Heyneke Meyer take a bow.

First topic message reminder :

If you were going to tell me that South Africa would rack up 958 running meters against the best team in the world I would have laughed in your face.

If you were going to tell me that the pace and power of the South African attack would cause 31 missed tackles by New Zealand, I would have found that equally entertaining.

If you told me an expansive game by South Africa would be an invitation to New Zealand to counter from turnovers and errors I would have agreed with you.

In 2011 Pieter de Villiers was called in front of the South African Sports committee in lieu of the Rugby world Cup preparation, during the interview he was asked why South Africa played so much within themselves and why did they not embrace a holistic approach to rugby.

Pieter de Villiers answered with a simple “They have a fear of failure”

In my view fear of failure has plagued South African rugby for some time. I fondly remember a game at Murray field during 1998 when Bill Mclaren described the running of Pieter “Slap Chips” Rossouw akin to that of a Gazelle on the African plains. During that same out bound tour, South Africa put such a hiding on the French in Paris that the local patrons booed their own team off the field and gave the South Africans a standing ovation.

Prior to the isolation era Springbok rugby reigned supreme, and it was largely due to the natural physique and the lifestyle attributed to Afrikaners at the time. Professional rugby has negated the natural physical advantage South Africa has had for so long, with professional rugby players now having the best facilities, equipment, coaches, fitness and strength instructors at their disposal.

The need for more intelligent play, more possession and guile in attack has now become a pre requisite for teams to triumph on the international stage. For too long I have listened to South African supporters saying we do not have the skills to play expansive rugby, for far too long we have sold ourselves short in the skills department.

Expansive rugby does not mean you move away from your core strengths, our core strengths will always be the mainstay of any professional rugby team, that is a given.

However, it is the mind set that needs changing. Compare a defensive strategy based game plan to that of a lab rat in a controlled environment where he runs through a maize to find a piece of cheese. It is inevitable that the rat will find the cheese, no matter how long it takes or how challenged he is in the intelligence department.

Having teams launch wave after wave of attack, affording them the opportunity to probe your defensive line relentlessly for 80 minutes will eventually result in a defensive breach. It isn’t rocket science to understand that.

Yes, we lost the test this weekend, however the mind set of going for gold meant that the shackles have been broken, the fear of failure was suppressed and rather than see a team intent on playing a kick and chase strategy and a defensive setup, South Africa ran the ball, for almost 1000 meters, a statistic in itself that almost defies belief.

Yes there were mistakes, it is inevitable that when you have only played expansive rugby for four months, that you would not be as polished as you will be after doing it for 10 years. But the important issue here is that the change came. The importance of this mind shift cannot and should not be underestimated, we played rugby, positively and adventurous beautiful rugby.

You may be critical and look at all the negatives, the fact that we ran out of puff in the last quarter, the fact that we conceded too many turn overs, the fact that we missed so many tackles, the fact that our line out went to shambles in the last 20 minutes.

But what you cannot ignore, is the absolute delight the game has brought to your senses, the mistakes can be corrected, the techniques can be worked on, our defensive system is not yet set up to scramble on the counter and will need restructuring.

Heyneke Meyer has shown us what we can do, he has shown us that we do indeed have ample skills in the team to run tries in from deep or close against the best team in the world, but most important, he now needs to carry this forward. There is no stepping back from this methodology, he has a responsibility to continue the growth of this team, a few personnel changes will improve those odds.

Ultimately if we can push the All Blacks this hard, the rest of the world must be quivering in their boots.

BB -jokes huh, he probably said that given his own matador style technique back in the day.

fa0019 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Meyer said the same himself'''"Steyn may not be the best player I have coached...but"

Fa I cant see how you think SA needs to play smarter when that has been the problem for years. This match was cleartly an attempt at that. No it didnt come off but there is definite progress here.

Rather than tweak meyer- correctly- used this match to explore the possibilites- throw it all out there and see what happens- and in the one match it exposed perfectly where improvements can be made to make progress. It may be 1 in the last 9 but they will have learnt more from this match than all the other 8 put together.

Taylorman

I showed earlier how the boks leak a lot of tries at the moment. Their record of scoring tries is good, near as good as NZ against Tier 1 sides (3N, FRA & ENG) yet their tries conceded is 4th in that group in he last 2 seasons, only better then AUS who are haemorrhaging tries like no tomorrow.

tackling in SA for me is an endemic issue built around the macho culture of the boer. they want smash people, they tackle chest and shoulders... The problem with this is that they suffer a lot of line breaks and a lot of tries.

guys like Alberts, Jannie DP, Strauss, Frans Steyn are below par tacklers... some on the edge of pathetic.

