Rekindling gainline belligerence key
12 Apr 2011
RYAN VREDE writes that the Reds have the capacity to ensure the Bulls’ poor campaign plummets to a new low.
I wrote last week that Reds flyhalf Quade Cooper has become a more complete player. However, while this is true, on the evidence of their season to date, and specifically their performance against the Stormers, it appears that the team as a whole has evolved. They are now equally adept at winning with sparkle as they are at grinding out victories on the back of a relatively pragmatic approach.
Nowhere was the latter more in evidence than at Newlands, where their 19-6 upset was built on the back of a punishing defence not readily associated with the Brisbane franchise. Certainly their impressive variation in attacking play – which saw Cooper and scrumhalf Will Genia probe for field position regularly and largely accurately – and a greater focus on the set pieces than has been the case in recent years, contributed to their success. However, it is their solidity in the collisions that will most trouble the Bulls. I have no doubt that a replication of that performance on Saturday will see them plunge the beleaguered Bulls further into despair.
A large part of their struggles has been their inability to retain possession for long enough to ask telling questions of the opposition. Against the Crusaders senior Springboks consistently lost the ball in contact at crucial times. Furthermore the accuracy of their up-and-unders was poor and kick-chase lethargic, and thus turned out to be no more than a simple way of surrendering possession. This must change.
Previously the Bulls would have identified the Reds as being vulnerable at the tackle point and built their attacking game plan around punishing phase play. That is no longer the case, which doesn’t bode well for the Pretoria franchise given that they have yet to exhibit the variation in play that made them formidable opponents for the past two seasons.
Reds Coach Ewen McKenzie has recognised the need to add whack to their wow factor, and the time he has invested in ensuring his charges aren’t a soft touch is reflected in their appreciable strength in this facet of play. It has made their defensive task easier, allowing for increased opportunities to effect breakdown turnovers, or to slow the recycle, the latter enabling the defensive line to set before the next phase is launched.
Bulls captain Victor Matfield promised their supporters an exponential improvement at the Suncorp Stadium. It is a bold move and delivery will hinge on his primary strike runners achieving a level of dominance at the gainline that they have not come close to all season. Pierre Spies in particular needs a performance that will remind us of his value, while Victor Matfield and Bakkies Botha need to provide a counter-argument to the growing view that they are a spent force.
It is perplexing that even in a team with a different complexion as a result of the Bulls’ rotational policy (their term) there is no room for Danie Rossouw. He is the one player who has looked capable of consistently bossing the tackle fight and providing the momentum needed on attack.
The Bulls can only persist so long with players whose reputations are sustaining them. They need those men to deliver and do so consistently.
129 Comments
Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All
12 Apr 2011, 12:10 pm
And the first one said, to the second one there,
“I hope you’re having fun”.
Oooh the Dragon on the run………………….
12 Apr 2011, 12:24 pm
I made mention of this yesterday.
The Reds on Saturday against the Stormers probably gave the best example of ‘head’s up rugby’ you can ever hope to see.
McKenzie in his post-match comments made mention of the fact how they tried the running game in the first quarter or so. Seeing they are not making in-roads into the best defensive side in the competition, they adapted to the situation.
Head’s up rugby = looking what is happening in front of you and playing the situation.
Suddenly the flamboyant Reds team turned into a pragmatic unit. Cooper left his backdoor, no-look passes and his kick-pass strategies on the sideline and together with Genia, outplayed the more pragmatic and supposed tactically superior (kicking and field position) pairing of Duvenhage and Grant.
Evidence of this is in Allister Coetzee’s post match comments which went something like: “They took us out of our defense oriented comfort zone and (Cooper) kicked territorially a lot more than what we expected”
On the one hand, you had a team that assessed and successfully adapted their approach on the day, and on the other, you had a team who had no clue what to do when taken out of their comfort zone.
But…
Thanks to the media’s love/hate relationship with PDV ‘head’s up rugby’ is some sort of swear word in this country. When all it is, for players to assess and adapt on what is happening in front of them while STAYING IN THE TEAM STRUCTURES.
The problem with the Stormers, and for that matter the Bulls, is that because they play such a pattern-based structured (read one-dimensional and predictable approach), it only requires for key decision-making individuals to be 5% off their game (around which these structures are built) or heaven forbid, lose them to injury, for the whole team to be 15 to 20% less effective.
The result, players become increasingly frustrated as the game goes on (discipline) and extremely desperate the more the pressure builds up.
When you lose discipline, and shape, you start throwing desperate passes, your hands/arms/shoulders tense up a lot more and the end result most of the time, is silly penalties, and inexplicable dropped balls or poor technique in contact.
