Pulling the strings
15 Jul 2010
Springbok assistant coaches Gary Gold and Dick Muir have had a major influence on the team’s playing philosophy, writes Gavin Rich in SA Rugby magazine.
In the movie Robin Hood, the hero plays a defining role in the battle that enables the English to beat off an intended French invasion.
The English monarch, King John, seeing the French surrender, asks who they are surrendering to. One of John’s right-hand men points at the Robin Longstride (later to become Hood) character, played by Russell Crowe, and says, ‘They are surrendering to him’.
No doubt the king is aware of the role that Robin has played in saving England, but at the same time he is jealous of his popularity. He reacts by declaring Robin an outlaw of the state.
Why are we starting off a story about the Springbok assistant coaches by retelling a Hollywood screenplay? Because there may be a little of King John in Springbok coach Peter de Villiers. His public tirade against his management team in April could only have been sparked by dissatisfaction that others were being credited with the Springboks’ success.
In the end, the coach’s threat to sack staff never amounted to anything, and the same management team that ended the last international season were working with De Villiers when the Springboks started the new one.
What De Villiers was doing, or so it emerged, was just blowing off steam, doing a bit of sabre rattling to warn his management members while at the same time sending out the message to the public that he is the boss.
To understand why there would be a need to do that you have to understand that like all of us, De Villiers is human. That means he does have an ego, and while publicly he did all the right things last year by staying in the background when the players celebrated the Tri-Nations triumph, privately it must rankle with him that he didn’t get full credit from some sections of the media and public.
That the Springbok team is run by committee should be obvious to anyone who has read John Smit’s autobiography. It should have been clear to anyone who understands the game that the Springboks did not achieve their success against the British & Irish Lions and in the Tri-Nations playing the off-the-cuff rugby that De Villiers spoke about when he first took over.
Behind the scenes a long battle was being waged in 2008 to get the Boks back to the game that won the World Cup just a year earlier. The players were part of that battle, but the assistant coaches were also facing each other across the trenches, with the different philosophies of Dick Muir and Gary Gold having an impact on the initial formulation of policy, as well as the evolution that followed.
To explain all of this, it is instructive to go back to the article I wrote on the assistant coaches for SA Rugby magazine in May 2008. At the time they were being appointed, they were clearly not being recruited as assistants who would just follow the head coach’s policy, but would be part of policy formulation.
The problem was that even back then they knew they had conflicting views on how the game should be played, though they tried hard to make it seem like a positive.
‘I know Peter’s style from his time with Western Province [he coached the Disas], and obviously I know Dick from what he has done with the Sharks, and I would say that in a subtle way we do have different philosophies,’ said Gold. ‘Neither philosophy is right or wrong, but while I believe there should be some structure, I think Peter and Dick are what you could call “heads-up coaches”. They like their players to play what’s in front of them.’
Gold went on to say that Muir probably wouldn’t disagree that it was only when John Plumtree arrived as his assistant that structure was brought to the Sharks in 2007, and it was then that the Sharks evolved into the finished article. Gold was right, Muir didn’t disagree.
‘It’s about striking the right balance between structure and letting the players make the decisions, and I think your ability to get this right depends heavily on where you are with the players in their development,’ said Muir. ‘Looking back, I think that in a manner of speaking I was trying to run with players who at the time just weren’t ready to run. I firmly believe that if you have the complete product, in other words players who are experienced and developed enough, you don’t need structure.’
That Muir statement explains a lot. Clearly when he became involved with the Springboks, he thought the players were the finished article. Let’s wind the clock back to the first Springbok training camp under the De Villiers regime in Stellenbosch in late May 2008.
The Sharks had made the Super 14 semi-finals, so they weren’t part of the Bok squad at first muster. Muir wasn’t part of the management that first addressed the players at the Lord Charles Hotel in Somerset West.
Perhaps it explains why when the Boks went into their first training sessions, structure was not just a small feature of what they were doing – it was massive.