Guys like Kolisi and JDV are diamonds in the rough for us.... They never knock people backwards but they hardly ever miss a tackle.
If you convert your tackles time and time again it makes the opposition change their attitude and try an alternative method of attack.

I've always had the philosophy of getting your house in order before you decorate.... SA have an immense wealth of attacking talent but offense doesn't win trophies and if SA ignore this they won't any time soon.

I don't think this is just something in SA to be honest.. I think it is more common there though due to the amount of large bulky players they tend to possess.

There are players who have to develop and maintain great technique, due to being weaker or smaller than the opposition. Then there are those who have always been bigger may be able to muscle a lot of players, but when it comes to a particularly silky or slippery runner, they are useless, as their technique is woeful. Usually these players go through age grade rugby and never have to develop a great technique, as they are bigger than everyone else.

Sean O'Brien for Ireland is actually often guilty of missing quite a few tackles. He goes in with the shoulder rather high and if they don't go down after the initial hit than he just seems to slide off them. That is one of his big weaknesses in my opinion. He makes a lot of tackles, but can miss some crucial ones at times, due to bad technique.

Similar to the Pacific Islander tackling style. It's all about decking your opponent from a standing position. It's just a cultural/endemic thing.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Similar to the Pacific Islander tackling style. It's all about decking your opponent from a standing position. It's just a cultural/endemic thing.

How is it cultural? Pacific Islanders again are generally much bigger than your average rugby player, but this happens in many countries. You are right though it is most common in the Polynesian nations. Players who go through age grade rugby bigger and stronger than the rest will use that to their advantage, but this can be easily exposed when they reach a higher level of rugby and suddenly this advantage is no longer as useful.

I think the silky runners like Ben Smith and Willie Le Roux love to play these sorts of players. They make it look easy as they just scythe past guys generally known for putting in bone crunching tackles.

Offence doesnt win trophies? NZ have the world cup, have had the Bledisloe cup for it seems ever, have won practically 2 out of every 3 tri and quad nations through attacking and have by far the highest % winning rate of any side...how can you come to that conclusion fa?

The interesting thing her is that things never discussed before are now getting surfaced- the boks tackling qualities have never been an issue for example. The Ellis match has unearthed the Bok deficiencies of recent years in a way that they can now address them.

To play the attacking game you get to score tries...tick.
To play the attacking game you need to tackle- from 1 through 15...tick
To play the attacking game you need to be fit...fitter than for the normal conservative SA gameplan...tick.

All the lessons rolled out by one match.

Fitness could be another big factor in the missed tackles and struggle to adjust defensively. When you are turned over after many phases and NZ are on the counter attack (where they excel) it is very hard to suddenly position yourself correctly.

Polynesians are also more naturally athletic players meaning they can think quickly on their feet, turn faster- getting to the ball carrier is half the problem...

Taylorman wrote:Offence doesnt win trophies? NZ have the world cup, have had the Bledisloe cup for it seems ever, have won practically 2 out of every 3 tri and quad nations through attacking and have by far the highest % winning rate of any side...how can you come to that conclusion fa?

The interesting thing her is that things never discussed before are now getting surfaced- the boks tackling qualities have never been an issue for example. The Ellis match has unearthed the Bok deficiencies of recent years in a way that they can now address them.

To play the attacking game you get to score tries...tick.
To play the attacking game you need to tackle- from 1 through 15...tick
To play the attacking game you need to be fit...fitter than for the normal conservative SA gameplan...tick.

All the lessons rolled out by one match.

you know I have been in agreement with you on all those points.

But please, you are beginning to depress me.  

The springboks never used to scare me. Even when they played the high ball game in 2009 it didn't scare me, I knew we'd work it out.

Australia with their damned Backline used to scare me.

Now South Africa and their damned back line is starting to scare me.

Who thinks habana would've got at least one more if he'd stayed on?

The Supersport studio tonight all thought Habana might well have scored a hattrick had he stayed on.

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Offence doesnt win trophies? NZ have the world cup, have had the Bledisloe cup for it seems ever, have won practically 2 out of every 3 tri and quad nations through attacking and have by far the highest % winning rate of any side...how can you come to that conclusion fa?

The interesting thing her is that things never discussed before are now getting surfaced- the boks tackling qualities have never been an issue for example. The Ellis match has unearthed the Bok deficiencies of recent years in a way that they can now address them.