After reading Dewald Potgieter’s column this morning it becomes evident that the players themselves don’t even know what they are doing wrong, or why they are dropping balls all of a sudden.
I cannot say I am surprised. How are they supposed to know when they are coached as drones to only play in one way?
12 Apr 2011, 12:32 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-2: Good write up PA – lot of sense
12 Apr 2011, 12:33 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-2:
Change the word Stormers for Bulls and you can repost that one on another Thread PA.
And it will still be 100% spot on.
Could be worse of course.
Your Team could be My Team.
8)
12 Apr 2011, 12:34 pm
@stew(stewie)-3:
You got a head like rugby ball by any chance Stewie?
12 Apr 2011, 12:35 pm
Family name Griffin by any chance.
12 Apr 2011, 12:36 pm
Bulls will have learnt a thing or three from their defeats.
Reds to get rubbled.
12 Apr 2011, 12:36 pm
Dog called Brian?
12 Apr 2011, 12:36 pm
Sharks play “heads up” Rugby – The Saffer team who has the best chance of winning Super Rugger this year.
Bulls on a 3year old Heynecke Meyer template…
Stormers on a 4yr old Jake White template…
Cheetahs will not be in the knockouts but they are going to knock a good few teams over… They seem to have returned to their roots…
Lions although scintillating at times, are helter skelter – predictable helter skelter.
Bulls and Stormers have been found out. Sharks and Cheetahs have hit their speed bumps and now will play out the rest of the season on home turf….
Looking good for Sharks A and Sharks B….
12 Apr 2011, 12:38 pm
@Great White Shark(Predawn)-7:
Bullies have a long flight home Predawn.
Reds will be tough.
12 Apr 2011, 12:40 pm
@Heavens Game(Heavens Game)-9:
Don’t be so quick to flag just one or two teams with this.
Against the Crusaders one John Plumtree blamed tactical naivity on attack by his players for the loss.
Against the Stormers, the same Plumtree blamed tactical naivity on defence by his players for the loss.
It is obvious Plumtree expects his players to react better to situations on the field, the fact that they do not against top teams however, leaves me with the question if they are indeed coached (by said Plumtree) to do this…?
12 Apr 2011, 13:00 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-11: Part of the coaching process…
Plum was obviously not bullshitting anyone and these were good WYSIWYG moments – obviously a rarity among SA coaches who say one thing in front of journos and another behind closed doors… It seems SA sports journos are flummoxed by Plum’s Natalian honesty… A bit like Kitch Christie and Ian Mac in that regard…?
Plum also has honestly and rightly pinpointed fatigue as a factor in the loss to the Stormers… Nothing wrong with that…?
Tactical naivety on attack against the Saders was a definite factor in their loss – namely McLeods mess up at a critical moment when Sharks had great momentum in the 2nd half… Bang and Saders counter attack resulted in game over… No coach could prevent McLeod from doing that. A similar thing happened when McLeod made a break against the Stormers and all he had to do was pass right to Ndungane… Try! Player error, not coaching error.
Now Plum could have dropped McLeod, and indeed he did replace him on field against the Stormers, but he hasn’t left McLeod out of the team probably because he understands that these tactically naive mistakes are all part of the experience of learning to be a better player. Lessons that will stand McLeod in good stead at the business end of the season…
McLeod is one example. Other players like Bosman or Daniel could have been used as examples, but to me this doesn’t reflect Plums coaching naivety. Instead it is refreshing to see a coaching setup in SA that isn’t obsessed with “structures” and quite frankly coaching the individualistic intelligence out of a player.
Plum, a “naive” coach… ? You’re having me on.
12 Apr 2011, 13:09 pm
@cane(cane)-5: Pretty much these days !!!
12 Apr 2011, 13:11 pm
@Heavens Game(Heavens Game)-12:
The fact that he has identified naive, or limited execution or application in his players does not automatically mean he has a solution for it.
Identifying you were tactically outsmarted is something all coaches do and are quite honest about – Coetzee did this, Ludeke also highlighted this on more than one occassion.
The thing that concerns me of the Sharks specifically is that since they lost their one, very influential playmaker (Lambie), the team effort as a whole dropped by quite a margin – recording losses against the Crusaders and Stormers.
Forgive me for not counting (what was a very good victory make no mistake) against the Lions as a benchmark.
It is this reliance and ability to adapt that is most concerning. It is the Bulls losing Du Preez or Matfield, Stormers losing Jean (and the Sharks losing Lambie).
