All Blacks will boast balanced game
21 Apr 2011
JON CARDINELLI says that the Springboks will be in trouble if the All Blacks adopt the Crusaders’ game plan.
Peter de Villiers was in a cheerful mood on Wednesday afternoon. God knows why. The senior Boks have struggled in the Super Rugby competition, and the World Cup is less than five months away. The Crusaders have looked the best team in the tournament, and their All Blacks have been particularly impressive.
But De Villiers isn’t worried. To the contrary, the Bok coach believes the All Blacks will stumble if they persist with a similar approach. De Villiers prefers the Stormers’ game plan, where forward physicality and impregnable defence is championed over attacking penetration and flair.
De Villiers has a point when he says that all-out attack won’t win the World Cup. History will confirm the fact. But to box the Crusaders, a team that will supply the core of the All Blacks’ players and possibly the blueprint for September’s World Cup, as an all-out attacking team is absurd.
The Crusaders have scored the most tries to date (29), but you have to appreciate the manner in which these tries have been scored. The forwards have laid the platform, allowing the superstars out wide to benefit.
It follows that one of the most physical teams in the competition has proved the most successful on attack. They’ve enjoyed the set-piece platform as well as breakdown supremacy, and what’s really set them apart is their ability to convert opportunities. Whether they are running forward with ball-in-hand or counter-attacking from the turnover, they are difficult to stop.
The decision making at halfback has been excellent, and that physical edge has been extended to the midfield. Sonny Bill Williams has attracted attention for his trademark offload, a flashy back-of-the hand pass that would be crticised if it wasn’t so effective. But you also have to appreciate Williams’s ability to get into a position to make that characteristic offload. Most of the time he’s carrying the ball over the advantage line, and then making the offload with two defenders on his back.
The bulk of the Crusaders’ tries have been scored by the backline, but the bulk of the credit should go to the pack. Kieran Read has been outstanding and the underrated tight-five have proved their worth. The tactical kicking of Andy Ellis and Dan Carter has been exceptional, a fact that proves that kicking still has a place in a game perceived to be all about ball-in-hand attack.
It also pays to remember that while the All Blacks scored the most tries in their successful 2010 campaign, they also kicked the most. This season teams like the Crusaders and the Reds have enjoyed success because they’ve been able to strike a balance between kicking and running. Quade Cooper, a man with a reputation for ball-in-hand feats, tops the kicking stats.
De Villiers believes the Boks had a good tour of the home unions in 2010, when the reality is they failed to progress. They are playing an outdated game, and unless they find a way to achieve the same sort of balance, they’re in for disappointment at the World Cup.
The Crusaders out-muscled the Bulls, and while it remains to be seen if they can out-muscle the Stormers, it bodes badly for the World Cup. The All Blacks are a team that can match the Boks’ physicality, and so you need more than a bash and kick approach to beat them.
82 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
21 Apr 2011, 13:05 pm
@race of tan(race of tan)-49: still not convinced on their forward pack… even if they have all their players fit and ready… they only need parity I agree, but Eng showed last year when they beat them yet again that the Aussie forwards are their weakness… IMO..
21 Apr 2011, 13:07 pm
I find it confusing to understand the logic that because it rains a lot in NZ that the AB’s will be disadvantaged.
I would think that NZ is well capable of playing in the wet because they have experienced it more. Of all the NZ super rugby teams I would consider the Crusaders to be very adept at playing in the wet.
Finally if the AB’s are a poorer team in the wet, then surely this means that they must be more beatable in the wet and therefore at home. But somehow I doubt that the stats will show that.
Im certainly not saying the AB’s cant be beaten in the wet but I have yet to see any evidence that they are more vulnerable in the wet. However I can recall a number of games where the Ab’s have won in the wet and won well because of their high skill levels.
However, if you were talking about the Wallabies being weaker in the wet, then I would agree with you 100%.
PS As the article was talking about the Crusaders I would note that there overall defence seems to be pretty good, certainly they seem to have a better defensive record than say the stormers offensive record. So while P Divs statements on defence or not incorrect, I would think winning rugby is about both defence and offence, not just one element. Certainly the Boks in 2007 looked a lot moe capable of scoring points then they do now.
Finally I would consider it much easier to revert to a more defensive game to then start playing attacking rugby when you need it.