I watched one of those sessions with Brendan Venter, who was the Stormers defence coach at the time and is now in charge of Saracens. Venter was open mouthed at what he was seeing, and exclaimed that the structured session he was watching was the antithesis of the heads-up approach that De Villiers had been preaching in the media.
Venter was even more confounded when he heard some of the regular Stormers codes being called out, and saw the Springboks running Stormers drills and moves. Stormers coach Rassie Erasmus was also watching from the stands at the Danie Craven Stadium.
Understandably, Gold became unpopular with Erasmus for a while, and he was also in hot water with De Villiers when I wrote in the Weekend Argus that the Springboks were employing Stormers strategy. I know this because Venter, a good friend of Gold’s, told me as much.
But Venter wasn’t the only person I chatted to during that Stellenbosch camp. The players were more talkative in those early days about the De Villiers reign, and one of them told me towards the end of the camp that everything had been well on track and the squad had been heading towards a structured approach before Muir arrived and, in his words, ‘messed it up’.
The Boks continued with what they started, however, when they played the first game under De Villiers against Wales in Bloemfontein. For the first 50 minutes it was text-book traditional Bok rugby, with Butch James playing one of his better games of that year. The Boks won comfortably.
Unfortunately, though, they scored a couple of long-range tries once the Welsh were forced into a massive catch-up game in the second half, and this must have duped De Villiers into leaning back in the direction of the Muir heads-up approach. We media probably didn’t help when, in praising the Boks the next day, we noted that little had changed in overall strategy since the World Cup.
It was heads-up rugby that the Boks played in the early part of the Loftus game, only the heads were clearly missing – it looked like chicken-without-heads rugby. The Boks won in the end, but they nearly ran themselves out on their feet, and the Welsh were allowed to be far more competitive than they had been in Bloemfontein.
This pattern of doing well with structure one week and then forsaking it with near disastrous results was to continue for much of the season. For instance, the overly frenetic approach of Wellington was followed by a more controlled and structured approach in Dunedin, and the Boks scored a historic victory.
But instead of going to Australia retaining the same approach, the Boks telegraphed an intention to become more attacking by dropping Percy Montgomery. The Boks lost in Perth, and they lost 19-0 to the All Blacks at Newlands playing rugby that was a long way from the tried and trusted Bok template.
And so to Durban, and the match against the Wallabies, where the chasm in the camp in terms of the intended approach was made obvious to the media by the massive differences in the utterances of the players, the two assistants and the head coach.
At the media conferences during the week, Jean de Villiers spoke about the need to play from the right positions on the field and to kick when on the wrong side of halfway, and Juan Smith spoke about the virtues of structure. So did Gold. But when Muir spoke he was clearly speaking heads-up rugby again, and he and De Villiers seemed convinced there had not been any error with the strategy in the Newlands disaster.
Behind the scenes a meeting had taken place, at the behest of the assistant coaches, between players and management at which a new way forward was formulated. Under pressure, De Villiers was forced to let the players have their way – but judging from his and Muir’s statements, they didn’t know what that way was.
The return to structure didn’t bear immediate dividends in Durban because some 50-50 calls went against the Boks early on. When they fell behind they lost composure, and it was clear not all the players were on the same page. Neither were the coaches, for The Mercury reported afterwards that two different strategies were suggested to skipper Victor Matfield by the respective assistant coaches at half-time.
History shows that a return to direct rugby saw the Boks score a massive win over the Wallabies in Johannesburg in the final Test of that Tri-Nations, and but for a slight wobble in Edinburgh, the template was retained for the end-of-year tour and into 2009.
Of the two assistants, Gold played the more important role in the success of the new player-driven culture because his understanding of the need for a structured approach led him to act as an interface between the players and the other coaches.
Percy Montgomery, when he was with the Boks last year, also played a massive role in preaching structure, and in the Tri-Nations he played a bigger role than merely performing the duties of a kicking coach.
The reality is that strategy within the Springbok set-up has never really been driven by De Villiers – there have been occasions, such as in the beginning in Stellenbosch, when Gold was clearly allowed to have influence. There were other times when Muir had more influence, usually coinciding with a heads-up playing style, and of course, over the past 18 months the players have been steering the ship.
