SH Intensity in the 1st 20 mins

The first 20mins in todays SA vs. ENG match was just another example of how a NH team gets blown away early on by a 3N side beginning the match with great intensity.

Why is it that 3N sides can bring this intensity, this raw aggression and the NH can't?

There are heaps of examples be it today's match, IRE vs. NZ in the 1st test this year, the first lions test in 09, the first lions test in 05, ENG vs. NZ in RWC95 etc etc.

What is it??? Is it just that these guys are better players? Not really, when these guys go to Europe they are never the same as when a Bok/AB jersey is put on... sometimes a few weeks after last representing them.

Are they bigger and nastier as some have said... again not really, today ENG pack was 10kg lighter per man... 1kg per man does not make a big difference. Hartley is just as big as Bismarck etc.

For me I think its 2 main things...

Firstly, pride in the shirt. Don't get me wrong, to represent ENG, WAL, IRE, SCO etc will be the pinnacle of a players career in the NH... but esp. in SA, their is a little fanaticism about the boks. The guys who test seem to always front up, always play like its their last test match, like its a cup final. These guys know their history too.
Not sure if many are aware but the boks actually have a initiation ceremony for new caps... a serious thing. All the players in the squad are present and they receive their caps in front of all their family and peers... its a big thing and it shows how much being a bok means to those who are lucky enough to be ones and those they represent.. South Africans and particularly, the Boere. Its also run by the senior players, not the staff, nor the union.
Many a time they are handed their caps, their jerseys by past greats, old school coaches, people who really inspired them, contributed to their journey to becoming a bok.

I just don't see the same sort of passion with those in the NH in terms of on the field displays (please don't take this as an insult... its just an observation).

Secondly, match strategy and mentality.

Whenever I see NH rugby the games are very much a chess match, its quite slow, teams look to build a score via points then go for it... in the 3N its just manic, they go from the off beyond full intensity.
In todays match when SA had the ball you had guys acting like jet bombers waiting for their time before striking... they take huge run ups towards receiving the ball so that they hit the ball and then the tackler at full speed. ENG on the other hand take the ball at best at a light jog.

The JRWC match between SA & ENG this year is a good example. ENG were favourites and only needed a win to go through... SA needed a win and a 4try bonus point. After a tryless 1st half SA went all out guns blazing... they had penalty kick opportunities to build a lead but didn't care, they went for the corners, for the trys every time... I bet many in ENG were shaking their heads saying bad call etc "you should get your 4 points and then go for the 5th late on", but they did it and are a good bet for the cup. ENG late on with 10 mins left and 14 points down or something decided to take the 3 points rather than kick to the corner. It was probably justified in a rule book somewhere but those in the SH tend to rip up the rule book and thats why they have won 6/7 RWC in 25 years.

The one side I do see hitting good line speed in the NH is IRE, otherwise everyone seems to be as bad as each other... and if you look at IRE performance in the last 2 6N... they've scored tries in <20mins in 6 matches in both tournaments combined... ENG & WAL were the next best at 3.

In summary, you can't breed passion and intensity, its either there or it isn't but take that out and I don't think there is that much between the 2 hemispheres. Until the NH begin to match the SH in this department however I feel that they will never overcome their SH rivals esp away from home.

Bull. Wal, Eng & Ire matched the oppo for passion. The difference is technical skill - handling and tactical nous (and some self belief). For example SA thrashed Eng 1st half (25-10) but were 2nd best 2nd half (11-17). It could be argued that Eng got back into the game with grit & determination (the NH definition of passion). Tell Ire they lacked passion - they had NZ pooping themselves until the final seconds. When the NH can match the SH for rugby skills they'll beat them.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Bull. Wal, Eng & Ire matched the oppo for passion. The difference is technical skill - handling and tactical nous (and some self belief). For example SA thrashed Eng 1st half (25-10) but were 2nd best 2nd half (11-17). It could be argued that Eng got back into the game with grit & determination (the NH definition of passion). Tell Ire they lacked passion - they had NZ pooping themselves until the final seconds. When the NH can match the SH for rugby skills they'll beat them.

Agree totally. Skill and composure under pressure. That's the difference.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Bull. Wal, Eng & Ire matched the oppo for passion. The difference is technical skill - handling and tactical nous (and some self belief). For example SA thrashed Eng 1st half (25-10) but were 2nd best 2nd half (11-17). It could be argued that Eng got back into the game with grit & determination (the NH definition of passion). Tell Ire they lacked passion - they had NZ pooping themselves until the final seconds. When the NH can match the SH for rugby skills they'll beat them.

Its quite simple . Once the NH stop talking up the SH and calling them big boys , step up blah blah blah then they'll win . at the moment they go into games thinking we're facing superior opposition and i know its probably generalising but its clear even on these forums that ,thats the prevailing view. the NH teams rarely face the SH as equals and unless that barrier is broken they wont win consistantly. They might win one or two which they'll celebrate like its christmas but its not enough.England of 03 didnt go into games looking to scalp anyone. They went in there full expecting to win because they believed they were the best. Now all we hear is how we're going to scalp the big boys, or get their respect and mouthing off from the likes of Hartley (who incidentally was shown up again by the immense Bissy) NH teams need to stop asking for respect and take it .

Bullsbok wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Bull. Wal, Eng & Ire matched the oppo for passion. The difference is technical skill - handling and tactical nous (and some self belief). For example SA thrashed Eng 1st half (25-10) but were 2nd best 2nd half (11-17). It could be argued that Eng got back into the game with grit & determination (the NH definition of passion). Tell Ire they lacked passion - they had NZ pooping themselves until the final seconds. When the NH can match the SH for rugby skills they'll beat them.