21 Apr 2011, 13:07 pm
@Horing(Horing)-47:
If the Boks cut out the “Dead Wood” and select totally on form for the 3N,
then show some patience.
You Okes are in with a Grand Show.
- Find a new Cappy. (Only if better than Jon.)
- Get rid of Schulk, Bakkies, Victor, Spies, Morne……………………………………………..maybe Brian and JPP as well.
- Inject some youth.
- Show some imagination. (this ain’t rocket science).
And hey ….
YOU Okes can win this thing for sure.
If you don’t make changes, your predictability means others Teams only have to match your forwards and you have lost.
21 Apr 2011, 13:09 pm
@poppa69(poppa69)-51: agree with you there, i love watching the convicts being marched backwards come scrum time, no wonder they want the scrum scrapped from rugby union
21 Apr 2011, 13:10 pm
@race of tan(race of tan)-49:
Any Team good enough to beat Ozzie…………………………………………………
…………………………………………is a Team good enough to Win the Whole Caboodle.
(this means I am agreeing with you)
8)
21 Apr 2011, 13:12 pm
cane – We can’t cut all those players we don’t have good enuff replacements. Super rugby is not a good measure if a player can play test rugby ala Wynand Olivier.
I think J Smit’s time has come and possibly Matfiled. Spies is overrated and Schalk will be back!!!
The rest i am afraid is the best we have this year.
I think the final will be ABs v Wallabies this year!!
21 Apr 2011, 13:13 pm
@BBA(BBA)-52: i dont see anyone saying the AB are more vulnerable in the rain, its a known fact that the error rate increases in the rain and thus leveling the playing field a bit, when it rains it makes it anyone’s game.
21 Apr 2011, 13:16 pm
the crusaders have won this tournament several times and the AB’s have adopted their way of play several time….and this lead to them winning the WC?
21 Apr 2011, 13:22 pm
Mctoogie just saying that Im not sure if wet conditions have had any efect on Ab winning %’s, although I suspect that stats would probably show that it affects other teams. I actually think the wet is probably a positive for teh AB’s although may mean the margin is impacted.
I mean I would note that I would consider the Chiefs to not be a strong team in the wet, yet beat the Sharks who were unbeaten at the time and nearly at full strength. Similarly the Crusaders Bulls game was played in heavy dew conditions, which is likely to be common in NZ at the time of the WC. I also remember the Lions in 2005 being comprehensively beaten in atrocious conditions.
Guess I think the wetter it is, the better it is for the AB’s. I would be hoping for dry conditions as that is more likely to lead to the AB’s playing an over adventurous brand of rugby.
21 Apr 2011, 13:28 pm
@BBA(BBA)-59: i see your point, but i reckon in dryer conditions we would have those backs running at us all night (we will be using the kick chase approach for sure) and in wet weather it gives us a better chance of getting the ball back, if its dry we will be run ragged im sure.
21 Apr 2011, 13:31 pm
@MacToogie(MacToogie)-17: Exactly!! I agreed with you 100%. Have been saying that for years. Thats why NZ win 100′s of Tri Nations but they cant win a World Cup.
21 Apr 2011, 13:32 pm
@race of tan(race of tan)-56:
Here I’ll do it for you:
Smit- ——————————–Bismark.
Bakkies – ————————–Bekker.
Victor – ——————————–Danie Rossouw or Flip.
Spies————————————Alberts. (looks a prefect 8 to me)
Morne————————————–Grant.
Habana———————————–The best in form Wing you have.
JPP——————————————The best in form Wing you have.
And Juan is your new Captain.
21 Apr 2011, 13:35 pm
Actually Mountaingoat I dont think the AB’s have played a Crusaders brand. Certainly they didnt in 99, when apart from having the Crusader inside backs the surperstars were non crusader players like Lomu, Wilson, Cullen and Umaga.
In 2003 you had Mitchells team with Carlos Spencer as the general who most definitely does not play a Crusaders game. To me the Crusaders have always played first fives that can play a kicking territory game with a game based around territorial domination and counter attack.
2007 maybe they played a Crusaders game plan however at the end of the day they probably lost that game more to poor option taking (not setting up for a drop kick when they had the position to) and a number of other factors.