But the senior players cannot be fall guys because they are seen as indispensible. The assistants may be more expendable to De Villiers, which explains why it was management who were in the line of fire when he thrust out his chest and proclaimed ‘I am the boss!’ That was what De Villiers’ media outburst was about.
In order to do so, he had to find a suitable fall guy, and his fellow management were easy targets.
By Gavin Rich
– This article first appeared in the July issue of SA Rugby magazine
218 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » Show All
15 Jul 2010, 12:04 pm
THE FIRST 3 paragraphs to this piece is a joke- trying to sound clever and multi dimentional… but i enjoyed the rest- nice to get an insight into backstage.
the only thing is that its the authors preception of events and imo mostly hearsay potentially- for all we know **** banged his wife while gary was giving him the reach around.
divvy is the boss boys
15 Jul 2010, 12:05 pm
@Alucard(Alucard)-84:
Okay right please explain the dynamics of the ruck under the Jake White era and specifically how he approached it and what role it played in his overall game strategy.
I would be specifically interested in that analysis given the theories surrounding the use of bigger loose forwards because of the perceived advantage it gives you considering the X (territorial), Y (positional) and Z (ball to ground) axis theories Jake implemented and how that compares with general deck play or scavenger play more fancied by Australian teams.
Of course don’t leave out how this influences the phase play in different team strategies and how overall selections has to be considered to compliment this strategy.
Do that for me and perhaps I might take you more seriously because everything I have read from you so far seems to be sucked out of your ***, sorry.
15 Jul 2010, 12:05 pm
****= Deek Muir
15 Jul 2010, 12:05 pm
@ufo(ufo)-96:
Not at all, I stick to the facts. I keep it about the rugby and what actually is going on. You guys are the ones who consistently drag the debate into race and/or little tantrums.
15 Jul 2010, 12:06 pm
As I recall the all blacks scored their try when jdv threw a speculative pass under our posts in that Newlands game.
And didn’t Percy miss 4 kicks at goal?
15 Jul 2010, 12:07 pm
@Alucard(Alucard)-94: Percy Montgomery was the master of the counter attack under JW? Do not confuse playing on the other team’s mistakes as counter attacking. JW’s team would not recognize a counter attack if it bit them in the arse.
15 Jul 2010, 12:09 pm
@GI POT(GI POT)-89: ON AN EVEN MORE SERIOUS NOTE
how can there be soo many Bulls lovers on this website who would vote for a scrummie who hasnt played in tht position for over a year, ova Pienaar
exactly why i dont follow polls
15 Jul 2010, 12:09 pm
I will address your leaky defense, no structure theory (based on your perceptions of our brilliant counter attacking offensive under White) following your ruck analysis.
One thing at a time.
15 Jul 2010, 12:09 pm
@Alucard(Alucard)-104:
you brought race into it calling PdV a quota coach…
unless you meant that each team has quota of one coach, two assistants, one physio etc…
it you did i apologise…
otherwise… you’re the “these people”.
as for tantrums… sheesh dude… go and re-read your stuff…
15 Jul 2010, 12:12 pm
@ufo(ufo)-109: with u on this one- he’s not quite shaun but in the pack of guys who like to throw it around willy nilly.
15 Jul 2010, 12:15 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-102: LOL
OHHHH
and can we say K.O?
15 Jul 2010, 12:15 pm
@mainland(mainland)-110:
but says it’s everyone else throwing it around…
15 Jul 2010, 12:29 pm
see this thread has died out…gone to where it belongs
15 Jul 2010, 12:29 pm
Gavin doesn’t like Peter, it’s no secret, so i take everything that comes from this half-decent rugby journo with a pinch of salt unfortunately.
15 Jul 2010, 12:30 pm
@Alucard(Alucard)-84: you can fool some but not everyone…
“Jake never needed a fetcher, his approach of rucking blunted the much vaunted prowess of Australia and New Zealand. And plus, 2009 were under different rules. ” – alucard
Jake’s joker 6, 7 and 8 cards
Coach Jake White’s refusal to acknowledge the relevance of a specialist open-side flanker in the northern hemisphere has proved disastrous for the Springboks.
