OMFG!! This is why we love rugby!

First topic message reminder :

Thank you South Africa, thank you New Zealand. I need to go and have a lay down now and I'm a neutral. That was the most phenomenal 80 minutes of rugby that i've watched in a long time!

Two teams leaving nothing on the pitch, total rugby, total commitment and some insane tries.

And well done to Nigel Owens for allowing this spectacle to occur. The best reffing display of the year.

                   

It's about balance ebop. Not running all the time and not kicking all the time. Vary up your plays to keep the opposition guessing. Neither is NZ running all the time. It's choosing the right moments and taking the best options.

ebop wrote:But would you say that an expansive gameplan is best executed by those that 'naturally' play this way and have honed the skills from an early age? Might be a stretch to assume that 4 months in and an NH tour under their belt will result in expansive champaign rugby. Not saying that's what you or others are saying. But we've been playing like this for decades.

EBOP.

You are now thinking exactly how many South Africans have responded to me in regards to the expansive game.

They believe it is folly for us to play expansively and should keep up our forward domination game plan.

The whole point of SA going wide is seen in totally the wrong context.

What you saw on the weekend was SA testing themselves in their wide game against the best team in the world.

Now balance will be worked on. that means the forward criteria still applies exactly as it did before, Meyer will continue to work on that as the foundation of our rugby.

BUT, having tested our wide attack against the best team in the world has now given us the confidence that even against NZ it works, so Meyer can now tone it down a bit, look at when decision making worked positively and what were the mistakes.

Kirchenr for one, has poor decision making ability, so that means Lambie will most likely be a better choice to keep the attacks from deep in balance.

Our problem has always been that we had NO attack from out wide, we RARELY ever varied our point of attack.

By selecting Willie le roux Meyer has now seen what skillfull players can muster, so that means we can change from route one to mixig it up a bit.

I doubt you will again see SA go helter skelter like they did this weekend, you will see a lot more balance from them from now on.

They tested their attack and now will be able to analyse the data and formulate a balanced plan.

Ultimately it is about having more ball in hand, and kicking less away. thereby playing more positively.

Ball in hand does not mean wide play, it means starving your opposition of possession and taking the game, rather than not losing the game.

It is a mindset.

Of course Kia, but look at the read flip out the back pass to smith or the quick hands for the Messam try on half time or the 4-5 times Barrett switched the ball from his right to left hand whilst evading (not running over) opponents or the little pop pass by McCaw for the final read try. Those were skills that are hard to just do just because you feel like playing a gameplan that uses the backline or 'go wide'. Don't get me wrong, the ABs don't have a monopoly on rugby skill and it would be churlish not to give credit to SA for the way they played.

Ebop, you must have missed the three offloads by our forwards, two by Louw and one by Vermeulen, two tries came from 2 of those three offloads.

For sure biltong, you guys will cherry pick aspects for the gameplan no doubt. The challenge will be to replicate that level of intensity or attacking mindset (or there abouts). Guess the game in the weekend was a good benchmark to start from.

Uh oh, we're out of sync biltong. Yes, you guys scored some very good tries and I'm not saying no other team can do the things I listed above. It's more that those plays are second nature for the ABs. They don't always come off of course. Le roux was great, he's exciting, and habana is still classy.

ebop wrote: habana is still classy.

Understatement of the discussion.

Whoops, meant very very classy

SA found space out wide for a reason ebop. They hadn't attacked the width like they did in a long time. They can kick for the 22 to set up a line out but they can also assess if it's a good idea to spread the ball wide and link up with the backs. They won't be playing for bonus point wins. They showed they can threaten the line playing the way they did as they have shown they are a handful close to the line. Variety makes SA more unpredictable. NZ's counter attacking ability makes them unpredictable. It's very difficult to win consistently always playing the same way.

ebop, I understand what you are saying, the point I am trying to make is that we do have players with talent and skills.

we just need to select them.

Willie is a natural ball player, Goosen as well.

Paul jordaan as well, sadly he has been injured.

Look at Etzebeth, where do you think he learnt his skills?

He was playing in the backline until only a few years ago.

Biltong wrote:ebop, I understand what you are saying, the point I am trying to make is that we do have players with talent and skills.

we just need to select them.

Willie is a natural ball player, Goosen as well.

Paul jordaan as well, sadly he has been injured.

Look at Etzebeth, where do you think he learnt his skills?

He was playing in the backline until only a few years ago.

I am very excited to have Goosen in our team later this year.

Jordaan also looked very good, and Goosen is very exciting.

But if you look at the youngsters they all have some glaring issues.

I read on another site that le Roux made 1 tackle and missed 6. Exciting as he is, that just isn't good enough.

JJ was also didn't have the best tackling game, but I don't have any stats for him. Lambie also didn't do much, but he didn't really have enough time. Kolisi's made a try saving tackle, but I felt our line out suffered when he came on. There isn't really thing negative that I picked up from Etzebeth. But there is still a lot to improve on with this team.