To play the attacking game you get to score tries...tick.
To play the attacking game you need to tackle- from 1 through 15...tick
To play the attacking game you need to be fit...fitter than for the normal conservative SA gameplan...tick.

All the lessons rolled out by one match.

you know I have been in agreement with you on all those points.

But please, you are beginning to depress me.  

I know what you mean Biltong but I dont mean it that way- the clearing of the decks is good for the soul (of Bok rugby) and the fun part is focussing on the required skill levels- I think its exciting watching for who responds to this, who comes out of the shadows and makes the difference- and it could come from anywhere. SA fans will now expect higher standards and the best thing is the players are there already, the grounds support the style etc.

Im with GE on this one, the emergence of the Boks as a force in 15 man rugby is downright scary, something I've been saying for years. This alone will start righting the percentages of the former years- not because of what they were pre the pro era, but because South African rugby has the most solid base to support it, even more so than NZ.

I'm convinced if the opportunities presented here are realised this will eventually end NZ's tighthold on the number one spot- forever- and SA will either share or lead the game within 2-3 years.

Biltong wrote:The Supersport studio tonight all thought Habana might well have scored a hattrick had he stayed on.

He might well have...as a comparison Ben Smith got one hat trick then got two early tries in his next game and at that point the odds on another were probably as good as they can get given his ability to find the line- then he didnt get the third- while others scored. So you just never know...

A few weeks ago I would've picked the NH sides to win a couple during this years AI, but to be honest after the last round of the RC all I can see is yet another humiliating clean sweep by SANZAR.

'another'

I know, it gets tedious doesn't it?

I cant wait for them to start tbh, but i just cant see argentina getting a winning record and i am pretty unsure about Aus.

Argentina aren't a SANZAR nation.

well sanzar run the RC, so .. might as well throw them in now.

Yes they're all foreigners anyway, right?

what has that got to do with anything?

Do you have an issue with the rugby championship set up or something?

the fact that you want to exclude them in this manor shows you up and no one else!

sanzar is only set up to run this comp.(and one other club comp) .

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here dude.

Or do you just not want to associate yourself with a lesser team?

Or do you just not want to associate yourself with a lesser team?

 

Sanzar means - South Africa New Zealand Australia rugby. So he is completely correct to discount Arg under the Sanzar banner.


I personally dont mind seeing Argentina as a member of the family. Two straight world cup semi-finals means they have nothing to be ashamed of.

For me its quite simple, if anyone can get South Africa to play total rugby its Meyer. I became a big fan (without actually being a fan, if that makes sense) of the Bulls in 2009 & 2010. Yes Meyer wasnt the coach, but he was pulling the strings as director of Rugby. If SA are to embrace total rugby, I think that Bulls blueprint is the way forward. Smash them clean up front, create space for your flyhalf to make the right decisions, and to give your runners time to build forward momentum. Its not quite ABs, but its probably more in line with Meyers final vision.

kingraf wrote:Sanzar means - South Africa New Zealand Australia rugby. So he is completely correct to discount Arg under the Sanzar banner.


I personally dont mind seeing Argentina as a member of the family. Two straight world cup semi-finals means they have nothing to be ashamed of.

Ermm really 

To me its a sporting body that runs the RC(no different from something like UEFA). And in the long term they will i am sure also be represented in the administration of the sanzar and not just play within the sanzars comp.

You're wrong. SANZAR is SA, NZ, Aus rugby. The hint is in the name, the emblem and their definition. Check their home page.

SANZAR also run super rugby, so you're wrong on the "no other comp" point as well.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SANZAR

stop lying bud

"sanzar is only set up to run this comp.(and one other club comp) ."- i posted that above


There are also talks (which you should know about) to get Argentina into the super rugby


There is no such thing as sa aus and nz rugby anymore- IT IS NZ SA AUS AND ARG NOW!!!! (sanzar is just an outdated name- but so what its a name right- Are going to tell me that israel isn't a uefa team because it isn't in europe but within the constraints of the name it only says europe!!!!)


And yes i think you should check out the home page yourself- It has argentina plastered all over the front page!!



You can exclude argentina from sanzar all you want but i dont and neither does sanzar!

Now stop the nonsense and embrace your new partner in your rugby world!

Or are they just too foreign for you?

Wow. You realny are taking the traditional British inability to admit when they're wrong waaaay too far.