Match statistics from the defeats against Ireland and England are alarmingly weighted in the favour of the hosts and shows up the folly of White’s insistence that an open-sider is not a necessity in test rugby.
In the two tests the Boks battled for ball to such an extent that Ireland and England made 321 passes to South Africa’s 151. The Boks made almost double the amount of tackles, 187 to 100, while the ruck and pass domination was a staggering 120 to 46 to the home teams.
The most damning statistic that shows up the lack of impact White’s loose-trio has had in the two test matches is that the Boks won 18 turnovers to the 17 of Ireland and England’s. It is damning because the Boks, by virtue of Ireland and England’s dominance of the ball, had nearly three times the breakdowns to contest. Ireland and England took the ball into the contest 138 times and the Boks won it back on 18 occasions. The Boks were the attackers at just 63 rucks and they lost it 17 times.
I spoke to several prominent coaches in South Africa and analysts and asked them for their interpretation of the breakdown statistics. All of them expressed a similar view that the Boks were unable to provide continuity because no openside flanker had been selected.
What compounded the situation was the absence of a mobile hooker.
The Boks were making double the amount of tackles because there was no one to turn over the opposition ball. Both Ireland and England were comfortable in retaining possession and recycling this possession. England made a mess of the possession, but alarmingly still comfortably took it through 10 and 20 phases on occasions. Ireland did the same, but the class of their back division and cohesion between the loose-forwards and halfbacks meant they easily broke down the Bok defence with 18 linebreaks.
White on this tour has opted for three loose-forwards capable of providing lineout options, but his search for a potent lineout has been at the expense of speed and accuracy in the support play. When the Boks did make a linebreak there was rarely one of the loose-forwards running on the inside shoulder of the linebreaker.
Against England it was at its worst when Akona Ndungane and Francois Steyn were both put into space and confronted with a one on one with Josh Lewsey. A traditional open-sider’s angle of run would have been on the inside shoulder of the player with ball in hand. It didn’t happen for the Boks because the national coach, unlike every other coach in the country (or for that matter the world), doesn’t see the value of picking one of his loose-forwards to do that function.
England’s public is not being fooled by the mediocrity of performance in winning for the first time in eight tests and the South African public should also not be fooled that the Bok defeat was more heroic than it was horrid.
With the right selections and strategy England should have been dismantled and Andy Robinson should be looking for a new job today. The Boks should also have won for the first time in 10 years.
Ireland, France, New Zealand and Argentina have all won at Twickenham in the last two years. The Boks have not.
White got his selection balance wrong, just like he did in Dublin and just like he did in 2004 against Ireland and England. Even in 2004, Schalk Burger was not a decisive factor in the northern hemisphere because he is not a natural open-sider.
Burger, at his peak, is a freak who is capable in this role in southern hemisphere conditions. Against Ireland and England in 2004 he looked lost and frustrated playing against specialist open-siders.
You would have thought the lessons would have been learned two years ago. They haven’t because White did not believe there was a lesson taught. The coach stubbornly believes in picking tall loose-forwards, but all that the last two tests have shown is that the only thing we can learn from this history is that White has learned nothing.
The additional lineout options have won the Boks four against the throw on this tour and they’ve also lost four against the throw. They’ve scored a try from one against the throw and they’ve also conceded a try from one against the throw.
White continues to believe his philosophy is right and every critic and South African coach who thinks otherwise is wrong.
What White can’t argue with is a record that reads played 12 overseas against New Zealand, Australia, England, France and Ireland and lost 11.
In the Northern Hemisphere White has played Ireland twice, England twice and France once and every time he has done the same thing and got the same result – a defeat.
Now he has introduced Kabamba Floors into the mix – a month after saying the player simply did not fit into the Boks’ playing style? It makes no sense, unless there is an acknowledgement that if Floors plays, he does so as an open-sider.