SA wont catch NZ out wide next time and the areas of improvement in the individual skills area are being highlighted with the move to the wider game. This can only be a good thing as theyve been able to get away with the low skill levels with focus on other areas- physicality, kicking the ball away etc.

Now things are out on the table- skill levels need to improve to play this type of game. I think its a good thing. Meyer has things to work on and cant wait to see their progress.

Don't think you can say that, the boks won't catch the ABs out wide next time. Just about any side can catch any other side out by going wide. What the better sides do is earn the right, in coaching speak, before going out wide. I think the boks, as did England in the early 2000's, had the forwards to suck the other side in before going out wide.

I think maybe the fitness failed them a bit that natch, the boks, towards the end. then again, it could as easily be the kiwis were playing more within themselves and had more gas at the end?

SA need their top super rugby teams to play with some width to provide a training ground for the international level.

Just a question but why should the boks play with more width??? Is that the key to winning rugby?

The boks played pretty rugby sure but they leaked 5 tries. You don't win matches when you leak 5 tries.

Winning rugby, all that truly matters in SA is more likely to breed results for SA... playing to their strengths, not the oppositions.

They've won 2 world cups playing their style of rugby and as long as they keep to that ethos they will continue to be successful.... Deviate from that and they will just be another team doing things not quite as well as the ABs.

Had they played to their strengths and kept things tight the match would have been closer and I would say SA would have been more likely to have won in that scenario. May not have been as pretty, may not have scored as many tries but they would have had a better chance in getting the win... And their ain't no bonus points in world cups KO stages.

It is about varying your point of attack.

Yeah, that was the point I got from Kia and biltong, just to have that option which makes very good sense. Deciding when to go wide is the key and not overplay it which I think is what biltong is saying. Guess that way there's still room for monster forwards that may struggle more with the helter skelter getting around the park. Interesting what FerN said about the missed tackles and reduced line out ability. I read SA missed quite a bit more tackles than the ABs, 31 v 19. Bit of a trade off in that game at least.

SA's direct approach is effective but had shown repeatedly it was too predictable to beat the All Blacks. They had to do something different, not for four tries and the competition, but to break out of the rut of losses. They might not have won, but scoring four excellent tries will bother the All Blacks more than if they'd scored 5 drop goals and 6 penalties.

Surely scoring tries is the way to win. And going wide helps this, having a good defence is essential too.

FA.

Let’s go down to bare bones in regards to our kick and chase forward dominating game plan.

After 2009, Graham Henry who had much criticism in the media about our “non rugby” secretly went to hide in a cave with a DVD player and the DVD’s in high definition to analyse exactly what went wrong.

His summation was that New Zealand lacked aerial supremacy and the back three of New Zealand needed an overhaul.

It took him less than a year and a few personnel changes to turn their aerial deficiency around.

He also looked at how the kicking game could be of benefit to New Zealand and made the following summations.

Exit strategy is highly required.

Running from deep should only be done when the kick was too long and there were no chasers.

He would spread his back three (sometimes accompanied by a fourth player) over the width of the field. This meant his players could read the defensive line and transfer the ball to the line which provided either the slowest forwards or alternatively the gaps where the defensive line was imperfect.

The alternative was to run towards the forwards to enable support players to be at the ready for the next quick phase.

Since then, South Africa has won only one test against New Zealand, and that was the test where they sent a B team in order for the A team to prepare for the RWC.

Apart from that we won NONE, NO, ZERO, ZIP, ZIGALO test against them.

When they have negated your strengths, the insanity of continuing with the same plan is not only ludicrous but foolish.

That means one thing, and one thing only. You need to change.

Since our last test win over New Zealand in 2009 we have only scored 6 tries in 7 tests prior to this year.

SIX, how pathetic is that?

To add further insult to injury, Australia surpassed us and won 5/6 tests between 2010 and 2011.

EMBARRESSING.

This year we scored twice the number of tries in the Rugby Championship we have scored in the previous year’s rugby championship.

Just a point of note.

There are primarily two types of rugby, (1) defensive based game plan and (2) offensive game plan.

Or defensive game plan simply no longer works.

Let me explain why. Look at the teams from the home nations and look at how they have caught up to us in the last few years.

We lost to Ireland in 2009
We lost to France in 2009
We lost to Scotland on 2010
We almost lost to Argentina in 2012

Now if we have any pretences of being number one in the world, then those losses should not be happening.

We therefor need an offensive strategy to become number one. Scoring one or two tries per match simply isn’t going to cut it.

The only way you will improve attack is to firstly train it, play it and live it, in order to do that you have to have no fear.

What is the saying? “There is nothing to fear, but fear itself”

I am sick and tired of sucking the hind leg of New Zealand, and if we need to up our game to beat them, then I am prepared to venture where we haven’t been for a long tome.

To improve your chances of breaking defences, you need to have more than one bullet in your chamber.

