Killing Michalak’s magic
7 Apr 2008
Frederic Michalak’s impact has been blunted by Sharks coach Dick Muir’s penchant for rotation.
When the French superstar touched down in Durban the Sharks told everyone who would listen about his attributes: his unpredictability, his vision, his distribution skill, his grossly underrated defensive ability, how good he smells – even after a three hour training session and how his hairless body will help him slip through holes in the Lions’ defensive line.
Yet they’ve opted to rotate him with Frans Steyn, who has failed to impress in the pivot berth. Muir has always been a firm believer in rotation and with his side still unbeaten it seems absurd to question his approach to team selection. However, a lack of consistent game time has clearly had an adverse effect on Michalak.
He was distinctly average against the Hurricanes on Saturday, and when glancing at his performances to date, only his showing against the Bulls at Loftus rates worthy of a mention. He was rotated against the Lions and Reds then brought back for the Wellington clash, which never helped his cause to adapt to the unique physical and tactical challenges of Super Rugby. The pack’s potency has waned since last year, which mitigates Michalak’s form to a certain extent, but he certainly hasn’t fired in the way he has been expected to.
He needs to be given a regular run at flyhalf if the Sharks hope to extract maximum value from him. Frans Steyn has not been nearly as effective as Muir would have hoped, and he could be best served getting a regular run at fullback, where the extra time and space afforded to him suits his strengths.
The Sharks’ philosophy is to multi-skill their backline players, with the aim of them being able to adapt to the every match situation, rather than be shackled by the number on their back. In this line of thinking, Waylon Murray or JP Pietersen, for example, should have the distribution skills, vision and sharp decision-making ability of a flyhalf (should they find themselves at first receiver). Michalak and Steyn, by the same token, should be able to fill the outside centre and wing berths.
In theory it sounds brilliant and if in two years Murray and Pietersen are kicking, passing and running like a flyhalf they would have given those who questioned the Sharks’ approach in this regard a massive up yours. However, until we start seeing the obvious benefits of utility-backs over specialists, it is well within reason to question the value of the former.
Steyn is a prodigious talent but just because he can play in a number of different positions doesn’t mean he should. Last year Muir accommodated him on the wing, explaining that: “I just couldn’t leave him out. He’s the type of player you have to have in your side, even if you play him out of position.”
That’s ludicrous. Nothing gives Steyn or any other player of his ability the right to be included ahead of a specialist. The Sharks and Springboks need to settle on his best position because the youngster is starting to look rudderless as a result of having a different number on his back every week.
There’s never been a question about Michalak’s best position. He just needs to be given a consistent run in the Sharks’ remaining matches if they hope to sustain their charge for a home semi-final.
By Ryan Vrede
234 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] Show All
7 Apr 2008, 11:43 am
That’s Dr. Uli Schmidt, if you want to check up.
7 Apr 2008, 11:44 am
#4
The Hurricanes had more than 15 ineffective players on Sat …. I thought that Michalak made Colin Cooper’s kicking tactic even more stupid
Comment by church – like chch but pronounceable : April 7, 2008 @ 7:11 am
At 13 all with an ineffective Hurricanes team as you put it,i would be worried if i was a Sharks fan.
Michalak is a girl,as soon as someone bears down on him he will pass to anyone,he is weak and scared.I was cracking up watching him against the Canes,it was like a hot potato at one stage,kick the ball or pass it anywhere quickly.
Comment by Hurricane : April 7, 2008 @ 10:45 am
Hurricane Church is a NewZealender from Christchurch, he supports the Saders!
7 Apr 2008, 11:50 am
GirlShark 202#
LOL!!
7 Apr 2008, 11:57 am
You had better believe it Dawn!
Anyway anybody got the low down on the Varsity game?
Rangerman, Dawn enjoy’s hungry fisherman and there beards!
7 Apr 2008, 11:58 am
just take the Midday special to Simonstown and hop off at Kalk Bay Dawn, you can have a snoek n chips on me, am just down the road, so anytime’s good, just say the word.
7 Apr 2008, 12:31 pm
Now he wants the lowdown on the game.
What do you mean. What do you want to know.
Ikeys v Maties, Danie Craven Stadium, Stellenbosch, kickoff 18h45, tickets ZAR20.
Furball.
7 Apr 2008, 12:38 pm
Nice work Dawn you admin is improving, have another koeksister on me.
Dawn I bet you actualy look like ZET the afrikaans cartoon character. The short yellow fury thing that walks around going ….mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
7 Apr 2008, 12:41 pm
Heng, julle maak my dik lus vir Kaapse vis en tjips nou!