Suddenly their plan A is gone, and there is no plan B in sight.
The Crusaders on the flipside does not to have lost an inch with both Carter and McCaw on the sidelines, arguably two of the most influential players in world rugby – similarly, McKenzie made a host of changes to the Reds team from the Lions game to the Stormers one, the result required was achieved.
12 Apr 2011, 13:11 pm
Bulls are now little more than pastrami. Sliced and diced.
12 Apr 2011, 13:19 pm
@TheTackler(TheTackler)-15: Amen – the universe is balanced again
12 Apr 2011, 13:23 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-14: Totally agree.
Last week the Stormers watched the Lions give the Reds a good run for their money and decided that’s how we will do it(read kick & chase) That was plan A and as we saw that was the only plan.
A thinking man’s team should have realised it was not working after 10 minutes and implemented a plan B.
But this is South Africa. Do what you were coached to do. That’s it. Don’t even consider thinking for yourself as a player
12 Apr 2011, 13:23 pm
@stew(stewie)-13:
Sorry Stew, if you don’t know the Griffin Family of Family Guy.
Cartoons.
And they are irreverently hilarious.
12 Apr 2011, 13:25 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-2: Reading Dewald Potgieters column this morning I got the distinct impression that they know only too well where the problems lie, but realize that discretion is the better part of valour. It appears that for some in the team this year has taken on the guise of a voyage to part with old friends and places never to be re-visited and sing ‘olde lange zyne’ (spelling!!!~!) with some team mates will heralding in a changing of the guard. Kind of like having the best of both worlds, having your bread buttered both sides. I could have told them that is fatal.
Think back to when last you resigned for better prospects or a new challenge in your career. There is some sadness and nostalgia, especially when you have given your best, but the closer the time comes to the inevitable moment to move on the more impatient you become. You can’t wait to get stuck in on the other side and get some go forward momentum in you life. And when it happens, soon you hardly think of the colleagues you left behind.
Isn’t this a bit of what we are seeing with the Bulls? Some guys struggling with the poser whether they have made the right move, and anxious to find that out, while others struggle with uncertainty about the future and whether certain players leaving will impact on them and their own ability to perform, and yet others wondering where the talent to replace the departing will come from, and how the team will be affected. The boys are all human, and everytime when a team mate says ”come on guys, this is the last time…(whatever)…” it actually impacts on them negatively untill they reach a point where they accept it as part of their reality, and with it the negative emotions. It must be difficult to fight to remain focused as a team when you know some members, in fact the core, have in a way forsaken that identity already.
Life’s a ***** and then you die, so my advice is: ”Stuff the future, live the now. Don’t look further than today. Let tomorrow take care of itself. It has a habit of doing so anyway, no matter how hard you try to plan otherwise. What will be will be. For now, just enjoy the ride today and make the best of it.”
Who knows, by doing so, you might discover something new about yourself and your mates that make it worth it to stand together and fight side my side today. Catch the ball, make the tackles, score the points, give your best. Afterall, isn’t that what has brought you this far?
12 Apr 2011, 13:26 pm
@Ogre(Ogre)-19: will = while
12 Apr 2011, 13:39 pm
See Bulls have dropped Stegmann and Fourie du Preez to the bench.
Derick Kuun to start and Francious Hougaard.
12 Apr 2011, 13:39 pm
It’s just a thought, but from what I can read between the lines Dewald is rising or at least attempting to rise above the adversity this imminent disbanding of the team’s core holds, so Ludeke could do a lot worse than recognize that fact formally by letting VM’s mantle fall on DP to rally the remaining team members behind himand start building for the future. Give some of the old boys a rest and do some forwardthinking succession management. Nothing wrong with that.
12 Apr 2011, 13:56 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-14: Hey, easy tiger. It is not the end of the world to lose to the Crusaders especially after their 15 mins of brilliance in the 1st half. As a staunch Sharks fan even I was standing up in Twickers and applauding absolute genius. 15 mins of rugby to compare with the 15 mins of brilliance of the French against ABs in the 1999 WC semi.
It is also no embarrassment to lose to the Stormers at Kings Park after a helluva strenuous schedule for the Sharks in comparison to the relatively sedate run in for the Stormers.
The amazing thing for me is that the Sharks actually could have won these two matches. A pass right or a pass instead of kick might have made all the difference in both games. Inches and minute margins. The only disappointment so far has been their game against the Chiefs. But to give credit to the Chiefs – they played their best game of rugby against the Sharks in their Super Rugby journey so far. Tana Umaga was the Tana of old and the Chiefs rallied behind him.