Try it. It's easy. Just say: "ah! Looks like I was wrong" and move on. It's liberating. No idea why you guys find it so hard and insist on making youselves look like such fools by continuing to assert black is white.


http://www.sanzarrugby.com/about-sanzar/


"When rugby union went professional in 1996, the Australia, New Zealand and South Africa rugby boards formed SANZAR (South African, New Zealand and Australian Rugby) to administer an annual 12-team provincial (later to be deemed franchise) based competition pitting domestic teams from the three nations against each other.
In addition it was decided to hold an annual Tri-Nations Test Series between the three countries, formalising an All Blacks, Springboks and Wallabies annual tournament which would rival the then Five Nations and give the Southern Hemisphere an elite international championship outside of the Rugby World Cup.
SANZAR runs the flagship international tournaments of the Southern Hemisphere - Super Rugby (the Super 12, then Super 14) and The Rugby Championship (the Tri-Nations).
Rian Oberholzer was the first CEO of SANZAR, and until 2010 the ‘mantle’ of CEO of SANZAR passed between the respective heads of the NZRU, ARU and SARU.  The Chairman and CEO prior to this operated on a secretariat basis rotating on a two yearly basis. Now only the Chair rotates.
That year SANZAR created a ‘full time’ office which led to the appointment of Greg Peters as the first specifically nominated chief executive officer of the governing body.
The first broadcasting deal was signed with News Corp for US$ 555 million, giving SANZAR the money to propel them into professionalism, with the financial contract for Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship providing a significant amount of income for the three member unions.
In September 2004, SANZAR began negotiations for a new television deal to take effect in 2006. That December, SANZAR announced that a new TV deal had been signed with News Corporation winning the rights for the UK, Australia and New Zealand and Supersport winning rights for South Africa – for a newly revised contract is worth US$ 323 million over five years (a 16% annual increase).
At the same time two teams were added to the Super 12, creating the Super 14.
The Tri Nations also expanded at this time to feature three matches against each SANZAR test nation, although in World Cup years this would be trimmed back to two.
On May 19, 2009, following prolonged negotiations SANZAR unveiled its model for an expanded season to start in 2011, which would result in a new conference system for Super Rugby and the inclusion of a fifteenth team.
This model was due to be presented to current broadcast rights holder News Corporation for approval before the end of June 2009.  On 11 November 2009, SANZAR announced Melbourne will play in the expanded "Super 15" competition in 2011 after the Australian start-up franchise was given the nod ahead of South Africa's Southern Kings.
In 2012, a year after the New Super Rugby competition had successfully made its debut, SANZAR would prepare to unveil a new product – The Rugby Championship.

I am happy to admit that I misunderstood what you meant in regards to sanzar .no problem.

But why do you think these 3 nations act as a separate entity still is my concern. Why does it give you pleasure that these  3 nations will come to europe and win all their games. 

there is no 3 anymore- there is 4.

Its like me stating the 6 nations teams minus italy will beat another set of teams..

What got my back up the most was this comment

"Yes they're all foreigners anyway, right?"


what did you mean by that?


And why can't you take back the mis quotation against me. Just admit you made it up and lied and lets move on. Its liberating!

Guys you are arguing over semantics.

Whilst Argentinian Rugby Union may not officially be a member of SANZAR, they are now officially taking part in the Rugby Championship.

There are currently talks of how to incorporate Argentinian rugby into Super Rugby.

Technically neither of you are wrong, the fact is soon Argentina will officially be part of SANZAR which may or may not have a ame change.

Mystiroakey is not wrong to want to include Argentina as part of the SH touring group to Europe in November, and GE they may not be "part" of SANZAR, but they certainly are part of the Rugby Championship.

Semantics.

SANZAR is a legal entity. It does not incorporate any membership from the Argentinian Rugby Union. Until such time as it does, I am right. This is a black and white case.

And as for arguing over semantics - you know semantics is meaning, right ? Pretty much everything we do here is arguing over semantics. In fact it's pretty much what everyone does all of the time.

To suggest the purpose of SANZAR is to run the RC and SR is utterly missing the point. They are not primarily an administrator, but an advocacy and collective.

GE, for the purpose of your argument you ate excluding argentina, simply because they aren't a me,ber of SANZAR.

Myatiroakey for the purpose of his argument is including Argentina in the "collective" of SH team touring Europe because they play in the Rugby Championship.

Semantics.