Wens ek kon nou daar by daai Portugese omie by Star Fisheries in die Paarl uitgekom het, ek het lus vir daai viskoeke. Of by Swartland Vissery in M’bury…
7 Apr 2008, 12:46 pm
I suppose a draw was a fair reflection of the game!
Why is it that when the Sharks play away it rains??
7 Apr 2008, 12:48 pm
Ya Pietman, nothing like standing outside a pilchard factory on a hot day hay, flippin awsome vibe ekse!
7 Apr 2008, 12:50 pm
lol dawn, i like your humour lady!
fuzzball, you are also good for a lag.
7 Apr 2008, 12:55 pm
“The public should avoid collecting or eating shellfish from the West Coast until the results of toxicology tests rule out possible poisoning in the area. ”
Dawn your not from the west coast are you? My monday night perlemoen platter with you just took a dive bomb!
7 Apr 2008, 12:57 pm
please dont mention wynand olivier and springbok in the same sentence!
Comment by fryboy : April 7, 2008 @ 11:16 am
Dude, Wynand Olivier and rugby player should not be mentioned in the same sentence.
7 Apr 2008, 12:59 pm
Dawn
Do you still own the 3 series BMW?
The 1984 model?
7 Apr 2008, 13:01 pm
wpw, she does?
Thats hysterical, let me gues mags and an airoplane wing?
7 Apr 2008, 13:03 pm
There was grievous upset at the final whistle at Westpac Stadium in Wellington on Saturday evening and huge controversy.
Loud rang the Joe Jacobs cry of 76 years ago: “We wuz robbed.” 76 years and it’s still in use. Nearly 70 years after Jacobs died it’s as fresh as ever.
Let’s look at what happened.
The score was 13-all and the Sharks won a line-out. They mauled. When that fell down they gave the ball to Frédéric Michalak who kicked down towards the touch-line on his right, a high ball into the Hurricanes’ 22. Hosea Gear marked the ball.
Gear tapped and gave to Piri Weepu who raced past Adrian Jacobs and down the field till Jacques Botes tackled him near the Hurricanes’ 10-metre line. There was a tackle ruck and the urgent Hurricanes drove the Sharks a long way off the ball and fell to ground, leaving Weepu lying at the ball behind them.
Ryan Kankowski approached the ball and was penalised.
Willie Repia tapped immediately and the ball went right. Ma’a Nonu gave to Conrad Smith who stepped brilliantly inside Stefan Terblanche. There was only François Steyn to beat. Smith gave to Shannon Paku. Steyn tackled Paku into touch a metre or so from the corner flag but Paku had managed to fling the ball infield as the final siren sounded. Falling back Terblanche put a left hand up and knocked the ball back over his goal-line. Half a metre from the line Brad Barritt grabbed Smith. Terblanche and Thomas Waldrom scrambled for the ball. Terblanche seemed not to ground it and Waldrom may well have but that was all in vain as the referee had blown the final whistle for what he perceived as a knock-on by Smith, who was indignant.
Lots of people were indignant.
Clearly the referee thought that Smith had knocked on. He had a ground view of the incident and no replay. Two hands went up for the ball, close to the ball and the ball went on into the Sharks’ in-goal. He presumed that Smith had knocked on.
Presumption is dangerous. It happened at Ellis Park when the presumed that Jano Vermaak had knocked on and so denied a try which would have won the match. Then no hands were near the ball. This time two hands were near the ball and just a split second for the referee to make a decision.
He made the wrong decision and in fact Waldrom may well have scored.
But once the referee decided that Smith had knocked on all other decisions became irrelevant. The Barritt tackled Smith without the ball was irrelevant. That Waldrom may have grounded the ball became irrelevant. It would be a scrum to the Sharks, but time was up. It was time for the final whistle.
There are some other thoughts about the incident.
Knocking a pass back is not an infringement. Knocking it forward is.
Could the referee have referred the knock-back to the television match official to determine who had knocked it back?
The International Rugby Board’s television match official’s protocol states: The TMO must not be requested to provide information on players prior to the ball going into in-goal (except touch in the act of grounding the ball).
The knock-back could not be referred to the TMO.
Could the referee have referred the early tackle to the TMO?
For the same reason the answer is No. An early tackle/tackle without the ball is foul play. The referee is entitled to refer that to the TMO but only if it is in in-goal. The week before the Bulls were unhappy that Keven Mealamu’s try had been as a result of obstruction. The referee did check with his touch judge as to where such possible obstruction could have occurred. It could have occurred only in the field of play, and so the referee was not allowed to refer the matter to the TMO and so the Bulls lost by two points.
It does question the protocol.
The purpose of the TMO is to get a right and fair result.
In the cases of the Lions, the Bulls and the Hurricanes, the decisions were not right or fair. They were also costly.