You say the Sharks have a plan A and no plan B… The Sharks played against a glittering Saders without Lambie and did not embarrass themselves. They also played against a Stormers side who were on top of their limited defence focussed gameplan and also did not embarrass themselves. The Sharks are nicely positioned after their tour and have scored a good few tries… They will score a few more. Jeez, some tactical naivety might have resulted in the Sharks scoring another couple of tries and another 5 pts on the log at least. Plum has rightfully pointed that out.
Nope, not for me this see sawing subjective emotional criticism of my side when a couple of speed bumps have been negotiated.
Sharks and Plum are looking good.
12 Apr 2011, 14:00 pm
@Heavens Game(Heavens Game)-23: PA, what is the Sharks plan A…? Obviously with Lambie things look good. Without Lambie Sharks have not fallen apart.
12 Apr 2011, 14:01 pm
@Ogre(Ogre)-19:
Well those are all psychological challenges…
So it will lead one to ask, have they got a mental coach?
12 Apr 2011, 14:05 pm
@Heavens Game(Heavens Game)-23:
Well its clear you are not objective.
BTW, it was the Sharks management decision to go on their travel schedule and although I have personally mentioned this is a factor, it is not an excuse.
3 losses in a row?
The mark of a defeatist is when you turn to could’ves and should’ves.
But hey you got your win against the Lions and 5 points with a bye this weekend – happy days I guess.
12 Apr 2011, 14:07 pm
@Heavens Game(Heavens Game)-23:
you miss the point.
PLUM accused his players of tactical naivete.
nobody else.
12 Apr 2011, 14:14 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-26: Not being objective is implying that Plum is actually coaching naivety…
Its also not being objective stating “3 losses in a row” without taking into context why or how those losses could have happened.
Defeatist? That is also not being objective if you consider what was being said when “could’ves and should’ves” are discussed in context… Its another point of view and is contrary to what I would call the defeatist one of labelling Plum a naive coach – as you have interpreted from his comments (and not objectively, at that)…
The Lions was a positive especially in the light that the Sharks went there and obtained a bonus point right at the end of the game. Mission accomplished… That’s pretty objective…
Anyway we all have out points of view and as much as mine might not be “objective”, it is crystal clear that yours aren’t either.
12 Apr 2011, 14:15 pm
@Heavens Game(Heavens Game)-28: out poitns of view = our points of view
12 Apr 2011, 14:18 pm
But if you want me to admit the Sharks are better off than any other SA team I will, as I did in the past.
They made a clear shift to a more momentum based game, which is great. Now I am interested to see if they can grind out tough wins when they are stopped from playing that type of game – and against the Chiefs and Stormers, they failed so far.
12 Apr 2011, 14:18 pm
@The X-factor is staying at home.(gunther)-27: You miss possibly Plum’s point and the context of what he was saying when referring to his player’s tactical naivety… That is my point.
12 Apr 2011, 14:23 pm
@Heavens Game(Heavens Game)-28: Defeatist!
12 Apr 2011, 14:23 pm
@Heavens Game(Heavens Game)-28:
I am yet to meet a coach who coaches his players to be tactically naive…
The question is, have Plum got the goods (and skills) as a coach to prevent his players from being naive or in the moment (assessing and adopting in the moment)?
Those are coaching skills which starts on the training pitch. Those are skills and traits coaches, through their training programmes and experts promote.
It is a specific style of coaching which goes way beyond just ‘trusting’ players to come good next week, or the week after.
An example is a comment from Allister Coetzee I read this morning…
You know what he is going back to ‘motivating’ his players? Last year! Where they lost against the Brumbies but bounced back the following week.
That is hardly in the moment thinking.
12 Apr 2011, 14:24 pm
@Heavens Game(Heavens Game)-31:
Here is the point…
His players being tactically naive is one guy’s responsibility or fault alone – HIS.
12 Apr 2011, 14:24 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-2: Spot on. As near a perfect summation of the SA rugby mindset.
I’ve always felt this way about the stormers. For some reason, the always cam across as over-coached and this dis-empowers players to a point when reaction time in both mind and body is hampered. This could be down to the defensive strategy employed by the stormers which has to be practiced ad nauseum and becomes almost mechanical.
Aspects of this comes across in the attacking game plan as well, hence my suggestion of stormers shifting focus to enhancing their attacking play. One of the first things I’d do is create the ‘double-wave’ formation, which both straightens the attacking lines and subsequently commits defenders. The first wave would comprise mostly of forwards and the variation to this play would be backline players in the 2nd wave. Of vital importance is for the 1st wave to cross the advantage line, forcing the defence to alter their defensive aligment. This then creates space out wide for the wingers and fullbacks. Perhaps then Habana will get the ball with only the try line ahead of him. He’d stand a good chance of dotting down then.