That is all they are(an administrator), the rest is just some outdated notion(i suppose a glorious empire would be quite apt in the rugby world , that doesn't actually exist bar in other peoples minds)

But hey I notice you cannot 'liberate' yourself and answer the questions

I am not surprised. But I can fully appreciate the level of the poster i am talking to!

By the way back on topic. It was an exceptionally good game of rugby and IMO there was no loser.. SA fans will take a lot of heart in this and from my side of the world SA scare the crap out of us, possibly even more so after that losing performance.
It was great to see an expansive game of rugby as the climax to this 4 nations tourney

Biltong wrote:GE, for the purpose of your argument you ate excluding argentina, simply because they aren't a me,ber of SANZAR.

Myatiroakey for the purpose of his argument is including Argentina in the "collective" of SH team touring Europe because they play in the Rugby Championship.

Semantics.

Not at all. I said "SANZAR" teams will be undefeated and he said Argentina is part of SANZAR,  so a loss for Argentina would constitute a loss for a SANZAR team.

Semantics yes. But vitally important semantics.

GE is there a reason why you are ignoring the questions asked of you?

I'm not. You are deliberately misrepresenting my assertion in order to find a flaw in the argument that doesn't exist if you treat the proposition rigorously.

could you explain the above and just move on from this ludicrous SANZAR OR SANZAAR nonsense!!

Your silence speaks volumes.

No such thing as sanzaar, why don't you admit you were wrong and we can move on?

For Christs' sake GE, stop winding everyone up and stop being so bloody confrontational.

Try going out for a meal or take in a movie once in awhile, anything ...but get a life away from here for at least a few hours a week. It's driving you and us crazy chap.

Or he could just man up and admit he was wrong and we can all move on. It really isn't the issue he's trying to turn it into. He was wrong. Just say it and move on instead of deflecting and perambulating and making personal attacks.

THIS thread is about the Boks there more flexible style played in the recent matches.
The Bulls style of Rugby has been relatively unsuccessfull for them recently this year.
IT IS NOT about SANZAR,Argentina,The Rugby Championship/Super Rugby except in
a peripheral sense. GE WHY do you hijack threads with irrelavent tangential comments
opinions are one thing trying to subvert threads for the sake of it ISN`T.

Didn't hijack anything, just frustrated that this other poster can fill up the thread with clearly erroneous nonsense and then dodge the admission of error. I would've thought being pulled up on a point of fact was a pretty trivial thing but disappointingly not it seems.

Back on topic I'd say its a fair indication of NZ's current awesome
Supremacy when springbok fans are openly celebrating and praising thier coach for acheiving an 11 point loss at Ellis Park. I'd say that was unique in history. No?

You try and turn it into some xenophobic 'foreigner' debate and then misquote me(not sure how you did that but you even put it in quotation marks!!)you have the brass to have a pop at me. Get a life buddy!

GloriousEmpire wrote:
Supremacy when springbok fans are openly celebrating and praising thier coach for acheiving an 11 point loss at Ellis Park. I'd say that was unique in history. No?

NZ was at its very best in this test and hardly put a foot wrong. SA werent. They missed several crucial tackles that directly lead to tries (as NZ did) , were unfit in the last 15 minutes where no side scored a point (accepted NZ had a man down for 20m), missed more than a couple of other tries (as did NZ) and still only lost by 11.

Better fitness and a more defined defence strategy, more experience in running the ball would have meant the difference here. Based on the efforts of both sides, SA have by far the bigger scope for improvement.

That is what is being offered here, not a loss, but the room for improvement...

I don't know guys. Yes it was a great game but there was a loser. SA lost and they would not be happy. NZ were yellow carded and SA didn't take advantage - the opposite in fact.
While it's great for SA to change their game a bit I've never been one to moan about their style - they have their style and we have ours. I think that's good. They should get better at what the do rather than try and do what we do. I believe they played into our hands by playing the expansive game so early - mind you bad luck about Habana.

If we reversed the situation we would not be happy. We would be talking about where we should have been better and not celebrating a loss.

Bilt has allways cared about results over moral victories in the past.

Is this telling us something. That rugby is bigger than the result or that SA fans have turned into the rest of us( we can feel happy about a loss v NZ if the performance is ok)

You said it mystri, we're heading into moral victory territory. Tman you're blowing some serious smoke up SA's proverbial. I'm with GE and ngan. I'm not buying into the SA have soooo much room for improvement and that that display by the ABs is as good as we'll get. We have plenty to work on. If SA want to bring in players like le roux that missed 83% of his tackles to play a more running game then that's good news alright.