Feed the messenger
6 Apr 2006
Keo, in his News24 column, writes that the more South African coaches opened up technically, the more the rugby public would be educated.
This week Heyneke Meyer has described criticism of his Bully Boys as the work of the ill-informed. Well, Meyer, like every other coach in the Super 14 can change the perception that his is a one-dimensional team struggling to create tries by actually speaking more and giving a bit more insight on the technical virtues of his team.
Coaches, many so paranoid that they resist releasing the starting lineup by the Wednesday, argue that the media lacks insight and the message that goes to the public is skewed.
But the coaches do nothing to further the education of the writer as to the nuances of that particular team. And South African coaches, the majority very insular in their thinking, have done little to advance the way in which the public thinks about the game.
These coaches, first to criticise reporting they believe to be off the mark, offer very little of value or substance to rugby writers because they believe they are giving away a state secret.
So they indirectly promote guess work on the part of the messenger.
The writer is not privy to the communication within the four lines or the four walls of a changeroom.
An example: If in fact player 13 is the one who has messed up a particular defensive pattern and not 12, who has looked disastrous because he is covering 13′s mistake, then the coach needs to be explaining this. His response should not be a siege mentality and a retort that the writer hasn’t got a clue.
The responsibility is the coach’s to improve the quality of the message. The openside flank only makes eight tackles, when the norm is 15 for a player in this position.
How many coaches will discuss the post-match team analysis with the writer for the purposes of publication, where the player’s performance is explained?
Yes, in this instance the player’s tackle count was down, but in the context of the game the player was the man-of-the-match because he slowed down the ball 12 times at the ruck against a team that relies on quick ruck ball.
The player’s role, for example, had changed for a specific game.
The same is applicable for the lineouts. What was the communication between hooker, jumper, lifter and support lifter? Where did the problems come?
Was it the support lifter who was off his game, where the media are blaming the hooker or jumper? Often the wrong person is identified because coaches think that by not speaking out publicly they are protecting the player.
Instead they do damage to the wrong players.
Our game is still caught between being an amateur sport clouded in secrecy and a profession that speaks openly to those who invest time and money to promote it every weekend. Playing statistics are guarded like treasure.
Somehow, everyone who reports on the game seems to come up with a different set of statistics because a lot does come down to interpretation. What rates as an assist in the tackle? What is an effective tackle?
What is the time frame put on an effective slowing down of the ball at the ruck? What value is there if a team takes it through nine phases, but advances just two metres? Only the coach can provide this information, because it differs from team to team.
But there is no where to go for this information. Sanzar, the governors of the Super 14 and Tri Nations, don’t release official and detailed data of matches.
There is not one officially recognised data base that can be tapped into for accurate statistics. A lot of it then becomes interpretation of the writer and in some cases guess work is reported as fact.
And the coach freaks out, as Meyer did, when his team was described as boring, one-dimensional and unable to score tries.
Rugby reporting in our country is very limited to who is injured and who is fit; what the coach says and what the coach wants recorded as an on-the-record utterance. Invariably, it represents puffy clouds and not sunshine or thunder.
Rarely are you the wiser after speaking to a coach because they offer so little technical information about their team.
An innovation in Australian media coverage is the interview with the Australian coaches at half-time and substituted players, who speak from the dugout while the game is in progress.
It gives the television viewer something extra. The player and coach offers an insight that no reporter can have because of their actual involvement in the game.
These kinds of innovations are too rare and too limited to just one country.
I’d want to hear Kobus van der Merwe, in a minute, tell the audience what his message was to his team when they trailed 18-3 against the Cheetahs. I don’t want to read speculation from the writers of what they think it would have been.
Urban legends have been created in rugby because of a lack of communication. In the professional era legends should be the result of accuracy.
Rugby can learn from codes like the NFL. Colleagues of mine have been to the States to report on the Superbowl final. Within 30 minutes of the finish, they are given a 45 page review of the match, detailing every player’s performance, with expert analysis and insight around these statistics from the respective coaches.