It is fantastic that Floors has been called up, but it does make a mockery of White’s mantra that he could not fly Luke Watson to New Zealand earlier this year because the player would not have enough time to learn the team playing systems.
Floors will have one training run with the team at Wasps on Tuesday morning, but White has already confirmed he will be in the match 22.
Don’t ask where the logic is in that because logic is not something you’d associate with Bok selections.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 21st, 2006
15 Jul 2010, 12:32 pm
damnit maar julle praat baie kak
15 Jul 2010, 12:32 pm
@Papoose(papaown)-113: exactly….peter showed his humble side when he didn’t hof the limelight after last year’s trinations triumph.
Gavin is a poephol.
15 Jul 2010, 12:37 pm
@logie_Jumpbuck(logie_Jumpbuck)-117: i meant hog, but hof probably means the same thing
15 Jul 2010, 12:42 pm
@gunther(gunther)-105: yeah, but dan the man missed five. all blacks killed us that day, i was there. scoreline should have read +15 for the all blacks at least.
15 Jul 2010, 12:59 pm
He, he, he
Alucard sure is taking a FACTUAL bruising today
Have to love this site
The irony of a bloke who consistently claims his very broad & sweepings opinions as fact being torn apart by actual facts
To borrow from the dictionary of Transie: “School is session”
Ding, Dong!
15 Jul 2010, 13:07 pm
Gavin Rich is Keo & Jake White’s puppet…
15 Jul 2010, 13:08 pm
@willievz(willievz)-58:
All true, and understand what you mean with having the familiar on his outside, personally I think JdV would have been better – but I don’t say this with any true zealousness.
In terms of defense, totally agree with you regarding the forwards not coming to the party, but did feel that our midfield did not help either…..many missed tackles which led to two guys hanging off one attacker later on, and I feel (maybe wonder is a better word) that if Jean was in midfield he might have had a hand in reorganising the defence better for the second and third phases…..
God, it felt like the abs were breaking our defense on every run (gaining at least 2 metres every time!
On a different note – is it just me or is SA, compared to other countries – very quickly shown out on the outsides when it comes to defense? It always looks to me like we always have at least a two man deficit on the outside, where as if we are attacking, if the ball goes to the wing, it always feels like there are at least two defenders on him….
15 Jul 2010, 13:08 pm
Relating to the article:
I think we could all see Deek and Gold’s influence last week
15 Jul 2010, 13:09 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-81: Agreed. Ball retention is key to beating the ABs. As soon you start starving them of the ball they start to panic. Look what happened last year with Brussouw. Why don’t we have a fetcher? NZ has. Fight fire with fire. Who do we take with us? Schalk fcking Burger. He couldn’t pilfer biltong out of an open packet! If you kick the ball down the ABs throats they will run it back at you very hard, time and time again. You keep the ball in hand and move it threw the phases. Keep kicking away your possession and you will have to keep defending which saps twice as much energy as attacking. The more pressure you put on the other team the more likely they are going to make mistakes.
15 Jul 2010, 13:11 pm
Muir’s influence can be seen all over the show:
Playing players out of position
Lack of match fitness
Awful defense
Getting up late on tour
Drinking binges
Nice one
15 Jul 2010, 13:21 pm
@goyougoodthing2(goyougoodthing2)-125: LOL
Is it too late to get rid of Muir and Gold
@least PdV has seen the light by bringing in Os but backline wise we need to sort ourselves out
15 Jul 2010, 13:22 pm
**** Muir really is a chop and should not be let near the bok squad.
His thing of playing players all over the place and the airy fairy rugby style simply is not good enough.
15 Jul 2010, 13:26 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-115: the way u r able to dig up past articles to shut up some bloggers up is really unparalleled
very impressive
15 Jul 2010, 13:27 pm
It is clear to me again that a good player does not make a good coach by default. The embarasment of the Lions is proof enough to me that **** Muir does not understand the need of structure in the modern game. Rassie Erasmus also did not make the grade and WP/Stormers only became a factor again after adopting a more structured approach. The Bulls under Meyer and Ludeke have been successful because structures are clear and players understand their primary function. Once the opesition was beaten into submission were players free to be “creative”. Innitially the were critisized for playing boaring rugby, but 3 years down the line it has evolved into the defenition of “total rugby”. The Boks should subscribe to this devotion to structure and they will be the dominating force in world rugby for years to come.
