Springboks the slow decline.

The Springbok gameplan has been under scrutiny and criticism from the world for a long time, yet in spite of those criticisms South Africa as remained a top three nation during this time. The only time South Africa fell out of the top three was during the years 2000 – 2003, in a time where first SARU appointed a businessman by the name of Harry Viljoen and then the infamous Rudolph Streauli.

I decided to have a look at what the impact was on the Springbok performances from the time Kitch Christie was appointed against the traditional top five nations: Obviously as SA is one of them, the comparison will be with England, Australia, France and New Zealand.

Firstly let me provide the total statistics compared over the whole period.

South Africa have played 119 test matches against the other top 5 nations. Winning 53 and drawing 2, for a win percentage of 45%. Consider that 84 of those test matches have been played against their Tri Nation rivals, then 45% is still not really very good.

But, included in those statistics were the Dark Period in SA rugby when Harry Viljoen and Rudolph Strauli between them made a mockery of Springbok tradition and performances winning only 3 matches and drawing 1 out of 19 tests against these opponents.

If you exclude those matches for the sake of argument, then the stats read 100 tests played, 50 wins and 1 draw for a 50.5% win ratio. Of those 72 matches were against their tri Nation opponents.

I would argue that the bare minimum would be 50%, which doesn’t leave much room for ascendancy over the collective.

Statistics per nation overall.
FRA – 16 tests at 54%
ENG- 19 tests at 63%
OZ – 43 tests at 45%
NZ – 41 tests at 34%

Statistics per nation excluding the Dark Years.
FRA – 12 tests at 63%
ENG –16 tests at 75%
OZ – 38 tests at 45%
NZ – 34 tests at 41%

Kitch Christie 1994-1996
Performance against top 5 nations is 4/4 – 100%

Andre Markgraaf 1996
Performance against top 5 nations is 4/9 – 44%

Carel du Plessis 1997
Performance against top 5 nations is 1/4 – 25%

Nick Mallet 1997-2000
Performance against top 5 nations is 14/24 – 58%

Harry Viljoen and Rudolph Streauli the Dark Years 2000-2003
Performance against top 5 nations is 3/19 – 16%

Jake White 2004-2007
Performance against top 5 nations is 15/32 – 47%

Pieter de Villiers 2008-2011
Performance against top 5 nations is 12/27 – 44%

Considering the records of each of these coaches, Nick Mallet over a sustained period of time has proven to be consistently the most successful coach (other than Kitch Christie) and one only has to go back to the type of rugby South Africa played during that time to realize there was a time where we played the game expansively and some of our most famous victories came during that time.

The last 8 years, first Jake White by building a squad and formulating a game plan and then Pieter de Villiers continuing with the same group of players and the same game plan has proven to show a slow decline in success against the leading nations.

I don’t know how much more I have to prove to show that South Africa’s one dimensional plan is slowly but surely being countered more successfully against their top opponents.

Heyneke Meyer needs little more proof that things need to change, and it is up to him to ensure a focus shift to more players with X-factors and less focus on selecting the safe options.

The downward graph is undisputable

I think Ireland and SA have similar problems at the minute.

Bogged down by internal politics and struggling to develop an effective gameplan.

Good players but question marks over the coaching.

Obviously you are a bit further up the ladder than us but I share your frustrations Biltong

Biltong how far off the pace talent wise do you think you were in 03?

I really like Mallett and White. Really would like to see them involved with the team in some capacity in the future. Disappointed at SA not getting the sweep.

France can get up for your guys as well which is saying something, though fortunately for you guys it hasn't been at a World Cup yet! The bling bling semi was the only time SA and France have met on that stage, is that right?

Biltong - interesting that you note Kitch had a 4/4 record from 1994. Who was coach before him because NZ beat Sa 2-0 in 94?

The Sharks coach, Ian Mcintosh.

Thks...that was a great tour by the way

disneychilly wrote:Biltong how far off the pace talent wise do you think you were in 03?

I really like Mallett and White. Really would like to see them involved with the team in some capacity in the future. Disappointed at SA not getting the sweep.

France can get up for your guys as well which is saying something, though fortunately for you guys it hasn't been at a World Cup yet! The bling bling semi was the only time SA and France have met on that stage, is that right?

Disney, our selection policies played a big part, but I remember Harry Viljoen was a bit of a song and dance man, talked a good game (he was a salemsna after all), but little substance, under Steauli the Boks were very unhappy, no team spirit or ethos.

Yeah, we only met France once only in the RWC

Biltong! I am so glad you come to my reasoning! This morning you say I was trying to wind up the SA fans by say the same thing!