This is done to ensure that writer does not want for information when formulating his own opinion and telling a nation what actually happened.
They feed the writer to grow the accuracy in the coverage of the sport. In South African rugby the writer is starved of information and this continues to stunt the education of those who follow the game.
It is a situation easily fixed with the right attitude and mindset from coaches, who accept that it is their responsibility to communicate and not isolate their insights and team-related information.
34 Comments
6 Apr 2006, 06:46 am
everybody knows that you’re not allowed to feed the *******.
6 Apr 2006, 07:11 am
Nice report Ig. Boring – because it suggests that there are mysterious reasons why Meyer’s manne got thumped 30 – 17. They were outplayed, he had the wrong game plan, the team under performed etc. This may all be speculation according to the above article, but the scoreline tells at least half the story & their try tally over the competition tells the other half.
6 Apr 2006, 07:12 am
The bit I left out was: Does Meyer know why they lost?
6 Apr 2006, 07:17 am
sarky Meyer just know they lost.I suspect he will stick to the same gameplan because its the only one he’s got.
6 Apr 2006, 07:18 am
Why no Sharks news ? None invented yet?
6 Apr 2006, 07:20 am
Billy I think they are waiting for keo to first proof read the story.He has his finger on the pulse there i reckon.Dont want journos working for keo writing something that goes against keo’s views know do we?
6 Apr 2006, 07:21 am
Aren’t the writers suppose to be able to make there own well educated deductions instead of asking the coach to do there work for them?
6 Apr 2006, 07:23 am
I reckon theres a bit of censorship at keo.I mean he puts such a spin on a story surely he has to be on his toes to stop himself from contradicting himself in the future.
6 Apr 2006, 08:03 am
Well said viskop,
True the coaches should open up a bit more in some regards. But there’s a lot of reporters in this country who don’t know f-all about rugby.
I’ve long time ago given up on the papers, simply because I don’t particularly enjoy reading piss and drivel from an ignorant arse of a pencil ****.
6 Apr 2006, 08:10 am
I wonder when Meyer will employ a foreigner, i.e. some player from deep south like brits. He could even break the mould & see if Campese can introduce the novelty of a running back line.
6 Apr 2006, 08:21 am
Why carry on about dem bulls they finished top of the sa teams last season so may be the other teams can learn from the bulls coach.
6 Apr 2006, 08:24 am
Keo, if it was me being the coach i wont give out any information as it could be beneficial to the opposition coaches. I do however agree with you that a governing body such as SANZAR should have the match data and release it
6 Apr 2006, 08:43 am
Ig, thats the difference between JAKE and our super 14 coaches.
6 Apr 2006, 08:51 am
I partialy agree with this article , i dont believe u can make an accurate assesment of a game just by simply watching it in realtime , because so much in rugby is open to interpretation and quite often u only see what u want to see. Coaches in sa perhaps minus jake and few others base their selections too much on gut feel rather than actual match stats, rudi straueli and viljoen both seemed to do this in their tenure as bok coach and look how unsuccessful they were.
6 Apr 2006, 09:00 am
Im Billy and i never wrote the post above. WTF?
6 Apr 2006, 09:10 am
billy v Billy – geedit ?
I suggest you all read the post again – starting with the first word ! bliksem – you make the same mistake repeatedly – you have to be a rocket scientist – keep that sugar coming !
6 Apr 2006, 09:30 am
What happen to freedom of speech? Why can’t the jerno’s write what they want?
6 Apr 2006, 09:55 am
I agree with this, rugby is suppose to be profesional but its not really, the only thing that changed is, the players are getting paid. There need to be a huge turn around in SA rugby from the player throughout to the referees. Something big and possitive has to happen, i’ll leave it up to experts to speculate what…..
6 Apr 2006, 10:19 am
well its quite obvious really – the coaches feel the information is dangerous and it’ll hang certain players, and even coaches out to dry.
also, its quite a lot of fun to see people speculate and bullsh*t.