The forward bullet on its own doesn’t measure up.
Our kick and chase no longer measures up.
You cannot outscore the All Blacks with line out mauls only.
Yu cannot outscore the All Blacks from aerial mistakes only.

You therefor need to be able to become unpredictable.

There is nothing unpredictable about scrum halves waiting for a forward pod to line up, causing slow ball and a clear sign where the ball is going.

There is nothing unpredictable about stationary forwards getting the ball.

There is nothing unpredictable about simply passing the ball down the line and in doing so you are merely just drifting the defence onto your wingers.

The maul has become predictable

Everything about our game plan is as stale as one week old bread.

The next time I hear Steve Hansen or Ewen McKenzie say we know what to expect from the Springbok I am going to wet myself.

Now granted we will have to find new personnel, but that is something a coach should always strive to do anyway, the only thing that changes there is the brief. “Find me ball players”

We have to get fitter, now granted we don’t have the same system as New Zealand and our Franchises will do what they deem is best for them, but Meyer can make a clear statement of intent to all Professional players in SA. “I am looking for 80 minute men with skills”

It is then up to the individual, as is currently the case to prove he fits the requirement, if he has to work extra hard for the green and gold jersey, then so be it. Those are the players we want anyway.

Yes the defensive structure needs an overhaul, but does it mot need an assessment and overhaul after every match anyway?

Yes there needs to be balance, but you can only learn from experience, and without the willy nilly running game this past weekend, especially against the most dangerous counter attacking team in the world, we would have had no point of reference.

Australia is not capable of showing us our weakness at the moment, there may be other teams that will challenge us, but if you want to be aware of the worst case scenario, is it not best to establish those areas that need improvement against the All Blacks?

Meyer has plenty to work on from here, he will find the balance, he will find the ball players, he will address the requirements in regard to fitness, 80 minute performances etc.

At the end of the day, change is the only way forward. What worked in the past simply no longer matters.

Great post BT. My thoughts exactly.

I'd also add that when both sides play with no fear as you say, it makes for a far better spectacle. 

It's like you have £1000. You can either stuff it under a mattress and hope nobody burgled you, drop it in a bank at 1% or invest it in high yield high risk investment. Or somewhere between.

A side like Scotland or Italy, stuff it under the mattress (and then leave a door open and go on vacation), South Africa were tending for the low interest account and hoping the opposition didn't buy guilts. 

On the weekend, SA put their sum into emerging market equities and in doing so they forced NZ to look for an even higher yield strategy. As you up the ante, do the opposition must out risk you. 

If you force the opposition to be risky enough, you give yourself a chance that their risk won't pay off. That's where skill and experience in the market pays off allowing you to leverage the arbitrage of the skills gap.

Good analogy GE, I didn't think of it in exactly those terms, but it makes sense, the further we push NZ, the more risks they have to take as well.

It is all about being smart at the end of the day.

Biltong... I never said PDV was great but the rugby he played never fell to the depths of Straeuli, the game itself during his tenure was altered significantly due to the ELVs and that in itself had as much of an impact on the boks then PDV had.

His mistakes are well known but he also lost key players in Burger, Smith, Du Preez for near 2 years beyond 09 (part of which I do put the blame in his corner for not managing his players better in terms of game time) and the captain issue clouded his entire tenure... but no more then Mallett sacking Teichmann in 99 for instance.

But if you look at his period compared to White's with their rivals then you may see that the drop in attacking rugby was due to the rule changes more than the individuals.

Here are the try rates (courtesy of pick & go) from 04-07 and 08-11.

all games in total tries scored
NZ   4.56 to 3.64 (-0.92)
SA   3.59 to 2.60 (-0.99)
AUS 3.70 to 2.77 (-0.93)

Tier 1 games (3N +ENG & FRA) in total  tries scored
NZ   3.12 to 2.66 (-0.46)
SA   2.25 to 1.90 (-0.35)
AUS 2.44 to 2.32 (-0.12)

Overall SA's drop from era to era is similar to that of NZ and AUS... it wasn't just PDV himself, that should be acknowledged at least as another reason why the tries scored dropped.

In terms of defensively... SA  showed a marked improvement under PDV compared to their peers from 04-07 and 08-11.

all games in total tries conceded
NZ   1.42 to 1.52 (+0.10)
SA   2.04 to 1.81 (-0.23)
AUS 1.86 to 2.10 (+0.24)

Tier 1 games (3N +ENG & FRA) in total  tries conceded
NZ   1.25 to 1.42 (+0.17)
SA   2.29 to 2.30 (+0.01)
AUS 1.86 to 2.10 (+0.24)

Here we see SA defences improve under PDV compared to his peers... whereas NZ and AUS tries conceded increased overall, SA's was cut and against tier 1 sides it remained the same whilst NZ & AUS again increased.

SA wasn't a blunt instrument in 04, in his first season White won the 3Ns as under Straeuli a lot of players were mis-used. Talent was always there. White utilised it and he gets the plaudits... but he didn't wave a magic wand.