations. The experience of playing and training together all season long should allow an instinctual awareness of where the other player is when quick ball is on. This was not evidenced in the Phipps-Foley combination (probably to the detriment of their chances of starting at the RWC). This idea is also a further argument for White-Toomua. Genia-Cooper should be given an opportunity to see if they have more/something different to offer. Assuming fitness, they should get a crack in the last quarter against the ABs and game time against Fiji and Uruguay in the group stages. Possible a quarter against Wales and England too.

Cheika should leave the forwards as is. Any Wallabies pack that manages that scrumming performance against the Blacks should be considered for knighthood, lineouts be damned.

Fortunately, there is a week for the current 8 to work on lineout combinations. No new personnel required. Keep this group together for as long as possible imo.

The only concern I have is the lack of proper number 8. Having the top two fetchers in the world tearing into every contact point is gold. Not having an extra forward at the back covering kicks like Reid or vermeulen do is potentially exploitable. If the dynamic duo (Hooper obviously gets designated as “Boy Wonder” here) are ripping into defense, there’s no need for Fardy to be in the defensive line too. He should drop back and offer his back 3 rucking support should they hit contact while running it back or an extra pair of hands to field box kicks/up-and-unders.

Now that the ABs have seen this team at work, it comes down to how this group will evolve for the Bledisloe decider. Here’s hoping the men in gold are up for it.

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 😛

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.

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…