Its quite simple . Once the NH stop talking up the SH and calling them big boys , step up blah blah blah then they'll win . at the moment they go into games thinking we're facing superior opposition and i know its probably generalising but its clear even on these forums that ,thats the prevailing view. the NH teams rarely face the SH as equals and unless that barrier is broken they wont win consistantly. They might win one or two which they'll celebrate like its christmas but its not enough.England of 03 didnt go into games looking to scalp anyone. They went in there full expecting to win because they believed they were the best. Now all we hear is how we're going to scalp the big boys, or get their respect and mouthing off from the likes of Hartley (who incidentally was shown up again by the immense Bissy) NH teams need to stop asking for respect and take it .

No. They expected to win because they were the best, and hence believed it. Confidence comes from consistently playing skillfully. It's the egg before the chicken.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Bull. Wal, Eng & Ire matched the oppo for passion. The difference is technical skill - handling and tactical nous (and some self belief). For example SA thrashed Eng 1st half (25-10) but were 2nd best 2nd half (11-17). It could be argued that Eng got back into the game with grit & determination (the NH definition of passion). Tell Ire they lacked passion - they had NZ pooping themselves until the final seconds. When the NH can match the SH for rugby skills they'll beat them.

Its quite simple . Once the NH stop talking up the SH and calling them big boys , step up blah blah blah then they'll win . at the moment they go into games thinking we're facing superior opposition and i know its probably generalising but its clear even on these forums that ,thats the prevailing view. the NH teams rarely face the SH as equals and unless that barrier is broken they wont win consistantly. They might win one or two which they'll celebrate like its christmas but its not enough.England of 03 didnt go into games looking to scalp anyone. They went in there full expecting to win because they believed they were the best. Now all we hear is how we're going to scalp the big boys, or get their respect and mouthing off from the likes of Hartley (who incidentally was shown up again by the immense Bissy) NH teams need to stop asking for respect and take it .

No. They expected to win because they were the best, and hence believed it. Confidence comes from consistently playing skillfully. It's the egg before the chicken.

you know what , believe what you may.

I agree with tthe OP - the intensity of play and speed of play in the first 20 mins of the SA england game by SA was something Engladn could not nmatch - thats where the game was won

I didn't see the second half but it looks like SA didn't have the same intensity, which wasn't a surprise considering they played the first half like a tornedo and they're not small men.

fa0019 wrote:The first 20mins in todays SA vs. ENG match was just another example of how a NH team gets blown away early on by a 3N side beginning the match with great intensity.

Why is it that 3N sides can bring this intensity, this raw aggression and the NH can't?

Nonsense. Wales start with great intensity and score a try in a few minutes! Then Australia grind back and win.

It's not about NH "can't". It's about react to the other team and adapt and stay strong in the mind and trust each other.

anotherworldofpain

and before yesterdays game... the ave. time this season (in 6 tests) when Wales scored their first try of the match..... 43 mins.

Yesterday when WAL & IRE actually scored earlier it kept them in the game till the every end. Just for example.. AUS ave. in last years 3N (against better opposition compared to the 6N) was 29mins... the year before it was 13 mins.... the 3N teams always come flying out of the blocks.... generally the NH teams do not.

Its not about confidence and skill..... skill isn't running hard and with intent... for most of the games both ENG and WAL were happy to take the ball at jogging pace... you're not going to cut through these teams with a 2 step run up.

It's all about energy available at the beginning (the combined total of 15 men and the bench) and how that finite energy is managed in the course of 80 minutes.

There are different concepts about how that is achieved and obviously that means there are many versions of how best to expend finite energy throughout an 80 minute game. That's the chess bit and, in general, the NH sides use a markedly different blueprint to the SH version.

NH teams reserve much energy for the up-close combat - the huffing and puffing bits in the middle of the field and the defending of their lines against the exuberant non-ending attacks by the SHers.

SH teams use energy in packets of blistering speed designed to unsettle, disorganise and tire the opposition. But those packeted surges need rest periods too so it's just a matter of when you use them most effectively to gain the edge, gain the scores and then defend those scores.

Remember I'm only dealing in the generalities of how the 'style' of SH rugby competes with the NH version...the detail will always be blurred and more complex. But to continue, perhaps the reasons why mostly the SH version of energy expending holds sway over the NH version is what each version gives to the elusive spirit in the whole deal - adrenalin.

Adrenalin is the extra freebie of energy (the virtual energy booster if you like) - it doesn't come from nutrition or fluids or tough training or superior sprinting speeds or naturally quick hands etc. It's the chemical response to overly excited senses (the fight or flight deal).

Because the NH like to play a more meaty, heavyweight boxer kind of game, they have very little recourse to the extra energy reserves of adrenalin. So their energy dries up as the game wears on and their brand of rugby doesn't really excite the spirit version that much to keep them going.

SH version of rugby, on the other hand, is specifically designed to call upon the booster adrenalin often. They play a fast game and in the process of playing it their bodies respond by producing adrenalin and that in turn hightens the senses - faster resonses, sharper eyes for angles, openings etc. More alive to the areas and the possibilities of space (fight or Flight! )

There is actually a lot of science involved in the disparity between NH and SH rugby.... the NH just picked the wrong version!!!

I think you mean SA intensity, not SH.

Wales and Ireland had good 10-0 and 7-0 leads respectively at the start of their matches.

England were crushed with 3 tries in the first 10 minutes.