Attacking ails at heart of Bok failure
12 Oct 2011
JON CARDINELLI writes that the next Springbok coach can’t afford to make the same mistakes as his predecessor by favouring a conservative yet ultimately ineffective game plan.
There was disappointment and anger following Sunday’s quarter-final exit, but I don’t know why there was confusion. Nobody with half a brain can say that the Boks, in this incomplete and largely unprepared guise, were anything but underdogs in the matches against more rounded units like the Wallabies and All Blacks.
The Boks lost five out of six in the 2010 Tri-Nations, and three out of four in the subsequent Sanzar tournament. Over the course of both competitions, they were tactically outplayed by Australia and New Zealand who both appreciated the need for a balance between kicking the ball and running it.
In 2011, their coaching staff and senior players believed that there was no need to move away from what worked for South Africa in the past. There was a belief, or more a sense of arrogance, that the Boks would always be able to overpower an opponent, and that the tactics that worked in 2007 would yield the desired result again.
The reality is that Peter de Villiers and his merry men have failed South Africa in terms of developing a national playing style that makes full use of a fantastically gifted group of players.
De Villiers got it wrong when he pushed for the headless chicken approach in 2008, and was just as wrong when he moved to the other end of the scale in 2009. His vision for a total brand was compromised by poor results, and he took refuge in the plodding game plan that has always troubled most nations, but hardly tested the Wallabies and All Blacks as the laws have changed and the game has evolved.
They battled to score tries in the 2010 Tri-Nations, and when their best players returned from the conditioning camp in August 2011, the team scored all of their points through the goal-kickers. De Villiers said the tactical display in Port Elizabeth would be replicated at the World Cup, and the fact that the Boks had failed to score a try didn’t concern the coach, senior players or anybody else that had a stake in how the battle plan was formulated.
They scraped past Wales in their opening game, and De Villiers and captain John Smit wrote it off to the pressure of the occasion, assuring worried fans and stakeholders that they would improve as the tournament progressed. They appeared to improve in games against Fiji and Namibia, as they scored six tries against the islanders and 12 against their African neighbours, but this installed a false sense of confidence, and their shortcomings were highlighted in the following match against Samoa where missed opportunities nearly cost them the result.
Predictably, the Boks fell short when they met a team with the muscle and intelligence to nullify their forward threat. They dominated the set-pieces in the quarter-final against Australia, and controlled possession and territory, although they didn’t get the better of the Wallabies at the collisions and breakdowns.
At that crucial moment, and there were a fair few, they failed to finish. Their general attacking approach was also disappointing, with side to side movements proving largely ineffective. Over the course of 80 minutes the Wallabies turned in a brilliant defensive effort, although when you look at few of the Boks’ attacking ploys you’d have to say that the Aussies weren’t asked to work particularly hard.
The Boks ended the match having scored three penalties and no tries, a record consistent with that of the Tri-Nations games played in Port Elizabeth and Durban. They won in PE and lost at Kings Park but their attacking limitations in those Tests indicated that they wouldn’t pose the necessary all-round threat to top defensive teams.
Will the next Bok coach heed the lessons of 2011? This is the question Saru should ask themselves when they begin the assessment process after the World Cup. South Africa needs a coach with a technical appreciation for the modern game. This will allow him to make informed selections that will maximise all of South Africa’s strengths.
We will always be a country that produces the meat heads capable of overpowering the opposition, but we also possess players capable of alternating between a kicking or a running game.
Unfortunately, the wrong players were backed in decision making positions. De Villiers backed a one-dimensional player at flyhalf when he had the likes of Butch James and Pat Lambie, two players equally adept to kicking the ball as they are to bringing the backline into the game. And, unlike Swingdoor Steyn, these men can defend.
The future is bright if those in charge are willing to tap into the attacking talents of our players. Jean de Villiers, Jaque Fourie, Frans Steyn – these are but a few that have been around for awhile but have been rarely used as more than physical pawns in an abrasive battle plan. The next coach must maximise the strengths of these players, and find a way to blend their experience with the exuberance of Lambie, Francois Hougaard, Gio Aplon, Juan de Jongh and promising outsiders like Johann Sadie.
The pack will always be required to lay the platform, but with the backing of a bold, forward-thinking coach, the Boks will develop into a side that can realistically beat the top Test sides consistently, and play some entertaining rugby in the process.
83 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
12 Oct 2011, 14:16 pm
@Tacitus(Deucalion)-47: Apparently
12 Oct 2011, 14:20 pm
@Tacitus(Deucalion)-47: Anyway, what the hell is your point? I’m saying that to have creativity does not start at national level, but rather at provincial. I know you have a hard-on for the Bulls and the way they play. Good for you.