15 Jul 2010, 13:31 pm
Alucard must be attending an AWB meeting. He’s gone very quiet all of a sudden… Not that Im complaining
15 Jul 2010, 13:31 pm
Rich i would like to say please could you take off your tinted glasses!!! you have a chip on your shoulder against De Villiers for some or other reason mayb cause he’s black or is an AA appointment and your man Heyneke didnt get the job, or whatever it is! but your utterances from no solid base is hearsay and would not be admitted to court!! you create division and provide only destructive criticism of a coach who is the boss, finished and klaar, but go ahead if you think the assistants are the boss and you will persist with this futile argument go ahead!! its not gonna change anything!! carry on constructing these garbage pieces of writing its only your reputation that will be damaged not De Villiers, he only has one more trophy to win and you can go eat your humble pie, but wait you will still attribute that not to all the coaches but just to the assistants!! sleep well
15 Jul 2010, 13:31 pm
@dr dre(dr dre)-127: its called Total Rugby
its brother is Total Football, just ask the Dutch
15 Jul 2010, 13:36 pm
@styv(styv)-131: seems like he hit a nerve with u yeah?
why dont u use paragraphs?
or lines?
15 Jul 2010, 13:48 pm
ja he just irritates me, always negative this negative that about De Villiers and the boks. He should just deal with it and provide constructive criticism, has this dude even played rugby!!?
as for the paragraphs something i will have to work on!!
15 Jul 2010, 13:58 pm
The Boks have been handicapped by 3 **** coaches and a captain that is fast becoming a liability.
PdeV is most probably the least **** of the 3, and that says allot.
Why are we playing a kick, chase and pray game in the 3N? The Bulls and Stomers have shown how rugby under these rules should be played.
15 Jul 2010, 14:00 pm
@styv(styv)-134: Don’t worry about it I think he is being constructive if you look closer.
For all I have said about Div the truth is he doesn’t have to be the best COACH in the world, he is HEAD COACH. In that department he seems to be doing okay, he has a happy squad, they seem to like him and are in good spirits.
Problem is his choice of assistants. I mean these 2 clowns could be the worst front- and back-line coaches in SA and Div gets them BOTH.
They are responsible for the 2 parts of the team, Div should be the general.
I think he has let these guys get their teeth in, and it really does look like a Muir approach (remember the Sharks). Total Rugby in that sense meant “I’d rather have a pint with the boys tonight than work out tactics so just err, play what’s in front of you”.
If I were a coach with no clue, that’s the exact advice I’d also give the players.
Div may not be bad (judgement on him is moot) but you are judged by the company you keep.
15 Jul 2010, 14:05 pm
Another thing, I think Smit is more of a liability than either junior coach, leading from the coffee machine is not captaining.
15 Jul 2010, 14:16 pm
@The Dude(RaynoG)-130: Allucard should change his nic to allu’tard. as in re-tard.
Yes i know it’s dracula spelled backwards. He should stick to comics and leave the grown up stuff to us…..
15 Jul 2010, 14:24 pm
@goyougoodthing2(goyougoodthing2)-125: Same **** that was dished up at the Lions during the S14. No coincidence
15 Jul 2010, 14:27 pm
@Faust(Faust)-122: When you employ the drift defense (like the Boks do), you will have your 10 marking the opposite 12, the 12 marking the 13, etc. You will mark these players tackling with your outside shoulder.
On Saturday, the ABs used their strike runners (such as Kaino and Nonu) to attack the inside shoulders of these respective players. They therefore ran towards the original point of contact into space with the aim of dominating the last meter before contact. Attacking the inside shoulder of the man that marks you ensures that you as the offensive runner will have the momentum, not vice versa.
Because our defenders got pushed back on their inside shoulders, the player outside that defender joined the ruck with the aim to slow down the ruck ball. The result was the overlap on the drift defense you saw.