Finally winning a WC is not solely about game plan. Sometimes the opposition do just play better than you, and all credit to them.
21 Apr 2011, 13:41 pm
Mactoogie, with Juan Smith and Heinrich Brussow in your team the AB’s will not get the fast ball to run you ragged, (in wet or dry conditions) and off course with slow ball they will be easier to pick off.
However I feel in wet conditions the Ab’s will probably play a better game plan to beat the Boks i.e. territory game, with poor conditions making handling more difficult which I suspect will affect the Boks more on offence then the AB’s.
Ah well, just idle speculation.
21 Apr 2011, 13:45 pm
@BBA(BBA)-64: there is too much of a penalty risk with the fetcher approach, i wouldnt play Brussouw in my team for that fact, as i said in the other thread, win the tackle and rucks with bigger loose forwards driving through and you will have more chance of winning the game.
21 Apr 2011, 15:01 pm
cane – Not a bad swap at all. Could you please send that list to PDivvy. Juan Smith was the understated hero of the Boks RWC campaign in 2007, i would definitely make him captian or JDV!!!
22 Apr 2011, 05:53 am
Whilst the keo journalists and general negative south africans continue to get to get aroused once again in a world cup year at the mere mention of the “all blacks”, “new zealand”, and “crusaders” … please can someone tell me which kiwis in the KEY WORLD CUP WINNING positions of hooker, lock, scrumhalf, outside centre, and fullback are completely dominating their South African and Australian counterparts in the Super 14.
If you are battling to understand what I am trying to say then think of these names Smit, Eales, Johnson, Matfield, Joost, Gregan, Du Preez, Mortlock, Robinson, Burke etc. Those are all names and positions that have owned the WC in the last how many attempts and in my opinion positions that the New Zealanders are not dominating the Super 15 in.
The kiwis have had flyhalves, loose forwards, and wings in abundance every single year in the Super 14 / 15 and Tri-Nations.
22 Apr 2011, 09:48 am
A team is greater than the sum of its parts. This can be seen in the Crusaders.
Graham Henry has the luxury of players who have proved and have practised many different game plans, from the razzle-dazzle of the Crusaders in full song, to the hard grunt-up-front game where the ABs can match and surpass the physicality of the Boks. At a moment’s notice, right on the field of play, McCaw can command his men to shift from Plan A to Plans B C or D and they’ve done it before and know how.
PDV started his Bok career by declaring that Jake’s one-trick pony — the rush defence, kick and chase game — wasn’t what he wanted. PDV wanted “total rugby”. Well, he might have to pump that from the petrol stations because he hasn’t coached total rugby. He’s still rehashing Jake’s one game with Jake’s same old team.
22 Apr 2011, 15:12 pm
Australia will not be a threat this rugby world cup. Here’s why……
September weather in NZ is wet and and windy. You may think it’s a lame reason and excuse.
But have a look at the Wallabies record in the wet. Let’s start with the S15, the Waratahs lose to the Cheetahs at home in the wet, then lose to the Blues and Saders in similar conditions. Add to those losses the Brumbies in Invercargill and Nelson, Rebels in Hamilton. The other OZ franchises have yet to play in the wet.
Still lame?
Ok, let’s go back to the end of year tour, the game against Munster, they lose in wet, windy conditions, similar to that of NZ. They have a history of losing in the wet, their style does not work in the wet nor do they adapt well to the wet weather footy. Now teams from Europe, especially the French and English will love this, well actually they’ll all love it. A tight game is then needed for the wet which nullifies the great Wallaby backs, 10 man rugby so to speak, which means quade cooper will have alot more traffic coming his way.
The last reason I have is that Australia does not have a provincial championship around that time of the year, when the weather is wet and miserable. NZ do and so does SA.
Thats my 5cents worth.
22 Apr 2011, 16:35 pm
@TheTackler(TheTackler)-68: Perhaps mcCaw should have shifted from Plan A to Plan B in the last world cup semi finals.
@CSI:Rugby(CSI:Rugby)-69: Australia won a world cup in the UK in 1999 in October / November. Talent doesn’t wear a jacket.
22 Apr 2011, 17:09 pm
Kevin
1999 team is the greatest wallabies team of all time. The current crop, struggle and the Wallabies have struggled for the last decade in the rain and mostly in NZ. I didnt mention another reason in my previous post of why they will not be a threat and that is their scrum.