Yes you are correct. That this one-dimensional plan I hope is just new coach "get in the basics" before building. But I fear that the few moment of individual light up the game with creative (I think most of JP Pieterson) just personal blip and not part of the coach plan!

anotherworldofpain wrote:Biltong! I am so glad you come to my reasoning! This morning you say I was trying to wind up the SA fans by say the same thing!

Yes you are correct. That this one-dimensional plan I hope is just new coach "get in the basics" before building. But I fear that the few moment of individual light up the game with creative (I think most of JP Pieterson) just personal blip and not part of the coach plan!

AWOP, there are two ways of saying something. Your way, and my way.

I give credit with what is working and point out what is needed, you are on a one band wagon with no constructive criticism.

Because my point is the strategy based around one dimension : power. The entire of combinator and game plan based on it. You cannot incremental the platform because when you substituting first creative element for brutal one then you create a weak chink to the slow grinding machine. For example: When one player try to run back from deep then suddenly the burly forward need to cease their waiting in the middle for the kick and run backwards! and then they getting exhuast and out of positional.

What requirement is for create balanced team to play modern game. And that is something needing the holistic approach to combinator.

I think the idea you expressing about "just add the X-factor" is not working for reasons I give above.

All SA eggs in the one basket right now. And when the other team bring a fox is make the serious problem!

I beg to disagree with you. The foundations of springbok rugby has always been structure, and that will never change.

Our set phase platform is arguably been the best over a span of more than a 100 years.

Our defence structure is one of the best in the world, if not the best, we won to world cups with it.

There is balance in our play when we are on the front foot, whether it is more direct than other teams really doesn't come into the argument as it works.

When it is executed our dominance up front provides us with go forward ball, and whether we use our forward runners or go wide with our backline it provides results.

If you see that as one dimensional then sadly your lack of objectivity means it is no use to debate the point with you.

What we require is a playmaker at 9 ad 10 that provides variety in attack, someone with a little more vision than what Morne Steyn has, soeone who can sense the next play instinctively and not from a handbook.

I think the boks are moving in the right direction. When they avoided kicking and played to that intensity...we couldnt live with them. Then with pieterson running those powerful lines and Habana doing well it was impressive. Sort out the desire to boot to much get a consistant kicker and teams will fear the boks once again.

No one has a right to win a certain number of test matches because of previous strength. Back in the day rugby was very different. It was amateur, some teams were more professional in their approach however in terms of coaching, fitness etc (i.e. in SA it was always a priority to stay fit and strong as best as possible, in ENG it was a weekend past time).

When the game went professional, some teams moved quicker than others and were able to get upper hands on those that they were previously reasonably level with.

Bar the ABs teams do tend to go through good & bad times... NZ, well they're always in the top2 but obviously some periods are of a higher vintage.

Wins will be relative to the various strength of the opposition.... ENG have been struggling to be the 4th best NH side in the last 5 years yet look to be turning the corner and are packed with promise.

Its nothing to do with the type of rugby being played.... more tries were scored around the 04-07 era and the 96-99 era because that was the way the game was back then. Backlines were smaller, defensive lines were less strategic... even the ABs ave. number of tries have fallen dramatically during these periods.

Put Christian Cullen in today's game and he wouldn't find as many holes as he did during his era. He would still be standout but he wouldn't be as prolific.

FA, have you seen Andre Taylor from the Hurricanes in the Super XV? Not a big man, Most tries, 3rd most meters ran, and not even in the top 20 number of runs made, most line breaks, 4th most offloads.

Prolific I tell ya.

I'm not sure it shows SA is in decline over this period. Here's the record since inclusion from end of world cup to end of world cup:

1992 - 1995 won 7/19 37%
1996 - 1999 won 16/29 55%
2000 - 2003 won 6/28 21%
2004 - 2007 won 15/31 48%
2008 - 2011 won 12/27 44%

Probably to early to say. Generally hovering around 50%.

yeah he's been excellent this year, I saw them play when they came over to Newlands earlier this year..... he wasn't in the NZ squad was he????

The Hurricanes do play a very good attacking game, probably the best in the league yet they're what 4th of their log?

Just checked and they've scored 13 tries more than the next best side... and more than double that of the Stormers (who are 2nd with 2 loss in 13) yet they've still lost near half their matches.

Perhaps they're too open... perhaps they should sacrifice a few tries here and there to stop leaking as many points as they do.