12 Apr 2011, 14:25 pm
@Heavens Game(Heavens Game)-31:
no the point pissant was trying to make is that when plan a fails (for whatever reason) their doesn’t seem to be a plan b..
this is something that exists in all south african teams, no matter where they are in the log.
jeez.
talk about a mountain out of a molehill.
12 Apr 2011, 14:26 pm
@Heavens Game(Heavens Game)-12: Bollocks. The Sharks were NEVER going to win that game. That the score was close should in it self be a bonus.
12 Apr 2011, 14:27 pm
@The X-factor is staying at home.(gunther)-36:
Thank you.
12 Apr 2011, 14:28 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-38:
I’m not sure it’s going to do any good
12 Apr 2011, 14:34 pm
@The X-factor is staying at home.(gunther)-39:
I always hope for the best…
12 Apr 2011, 14:45 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-33: You might yet to meet such a coach, which is ironic considering that you seemed to be implying Plum is just such a coach.
I think many coaches and sports journos in SA seem to be lost in SA orthodoxy at the moment. Someone like Plum is not easily but into a box so it seems easy just to classify him as naive.
Contrarily I think Plum might be combining the best of both worlds in terms of Kiwi appreciation of individuality with some of Saffer “structure” and need for discipline… This contrasts quite nicely with the outcomes of Mitchell at the Lions so far…
Your naivety label for Plum seems to have progressed from player execution naivety (post 14) to tactical naivety (post 34)…. It seems you are determined to label Plum as a naive coach…. I think that is naive and not really objective.
12 Apr 2011, 14:47 pm
@The X-factor is staying at home.(gunther)-36: I actually did see that. You miss one of my points in that I do not agree with that assessment with regard to the Sharks.
Take it or leave it. Continue the naivety.
12 Apr 2011, 14:49 pm
@The X-factor is staying at home.(gunther)-36: PS. Stay off the mountain…
Or crack another joke…
12 Apr 2011, 14:53 pm
sharks play no ‘heads up’ rugby, you don’t score one bonus point the whole season playing ‘heads up’ rugby…
12 Apr 2011, 14:54 pm
@pompies2(pompies2)-37: Now that is naive. Sharks lost nevertheless… No shame in losing to a brilliant team on the day. Sometimes you win some and then you lose others. Thats rugby… and its not defeatist to have no shame in defeat sometimes.
The next game against the Stormers will be very different. Plums “tactical naivety” and “player execution naivety” might just result in a Stormers loss at Newlands…. But I’m naive to think that hey? Plum too.
12 Apr 2011, 14:55 pm
@Heavens Game(Heavens Game)-41:
I seriously don’t know how to explain this in another way for you than my attempts above.
Plum accused his players of being naive.
The reasons for his players being naive (not being able to adapt to the change of approach by the Stormers on defence as he (Plum) highlighted in his interview) refers to their lack of tactical appreciation, or changing from plan a to b when the moment called for it.
The reason players fail to adopt and change strategies, is either because they do not know how to, or there are none.
And THAT, is the responsibility of the coach.
So its great for Plum to identify this, because he is spot on! Does he however realise that he is the one that need to fix it? Or more importantly, does he know how to fix it (since he identified it)?
12 Apr 2011, 14:56 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-44: Thank you…
12 Apr 2011, 14:59 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-46: “Accused” is quite emotive.
How about saying Plum “stated” his players were “naive”…
Puts a different slant on what Plum might have been trying to say, innit?
I am sure Plum has fixed the Sharks. Dont worry, they’ll be less naive when they play the Stormers at Newlands
12 Apr 2011, 15:00 pm
Got to go. Work calls
12 Apr 2011, 15:06 pm
@Heavens Game(Heavens Game)-48:
Here is the heading to the article I refer to:
Plumtree slams players
Here is a section from the article:
Sharks coach John Plumtree accused his team of naivety under pressure following their 6-16 defeat to the Stormers at Kings Park on Saturday night.
“We played into their hands in the first half and should have kicked for territory more,” Plumtree said after the Vodacom Super Rugby match.
Not my words.
For ***** and giggles, here is a quote from Allister this morning.
“The Reds got us out of our comfort zone on defence. They managed to create time and space for Quade Cooper. His passing was excellent and there was more tactical kicking from them than usual,” said Coetzee.
Both stating exactly what went wrong and getting it pretty much spot on.
Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.