I support them as well and in the S15 this year they where terrible and I think need to build some creativity. Thank goodness Heyneke is investing in players to do just that, like Johan Sadie
12 Oct 2011, 15:53 pm
The moment Butch James missed that penalty against the Aussies in the tri nations South Africa lost the World Cup. PDV reverted back to Morne Steyn and the game plan that accompanies him. I am not attacking Morne as a player as he can win you matches with his kicking but he is NEVER going to win you 3 knockout matches in a row. Had the boks beaten the Aussies they would have had to replicate the forward dominance again this coming weekend against the All Blacks as shading their pack would not be good enough and then if by some miracle we got past them do it all again against Wales/France. This was never going to happen.
Some on this blog say we had no option because Butch James is not the player he was but what is that based on? He played one 50 minute game for the Boks at fly half in the last 3 months. James offered us the best mix of good distribution, adequate kicking and robust defense in the position and I cannot see how if we had him (having played adequate minutes leading up to this game) playing we would not have crossed the Aussie line on a couple of occasions with 70% go forward possession.
12 Oct 2011, 16:16 pm
@malcolm(malcolm)-53: hindsight…
12 Oct 2011, 17:25 pm
@malcolm(malcolm)-53:
“PDV reverted back to Morne Steyn and the game plan that accompanies him”
Actually he did not…
They kept ball-in-hand, maintained possession and rarely kicked the ball!
Never before have the Aussies had to make 251 tackles, almost 4 times the amt the Boks did…
Steyn and FDP kicked less than their counterparts (neither team more than 35m’s) and passed almost 3 times more than their counter-parts…
So in fact this was about as far removed from the game-plan that some say normally comes with a champion kicker like Morne Steyn…
12 Oct 2011, 18:03 pm
@bryce_in_oz(bryce_in_oz)-55: Too true…..i do feel that Lambie especially….or Butch definitely…..would have made a lot more of that possesion….with Bryce not awarding penalties our attacking prowess was found out with mister predictable at the helm
12 Oct 2011, 18:12 pm
Aussies vs Boks more attacking? Whilst I agree that the Boks do not score highly on the attacking game my question is how much more effective the creative Aussie game was in the WC vs SA. They scored one try from a penalisable position. Then there was Beale’s line break and that’s it. Jean made a break and we crossed the line but the pass was forward. My point is judging from the blogger’s opinions the Aussie running game should have ripped the Boks to pieces. It did not happen andthey should have lost the game. The Boks lost the game through their own incompetence nothing to do with the famous Aussie attacking style.
Province tried to do the running thing in the past with powder puff forwards – did not work. Stormers reached the S15 finals with a monster pack to then unleash the backs. We need a balanced approach but need to work on our attacking game and dominate the breakdown,get more forwards to clean out quicker and a scrum halve who concentrates and not throw his hands up in despair every time he gets frustrated.
12 Oct 2011, 18:14 pm
But in the meantime, back home…….a glut of flyhalf talent has popped up in South Africa as of late (courtesy of strong junior feeder systems), wiff Vrystaat leading the stakes with their recent star performer (who might well have been a wildcard in a more adventurous coaches’ world cup deck) being relegated to their Currie Cup bench due to the prodigy that rose from their ranks….again…..boy, it is goingn to be fun watching the S15
12 Oct 2011, 18:27 pm
JC, on the article, no comment.
My backline for the future is
9. Francois Hougard / Sarel Pretorius
10. Elton Jantjies / Goosen from FS
11. Ovovo( sharks ) / Bjorn Basson
12. Frans Steyn / Jaun De Jong
13. Johann Sadie / Robert Eberson
14. Gio Aplon / JP Peterson
15. Pat Lambie / Jaco Tuate
12 Oct 2011, 18:43 pm
@MG(MG)-59: Good choices but heard from a good source Sadie is not a team player – demanded millions from Province and threatened to leave which he did.
12 Oct 2011, 18:48 pm
NagouGrote@60 : No problem, there should be enough depth if he is not a team player.
12 Oct 2011, 18:51 pm
@Siyavuna(Siyavuna)-56:
I wouldn’t blame Steyn for that… he gave the centres insane ball to run with… blame the coach and their predictable moves off him… no centres off the angles, no wings swapping positions, no switch-balls etc etc etc…
Oh make no mistake those Keo-ites that have for months screamed for no ‘skop-en-jag’ but ball-in-hand got exactly what they want this game (funny they’re quiet now) and it almost worked…
But the biggest failure (other than not clearing out ferociously en-masse on Bok ball to counter Pocock as they did to Brussouw) was not being able switch back to game plan A (their strengths) when the above wasn’t working…
At which point in the game when you have all the possession and all the territory, yet just cannot break the iron Aussie defence, do you rather kick the drop-goal (plenty of opportunities)… or maul your ball over (or get the penalty) rather than keep swinging like madmen?