Well the hurricanes ave no defensive structure.

blackcanelion wrote:I'm not sure it shows SA is in decline over this period. Here's the record since inclusion from end of world cup to end of world cup:

1992 - 1995 won 7/19 37%
1996 - 1999 won 16/29 55%
2000 - 2003 won 6/28 21%
2004 - 2007 won 15/31 48%
2008 - 2011 won 12/27 44%

Probably to early to say. Generally hovering around 50%.

Canelion, when you look at the cooaches that was there for 40 + matches.

Mallet, White and de Villiers, there is a clear pattern.

58%, 47%, 44%

thankfully for the rest of us.

In the end I do agree... tries are the best way of winning matches and to do this you need to keep the ball in hand.

I've certainly not been happy with the way the boks have used the up & under so often. SA possesses the fastest wings on the planet in Aplon & Habana.... why use them only to chase kicks.

But then again.... this only came back in fashion due to the ELVs which were sanctioned and championed by the 3N sides.... in essence, you make your bed....you lie in it.

True, but FA, you look at Habana, Pietersen and Aplon, they have shown how well the can run lines during this series, and they are elusive and breaks tackles.

Sure all that practicing of chasing a ball and eluding blockers gave them skills, but now lets use them.

biltongbek wrote:Well the hurricanes ave no defensive structure.

They do have! But as I saying already, defensive structure and attacking potency is some kind of balance and trading off. If you allow shape to be flexible to give best option to attack then makes you some vulnerable to lose defensive shapes. So this is why I say SA cannot just "tack on" some "X-factor". The game Meyer want is devoid of X-factor and is robotic and have no balance.

Does balance win matches?

The Stormers currently sit 2nd in the SR ladder, we have lost only 2 matches out of 13 yet we have the joint worst no. of tries scored in the competition.

Will we win the title? Well we have a good run in and will win the SA conference. At worst we'll come 2nd in the ladder. Chiefs have a more difficult run in and may slip up somewhere. I can't see us losing the SF at home and if we top the ladder and get to the final at Newlands... we won't lose.

At the moment... defence is on top (regardless of people liking it or not... we changed the rules, we have to live with what works best).

The problem is esp vs. a team like AUS with great fetchers a combatants on the floor its very dangerous these days to keep the ball in hand... the more phases you have, the more likely you're eventually going to get turned over.... much of the time, you don't just concede possession, you give away a penalty.

Yes FA, I don't dispute structure and defence is vital.

I am just tired of sucking the hind lung of a kiwi. I want to be number one, in a game that is stalemate you need a game breaker, that is ALL I am asking for.

mate... just wait a few more months... I'm reasonably confident Meyer will get this bok side moving and fancy them for the title.

NZ have had a massive pack over the last few years.... but Thorn, Kaino etc are no longer there. The boks pack is getting bigger, stronger, more dominant. I feel very few will be able to contest the boks size this season and it may just bring the title home.... believe!

I do hope that will be the case.

I really think a backrow of Coetzee, Burger and Alberts has pretty much got everything. Tackling, carrying and stealing all sewn up.

Not to mention gouging and obstructing!

anotherworldofpain wrote:Not to mention gouging and obstructing!

Funny how some have to drop to such levels....

SA's discipline record is probably better than most, certainly better than englands but anyhow.

the problem with coetzee, burger and Alberts is that it lacks a backrow lineout jumper.

Coetzee & Burger are too similar.

Either you have a backrow of Burger, Smith & Alberts or Burger, Alberts & Spies. The balance is much better. Spies is needed in Smiths Absence as the locks are not strong enough to control lineout ball fully. They need options.

At 6 foot 3 (Alberts and Coetzee) and 6 foot 4 (Burger) can they really not be efficient as line-out operators?

Alberts weighs 120kg... a bit too heavy for most bar prop forwards. You want him lifting rather than being lifted IMO

Spies and Smith are very good lineout operators... much like Croft.

I agree Burger with Smith/Alberts in combination with Spies provides good lineout options and hard yards, but Spies must get into the open, he shouldn't carry the ball as first reciever.

Yeah he is a big guy, but then again Richie Gray is 130kg. He is of course taller, but sometimes the big guys can be efficient at the line-out. I was thinking that Burger and Coetzee more specifically should be good in the line-out?

Apart from Spies/Smith, what other good line-out operators do you have in the back row?

Rory, if you take the first choice players in the back row, in ability to jump in the lineouts.

Spies
Vermeulen
Deysel

Then

Smith
Burger
Alberts

Vermeulen? See, he is what 115kg himself? He is a big guy, you wouldn't have thought he would be good in the line-outs. I rate Vermeulen very highly, I think he would be a much better option for the boks than Spies currently is.