22 Apr 2011, 17:30 pm
@CSI:Rugby(CSI:Rugby)-71: CSI, Mate the Aussies also won the 1991 world cup that was held in the UK from October. The final was on the 2nd of November that year. Was a close game. Oz beat England 12-6
I won’t count out the Aussies. Not yet at all. We can’t count on it to rain for us to win. Though I have said that could be our only chance if it rains. But that is a long shot.
22 Apr 2011, 17:40 pm
Not necessarily arguing your point CSI, just pointing out that I would never write off the Aussies. For me the name James O’Connor will be remembered long after Sonny Bill Williams in union rugby. In Genia, Cooper, Mitchell, and O’Connor and players to fall back on like Barnes and Giteau I think they have a better balanced backline than the AB’s who always have teams with superstars.
I agree that their forwards might be weak, but are the AB’s really dominating. Good lineout ball is critical and while Matfield & Bakkies might be battling, are there AB locks better than Bekker right now? Or a hooker better than Bissie?
My point is there is alweays hype about the AB’s and rightfully so, but i see more chinks in their armour currently, than in previous world cup years. There’s no Marshall, Chris Jack, Tana Umaga, or Muliana like in previous years (they also have form and age problems).
22 Apr 2011, 17:41 pm
@kevin w(kevin w)-70:
Semi final????
They wish
22 Apr 2011, 17:59 pm
Oh, Im not counting the Wallabies out by a long shot, thats a naive and foolish thought on my part. The Wallabies will always be there or thereabouts come the play-offs. I just find it hard with this current team with the performances over the last few years in the wet. Understand they won twice in Europe in similar conditions, but im only going off the last decade of Wallaby rugby in the rain, and the team of today.
Are the ABs dominating? Yes and no. Yes in the form that they will be in their own back yard and no because there is nothing between the 3N teams. To answer the form guide, Wallabies have scummaging difficulties, All Blacks have the pressure of home expectations, Springboks have de Villiers and ageing pack. My dark horse and hate to it is the English.
22 Apr 2011, 18:12 pm
@CSI:Rugby(CSI:Rugby)-75: England with Dads Army could still get into the finals in 2007
RWCs are way different from other tournaments
23 Apr 2011, 04:36 am
@kevin w(kevin w)-73: The Crusaders two ancients — Chris Jack and Brad Thorn — gave the Boks two famous ancients — Victor and Bakkies — a complete A-Z lesson in lock forward play when the Bulls collected their 0-27 blanking in Nelson. The blazing hot African sun probably causes much faster decay than temperate Christchurch, earthquakes and all.
23 Apr 2011, 04:38 am
@kevin w(kevin w)-70: McCaw is now 4 years older, 4 years wiser and — now here’s the REALLY scary part — 4 years better.
23 Apr 2011, 04:41 am
@CSI:Rugby(CSI:Rugby)-69: Most SA weather (outside of the Western Cape at the tail-end of their ultra-wet winter) isn’t wet in September. Most of SA is a summer rainfall area and September isn’t summer yet.
23 Apr 2011, 04:45 am
@CSI:Rugby(CSI:Rugby)-71: Everybody, not only the Aussies, struggles to win in NZ — whether it’s wet or dry, windy or still. The team they’re up against is the principal reason for their struggling.
23 Apr 2011, 08:36 am
@CSI:Rugby(CSI:Rugby)-69: And the way the Reds played the Stormers at Newlands might not change your mind? That tactical kicking display/ gameplan worries me more than Cooper putting on the razzle-dazzle. He’s got more than 1 arrow in that quiver it seems. Robbie Deans would’ve been pleased to see I think. A flyhalf kicking his team into enemy territory and then running it in their 22 sounds like perfect wet weather rugby to me
23 Apr 2011, 15:30 pm
Tackler
agree all teams struggle in nz against nz, but my views were based only on the wallabies on there recent form in wet weather rugby. Not counting them, merely a view on how the weather will be more of a headache for a team that has struggled in wet weather rugby over the last decade.
Bok,
Reds and Cooper had a great game but in the test arena in the wet, will the Wallabies have a scrum that can set the platform for Cooper and co?
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.