Boks refute criticism of attack
30 Sep 2011
The Springboks maintain that their attacking impotency isn’t a cause for concern.
The Springboks started promisingly against Samoa, controlling possession and territory and engineering a try for Bryan Habana early in the match. It looked as if they would finally find their attacking groove against competent opponents, which Fiji and Namibia are not. Yet they fell away badly thereafter, failing to trouble the islanders.
They were good in this regard for a sum total of eight minutes against Wales, controlling the ball through phases thanks to their dominance at the tackle point. They’ve looked formidable when they’ve managed this, but haven’t managed it nearly enough to stir confidence of them being able to ask telling questions of their likely quarter-final opponents, Australia.
The defining characteristic of the 2007 side was their equal potency on attack and defence. However, senior Springboks Jaque Fourie and Jean de Villiers refute the suggestion that there should be concern about the former facet of play. ‘We just need to hold on to the ball better than we did,’ Fourie said. ‘When we played through phases we scored and we have to do that more often. I’m sure we’ll get it right.’
Given Fourie’s offering, the Springboks have a sense of what their major failing on attack is. They average 21 handling errors or turnovers while in possession and concede the fourth highest number of penalties while in possession in the tournament. It is moving from an acute deficiency to a chronic one that threatens to derail their campaign.
Jean de Villiers doesn’t share those fears and stressed that you cannot discount what they achieved from an attacking perspective against minnows Fiji and Namibia.
‘You have to take into consideration the [weather] conditions in those games [Wales and Samoa - the former was played in windy and wet conditions, the latter with a stiff breeze] and it would also be unfair to ignore our performances against Fiji and Namibia altogether [they scored six and 12 respectively],’ he said.
‘We took 60 minutes to break the wall down in those games [Fiji and Namibia] and sometimes like tonight the opposition don’t allow you to play the way you intend to. We would like to score tries, but it is not something that is overly concerning for us.’
Bismarck du Plessis weighed in on the issue. ‘Whether we score 20 tries or just one in victory, it doesn’t matter. We won the 2007 World Cup final kicking penalties. The objective for us is to win and how we get there is not that important.’
By Ryan Vrede, in Auckland.
Follow Ryan’s World Cup coverage on Twitter
9 Comments
30 Sep 2011, 14:21 pm
whatever….
30 Sep 2011, 15:32 pm
Agree with Bismarck – a win is a win and this was a good one; quite incredible defence from the Boks, the Samoans were like men possessed, but with skills – John Smit is actually contra-impact and has lost more lineout throws for us at crucial moments than can be counted – he’s in the side for, among other thigns, his “experience” – it just doesn’t show at all.
30 Sep 2011, 16:41 pm
Although it was a poor performance and tactically naieve, I do feel that they will lift their game and up the ante against Aus. They have been doing enough to win and have the skill and fire-power to beat anyone. You cannot extrapolate their play and say because they played like this against Samoa and Wales they will play the same against Aus and get beaten. One thing they will fail with is this brainless kick and chase give the ball to the opposition on a silver platter bullsh_1t. PdV and his henchmen need to be tarred and feathered for embarassing us with this retarded play. I can’t wait to see them dissapear for good.
30 Sep 2011, 19:23 pm
Samoa were better with ball in hand and cracked the Bok first-time tackles again and again. Their try was as well-worked as it was inevitable. Yet Samoa don’t have any of the attacking, ball-in-hand intensity of the AB best team. They will crack the desperate, scrambling Bok gang-tackle defences wide open for 5-pointers.
30 Sep 2011, 21:46 pm
Have to agree with 3 and 4 above. Boks will have to correct those first time tackles; Nonu weaving through them and offloading quickly will sink the Boks. If the Boks keep kicking away possession – something they keep doing, they don’t deserve to make it to the final. If they combine their defence with ball retention and building phases, they could be a handful for Oz or Nz. Question is whether they will run it or kick it.
30 Sep 2011, 22:14 pm
good game by the All blacks C team. boks looked live. waiting to see a replay so I can get the TV experience.
30 Sep 2011, 23:07 pm
As a fervent All Black supporter I am pleased that Bok do not think attacking impotency is not a cause for a concern. So looking forward to Oz and Bok battle next week.
1 Oct 2011, 00:56 am
I agree with Monty.
It is interesting watching the boks warm up before their games, the warmup is dominated by pass pass pass. I believe their passing interplay being fresh in their short-term memory is the only reason they score early tries.
I would hazard a guess that their weekday trainings are not dominated by backline passing interplay other than to pose a front for defense training.
After 5 minutes of play, the subconscious bok mentality kicks in…and it returns to the bok snorefest. Habana being run into the hoardings after a hospital pass from his sideways running teammate summed the attacking nous. An 11yr old schoolboy team do not make those basic backplay errors
1 Oct 2011, 04:26 am
The Boks may REJECT the criticism of their weak attack, but they cannot REFUTE it until they actually prove that criticism to be false. If you refute an accusation or argument, you succeed in convincingly proving it to be wrong. That really does take some pretty powerful doing to swing the verdict your way.
On the other hand, to reject a criticism is simplicity itself — all you have to do is say “I don’t agree with your claim” and that’s that. Assertion rejected.
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.