What would worry me for SA is that they got outplayed in the breakdown by England who having no specialist fetcher on the day and started NZ reject Waldrom at 8.

Not the good omen of future successfulness!

its not necessary the weight of the jumper but the strength of the lifter. At the back you may not get 2 men on the lift so you need a brute behind the jumper to be able to support all his weight... Alberts being the strongest will always be likely to lift therefore.

Yeah a lot of people would agree with that Rory. Good solid player, much more active in the loose. He and Schalk work very well as a unit together.

anotherworldofpain

Well bring back Schalk and it all turns on its head.

Not so sure about slow decline. You could argue as well there has been a gradual improvement across the board.

I think if SA is to be competitive this 4N, they need to address not only NZ but also Australia. Australia seems to have found out how to win in SA and in recent times they lose at least one game against Oz.

It seems SA will go for physicality and power but I hope they have something else up their sleeve.

I think the back row can often be a scapegoat when a team isn't ruling the breakdown. Ireland outplayed NZ and McCaw at the breakdown in the first 2 tests with no specialist 7. Then that was completely reversed in the 3rd test. There is a lot more to the breakdown than having a fetcher. Speed of play, support play, intensity - all these things are more important than your number 7.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Vermeulen? See, he is what 115kg himself? He is a big guy, you wouldn't have thought he would be good in the line-outs. I rate Vermeulen very highly, I think he would be a much better option for the boks than Spies currently is.

Yes, I personally rate Vermeulen more than spies, and Vermeulen is a Alberts type ball carrier.

To bo honest, Burger is superhuman!

Zander I agree he is a tough as teak player, hard as nails and workrate second to none, I think his presence around the field inspires players around him, what is amazing though is his abilities to offload in recent years, he used to go to ground with the ball, but these days he always looks for the support player.

The Stormers last year scored some brilliant tries from their 22 with him and Andries bekker being in the mix, running offloading, looking for the next runner etc.

80 meter beauties.

Burger has really added a dimension to his game over the years. He is like a second playmaker in the back row. One of my all time favourites.

NZ is going to need all the gamebreakers it has considering we may well come off second best in the physical battle. At least we can attack in other areas which is where England were found wanting.

I love Burger's frenzied intensity but felt earlier on that he wasn't quite accurate enough which is why I think McCaw got the better of him often. But he is a lot more accurate now and the Boks won't miss Juan Smith nearly as much with him playing and leading so well. Wonder if Brüssow will get a run in the 4N. I don't rate Spies really and would prefer Alberts, with Burger and Brüssow but since he's fallen out of favour the other spot is up for grabs.

Speaking of 80 metre beauties, the Cheetahs in counterattack have been sublime the last couple of seasons.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I think the back row can often be a scapegoat when a team isn't ruling the breakdown. Ireland outplayed NZ and McCaw at the breakdown in the first 2 tests with no specialist 7. Then that was completely reversed in the 3rd test. There is a lot more to the breakdown than having a fetcher. Speed of play, support play, intensity - all these things are more important than your number 7.

And recovery rates. Some sensational recovery rates going down with some players. Ireland don't seem to be able to match that one at all. Every game we play at the highest International level brings with it the attritional fall off in pace, energy, aggression and stamina with subsequent games. It's a puzzle and getting bigger by the day. It needs to addressed at a scientific level... if we have no answers to it at a training and preparation level.

Yeah the cheetahs are really a poor man's Hurricanes team as they don't manage to keep big name players, but are similar in style.

Unfortunately, when Burger retires, his body will come back to bite him after all those carries and hitting rucks.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Not so sure about slow decline. You could argue as well there has been a gradual improvement across the board.

I think if SA is to be competitive this 4N, they need to address not only NZ but also Australia. Australia seems to have found out how to win in SA and in recent times they lose at least one game against Oz.

It seems SA will go for physicality and power but I hope they have something else up their sleeve.

Kia it is more a case of us finding how to lose to them.

Our points difference is 1 over the past 8 years, if you look at our last three matches we were similar to Wales in that aspect, we lost two of the last tree with a late penalty goal, and the other one in Durban last year, we dropped the last pass so many times it was embaressing.

Well we too have a very little points differential against Australia but mainly in our favour. I don't think that's so much you losing the game but them creating enough pressure to force those mistakes you talk about. It's never as simple as you losing the game.

That said, I do remember those years in the 90s when we couldn't beat them for love nor money so I feel your pain. 2009 is still too recent to talk about openly and freely when it comes to you guys either.