6 Apr 2006, 10:33 am
What’s the point of the coaches opening up if the journo’s twist whatever he says in order to further their own personal agenda’s.
First let the journalists learn how to report without bias and with fact. When they do that they will earn the respect of the coaches who, in turn, will give more information.
Secondly, teach the journo’s to ask the correct questions about the game and to stop looking for the sensationalism. I can remember some complaints from muppits outlining the fact that during the “live” interviews their relevant rugby related questions where never answered/put forward to the interviewee.
6 Apr 2006, 10:35 am
Nice article Ig. I would like to see far more reports on the technical aspects of the games and the merits of one gameplan over another.
pompies, the criticism levelled at the Bulls is positive criticism meant to improve their game and hopefully help them win the S14. Yes they are currently the best outfit in SA(as little as that means), but if they don’t overcome their obvious deficiencies they will never win the S14.
6 Apr 2006, 10:51 am
would be nice to hear what they’re thinking, but not sure there are too many coaches around the world prepared to openly divulge their tactics.
Also, dont believe players should be indivudually picked out and criticised in public, it undermines their confidence, expecially with the fickle SA public. Take them aside and show them the error of their ways, if they continue to underperform drop them, but one of JW’s major strengths is his unwavering support for his players who repay him for that on the field.
6 Apr 2006, 11:06 am
Cab,
True. there is also another aspect that must be taken into account and that is that he coach migh be using the player in a way that does not suite the style of the player. this will result in the player looking like he is playing badly, meantime it is the coach who is either using the wrong game plan or not choosing the correct player to execute the plan.
Either way it still ends up that the wrong person is being blamed.
6 Apr 2006, 11:37 am
SA coaches, and probably this is the world over, do not like to discuss the merits or demerits of a player, the position he is playing, the role he is performing or how well suited he is to performing that role because the OPPOSITION coaches might just realise what he is trying to achieve … in other words the coach feels that by discussing some of the points raised by Keo, he would be letting the opposition in on the teams secrets and weaknesses.
6 Apr 2006, 11:53 am
I was fortunate enough to be at Basil Beys 70th birthday.
Now this guy was a coach!
He installed pasion style into every boy that he coached from age of 8-19.
If every coach in SA could coach with enthusiasm and style of rugby he had, nobody could touch us!
6 Apr 2006, 12:06 pm
Fuzz – agree to a certain extent. But schoolboy rugger is a lot different to senior rugby – besdies he had Tank scaring the **** out of everyone to balance his good nature.
6 Apr 2006, 12:14 pm
What secretes do SA teams have. Its no secrete that we lose every week because of the players lack of skills. And don’t forget the lack of a plan B.
As far as i know the same principals that apply in school boy rugger applies in the senior teams. Unless of course space on the field looks different when you are older.
6 Apr 2006, 12:24 pm
Gareth, to true, you just have to see how badly the U19 PLAYED yesterday against FRANCE. we had NO IDEA. Eloff, said he did not understand why we played so badly.
Simply, against a good side we will be found wanting, we are just not good enough, that is why Eloff,this is a good FRENCH side
Why cant S.A. sides maul properly — we are a joke in this area of play, we get mauled gainst and battle to keep the maul from rolling on, but when we try it, no matter what team [ MAYBE the BULLS are the exception] we fail badly — WHY?
6 Apr 2006, 12:28 pm
i love keos reports and think he is the best around
for those of you who think he always looks for sensationalism it would be so boring to read whoscored and that the captain said we will have to work on our mistakes next week or go back to the drawing boards
professionalism or not iamnot a believer in spending time analysing our mistakes or working the oppositions plans out
has it worked for the stormers or cats!
6 Apr 2006, 12:35 pm
Blind are you mole? Bulls are not the best saffa side, granted, they were. They’re certainly not ****, yet. But they started showing cracks last year and if they don’t start fixing it soon it’s all gonna go to ****.