But then how far do you take it back? In a try-scoring movement- which could be going back 100 metres?
Within five metres of the goal-line? Then what about six, seven and so on, and such a case would not cover the Jano Vermaak incident.
Or does one just accept the bounce of the ball and the bounce of the referee as part of the game’s hazards.
And does one then say: the referee’s error was not the only error that jeopardised the Hurricanes’ (Lions’/Bulls’) chances of winning the game. Players also contributed.
The perception remains that players make mistakes; referees cheat!
Oh – and was Kankowski really off-side?
The lesson for referees in this case and the Vermaak case is that it is better to see and believe what you see than to presume/guess.
7 Apr 2008, 13:04 pm
wpw, that reminds me of a song by Gomez a few years ago:
Got a haircut, got a silver tooth, gonna get myself arrested
Got some friends in my bmw, tryin to get themselves arrested
7 Apr 2008, 13:08 pm
Wat praat almal van my.
Fuzzybear.
Report to lobotomy room at the Tudor Hotel (pay-by-the-hour) at 20h00 tonight.
Should be done with Ryan by then.
7 Apr 2008, 13:09 pm
Presumption is dangerous. It happened at Ellis Park when the presumed that Jano Vermaak had knocked on and so denied a try which would have won the match.
Comment by THE MAULER : April 7, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
But that still doesn’t explain why the ref called them back and awarded the scrum to the Lions. It was a complete ****-up on so many levels.
7 Apr 2008, 13:11 pm
Mauler, refs doing a pretty good job if you ask me.
Consdering how profesional the game has become you have too alow room for human error. Its not as obvious soemtimes but they should call a time out and give video ref a shout ?
7 Apr 2008, 13:13 pm
Katman I agree! But what they saying is that if he used the TMO on sat, they could have used it in the Lions vs Force match. In the end the question is how far back can the TMO go?
7 Apr 2008, 13:15 pm
Fuzzy
Like I said above the ruling on TMO is only in goal. So he wouldnt have been able to rule for an early tackle.
7 Apr 2008, 13:18 pm
#220
Fuzzy
Did you watch Canes v Sharks.
7 Apr 2008, 13:34 pm
Dawn do you know Vernon Koekemoer?
7 Apr 2008, 13:56 pm
Answer my question twit.
7 Apr 2008, 22:02 pm
“He was distinctly average against the Hurricanes on Saturday, and when glancing at his performances to date, only his showing against the Bulls at Loftus rates worthy of a mention.”
Michalak was not at his best ,that’s for sure, but they failed to mention that he rarely got the ball in that match.
I was amazed by how many times the likes of Pienaar and Kockott didn’t give him the ball either by playing selfishly or passing to other players.
Muir should remind them that the SH’s primary role is to pass the ball to his FH.
7 Apr 2008, 22:53 pm
#202
So,whats that got to do with my own opinion.
I know he is from Christchurch.
MY post was pointing out that if i played a team against a team of 15 ineffective players and only drew with them then i would be worried.
Obviously you didnt get what i meant.
7 Apr 2008, 23:34 pm
nice balanced account there mauler. who wrote it? it appears far too intelligently written for an SA journo.
8 Apr 2008, 07:54 am
227 Hurricane,
You have just said exactly what I meant …. Sharks fans should be worried.
By the way … whta is your current opinion of Colin Cooper?
8 Apr 2008, 10:42 am
Church, the Saders did not look too good against those same ineffectual guys not too long ago, and resorted to pick and shovel, (similar to WC) to wind the clock down!
8 Apr 2008, 12:04 pm
#229
Lol sorry Church
Well Colin cooper is one of those coaches that yuo dont really know what to think of.He hasnt really made the team fire on a more consistent basis and he hasnt made the team look to bad.The Canes are normally in with a shot agianst most teams.Anyways i think its time for a change for the Canes.I say a new coach is needed.
8 Apr 2008, 12:07 pm
#230
Really the Canes against the Saders game wasnt really a huge problem for the men in red.Plus it was a different game,the canes didnt play like they did against the Saders
Where as the game between Canes and Sharks really could have gone the way of the Canes very easily.
8 Apr 2008, 12:12 pm
Hurricane, as much as I like Muir, I feel the same with regards to the Sharks, our backs are not firing at all no matter how well our forwards do! We need Campo back or eddie Jones!
8 Apr 2008, 12:36 pm
#232 Hurricane, that is EXACTLY the point I was trying to make! Church was saying that the Canes were really inept against the Sharks! I think given the conditions both teams did okai! The Canes could have very well beaten the Saders that day, they just left it a bit too late! and please note that the Saders are my favorite Non South African team.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.