It all resulted from that first hit on the inside shoulder which left our defenders off balance. The ABs could use this strategy because of the lackluster marking of our loose trio – the opensider not covering the inside channel between the 10 and the set piece and the nr8 not covering behind the defensive marker to support the breakdown as the second player.
You would also have noticed that on several occasions, they punished us on the blindside because our wings got sucked into the breakdown too as a result of the overlap you described.
The solution to our defensive problems are not a simple silver bullet answer, but would involve making the following adjustments nonetheless:
(a) Rush-up on the first phase defense, provided their nr8 does not pick up the ball from the set-piece. You can drift thereafter and
(b) commit less numbers to the breakdown from phase 3 onwards in order to eliminate that overlap situation you described.
In reality, if you haven’t slowed down ruck ball by the third phase, you are in trouble. And if you don’t dominate the first phase defense, you are going to have a hard time in achieving that objective.
That is the beauty about phase-play momentum – even if your opposition claims to be physically stronger, you can still gain meters if their defensive line is disrupted and individual defenders off balance.
15 Jul 2010, 14:27 pm
@GI POT(GI POT)-139: No it’s not. The man is known for a few things, not many of which revolve around a rugby ball.
Bit of a ‘Jack-the’lad’ rather than a bloke. Not my cup of tea but the ‘legends’ seem to love him.
15 Jul 2010, 14:29 pm
@willievz(willievz)-140: Another thing we could do is tell the 3 glory boys to come up on defence instead of going for the intercept (habana fourie JDV).
That may help our line. All 3 tried it and got caught out on Saturday.
15 Jul 2010, 14:32 pm
@goyougoodthing2(goyougoodthing2)-142: Yes, on more than one occasion.
I don’t think that was merely to go for the intercept though. An outside back realising an overlap situation will instinctively rush-up quicker in an attempt to disrupt the ball carrier and trying to bring him down.
A no guts no glory situation if you wish.
15 Jul 2010, 14:33 pm
I am a goldfish! This stinks, again.
15 Jul 2010, 14:34 pm
@willievz(willievz)-143: I think you are being kind to them, but I’ll give it the benefit.
I don’t think any of the 3 is a particularly good example of ‘team’ player, unless it suits them.
They are GREAT players, but their lack of passing more than once has cost games and the intercept thing, 3 guys in a team is a bit much don’t you think?
Good luck to them but they will be nailed more times than they succeed against the ABs with that muck
15 Jul 2010, 14:36 pm
@willievz(willievz)-140: Very good summation.
To add to your analysis. Not one of our loose trio are accustomed to the drift defense on first phase at their respective franchises. It it therefore quite understandable that they would be out of place on defense.
I also think that AB’s will attack the spaces around the rucks with their fullback and blindside wings receiving the inside pass from Carter after they set up third and fourth phases – that is if we continue to wait for them on defense.
My biggest concern is that the “new” defensive system has the stench of **** Muir all over it because it is very reminiscent of the Lions’ porous defense. I hope they come to their senses and fast
15 Jul 2010, 14:42 pm
Just read the thread and I am happy that finally after all my years blogging here that discussion and debate has flourished.
There was a time where the likes of Allucard would have had a band of stupid bloggers trying the get the sensible commentary banned.
Today, we have, (for the most part), sensible bloggers, who can see a bullshit article a mile off, and read the undertone the agendas of Rich, Vrede and Keo. Above all. Bullshitters get chopped with facts.
Nicely done guys. And special thanks to Pissant, Transformation and Ufo.
15 Jul 2010, 14:47 pm
Well it has been almost 3 hours now, I suspect an answer is not forthcoming.
Outta here till later.
15 Jul 2010, 14:49 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-148: Hahahahahaha. I think he has run off.
I don’t think you were ever going to get an answer to your questions. That would have required independant analysis without the blatant Pdv hatred. Allucard, is incapable of that. Clearly.
15 Jul 2010, 14:51 pm
@rossoneri(rossoneri)-147:
AMEN!!
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.