You’ve got a good point Ig, but I think sa rugby journo’s need to clean their own house first.
It will be great to get more stats like the ones mentioned in the article and have some surety regarding their accuracy. But we can’t just ask coaches to speak out why they did what, etc.
6 Apr 2006, 12:48 pm
Off the point I know … but an interesting and positive letter in today’s Herald about the Spears by Tony McKeever.
The Spears followed agreement to the letter
BEFORE answering the letters from John Finlayson, D E Aldendorff and Derek Bouwer (“Spears should play in Vodacom Cupâ€, The Herald, April 4), it is absolutely imperative to understand how the Spears came about, and especially to understand that the Spears are the creation of SA Rugby, in fact all of SA Rugby, and then they were abandoned and deserted in 2005.
Now, 10 months later, there is an effort to take a new deal off the table.
In January, 2005, SA Rugby called for bids to own a Super 14 rugby franchise. On April 6, bids were submitted by six franchises, the SEC (Southern and Eastern Cape) Super 14 (now the Spears) included, and the Spears bid had a guaranteed R50-million sponsorship for five years from Vodacom (on condition that they were in the 2006 Super 14). On April 15 the franchise was awarded to the Spears by the SA Rugby adjudication panel, which led to an enormous outcry from the Cheetahs and Blue Bulls.
A second proposal was then tabled and accepted. It guaranteed that the Spears play in the 2006 Currie Cup, and were entrenched in the 2007 and 2008 Super 14 competitions.
This new deal effectively took the R50-million off the table and the bid went to the Cheetahs, who were assured a place in the 2006 Super 14 Series. However, SA Rugby obligated themselves to support the Spears financially for 2006 as well as to raise sponsors for the Spears for 2006.
The relegation and promotion system is actually fantastic for South African rugby.
Here’s how:
The Spears are not responsible for the appalling performances of the Cats and the Stormers in 2006. This has been their own doing or undoing.
The Cats, for example, have won only four games out of 41 in their last outings, and the Stormers have struggled in each outing and are known to lose on their overseas campaigns.
I have suggested that the relegation and promotion commencing in December, 2007 comprise a tri-game series (home, away and neutral ground).
The Spears’ players will play in the 2006 Vodacom Cup, but for their unions, play in the 2006 Currie Cup and 2007 Super 14 series.
There are no affirmative action pressures or wishful thinking, as Aldendorff suggests.
The deal struck was the one above, and the Spears have complied with everything asked by SA Rugby, the President’s Council and the SA Rugby board.
However, the Spears have fast-tracked transformation and development in spite of more than 30 of 150 players in the 2006 Super 14 series coming from our region.
Bouwer is getting the drift. SA Rugby created this, established the rules and the Spears abided by all that was asked of them, except that no-one from SA Rugby, except Mike Stofile, has ever seen the Spears play in six months.
Finally, we have to stick to the deals made last year between SA Rugby and the six franchises and especially to our sponsors. The Spears are doing just that.
Let the battle begin!
Tony McKeever, CEO, The Southern Spears
6 Apr 2006, 12:59 pm
Say what you want about The Spears, Tony McKeever has his head screwed on right. He has done nothing but follow the book the whole way through and OH could sure take a lesson from him when it comes to TRANSPARENCY.
6 Apr 2006, 13:17 pm
That said IG, if you start to develop the correct skills as a rugby player, at 10, not when your 25, if you can develop talent at such a young age, the level of the player when he turns 25 would be a different one, re Selbourne Boome.
Boome played with more skill and was more ffective ariound the park ball in hand as well as skill and tackles than some of his springbok and WP team mates.
The style of rugby coached at schoolboy level in this country is appalling if you ask me and tghis reflects in club and domestic competion.
Its ****, thats A why people wont watch it and B why the skills of the majority of our players in SA are kak!
It starts at grass roots, not when your 19 or 21!
7 Apr 2006, 08:24 am
Whos better. George Smith or Burger?
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.