All moot now…
12 Oct 2011, 21:49 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-33:
utter cr@p and you know it, von Trapp.
And thereby proving my point.
12 Oct 2011, 22:19 pm
@bryce_in_oz(bryce_in_oz)-62:
Yes, given the situation where the ref refused to give penalties for blatant infringements we should have gone for drop goals. FDP should have shown better leadership here. About 12 mins from the end with the Boks 9-8 ahead and about 10m from the Aussie line one can see MS dropping back in the pocket for a drop goal and sticking out his arm like he did with the first drop but FDP chose to pass to Hougaard. Shortly after this Pocock again pilfered the ball.
The romantic notion of ball-in-hand run them off their feet only works against weak oposition or with quick turn over ball. Even for the talented AB’s.
Our game plan looked suspiciously like that of the Stormers. On the plus side good defence and dominance up front, but blunt on the attack. Too many forwards (especially Schalk) in the back line who look spectacular with the ball in hand but does very little damage. Get speedsters running at slow forwards and you’re in business.
12 Oct 2011, 23:28 pm
Absolutely sickening this attacking and blaming Bryce for the Bok loss vs Aus. This after 4 years of mocking Kiwis for the aftermath from Cardiff’07. What are the similarities ?
Did the AB Capt did point any fingers at Barnes ? NO, unlike Smit, within hours of defeat.
And did the Aussies score a Try from a fwd-pass (like France at Cardiff) ? No.
Did the Boks go an entire 2ndH without ONE penalty awarded to them, like ABs at Cardiff ? No. In fact, they were awarded 2 penalties in kickable positions, both converted, including the 2nd penalty which put SA in from 9-8 having trailed 3-8 at HT.
Did the Boks score atleast ONE try from their wealth of possession & territory, like the ABs did in Cardiff ? No.
Did the Boks score a 2ndH DG despite not having their flyhalf injured (DC) – let alone the reserve-flyhalf (N.Evans) injured as well ? No. They ended the match with 3 x fit flyhalfs (M.Steyn, B.James, P.Lambie).
soooooo NO EXCUSES……?
again, NO
and they just dont stop. Now SA referees are in on it too – remember A.Watson who did his very best to keep Aus in the RWC 2003 Final with terrible rulings at the scrum ? Line up the apologists, one and all….
“New Zealand rugby referee Bryce Lawrence continues to cop widespread criticism for his performance in the South Africa-Australia World Cup quarterfinal last Sunday.
South African referees manager and former test referee Andre Watson is the latest to put the boot in, saying he was surprised by the Lawrence’s performance in Australia’s 11-9 win in Wellington.
He also said that the South African referees association will aim to take action against Lawrence.
”His opening game [at the World Cup] was outstanding, I had no problem with his appointment, but (in the quarterfinal) he allowed a free-for-all, giving (David) Pocock a field day,” Watson told a Cape Town radio station.
”It’s not what you would expect from a referee of his calibre. He didn’t referee the breakdown the way he was supposed to. He just didn’t step in.”
The breakdown was a mess at stages during the match, and both sides expressed dissatisfaction post-match. Naturally South Africa reacted most angrily, with retiring captain John Smit saying he was delighted he would no longer have to be refereed by the New Zealander.
Rugby fans in the Republic have united against Lawrence, and a Facebook page titled ‘Petition To Stop Bryce Lawrence Ever Reffing A Rugby Game Again’ has attracted an incredible 64,827 ‘likes’, as of 9am today.
There are also a handful of other anti-Lawrence pages on the social networking site.
South Africans accused Lawrence of getting several key decisions wrong, and allowing Wallabies openside Pocock to illegally spoil the Springboks ball and flow in a match they lost despite an overwhelming advantage in possession and territory.
Watson believes the Kiwi whistleblower, who is now to South African fans what Englishman Wayne Barnes was to New Zealand supporters four year ago after the All Blacks’ quarterfinal exit against France, will be punished in some way.
”He will be punished, but that’s up to the IRB (International Rugby Board). I do not believe we will see him in any Rugby World Cup again,” Watson said.
”It’s done and dusted now, but we (South African referees association) will be taking action. We want to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”
sickening.
12 Oct 2011, 23:43 pm
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-65:
two faced a$$holes.
Where were these guys in 2007?
It seems if they are not happy with officials they will seek action. Why now and not the other 20 odd times SA has lost a game in the last 4 years. Going by posts on here the refs are to blame for all SA losses.
13 Oct 2011, 00:02 am
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-65: BP there are some on other Saffer rugga blogsites who would agree with you. The unemotional response to the loss to the Aussies is that the Bok players and coaching staff are as much to blame as the ref because they went onto the field without a plan B, executed their gameplan poorly, failed to protect possession of the ball because of poor ball handling skills and showed an inability to adapt to the referee’s interpretations at the breakdowns.
I guess the rest of the world is going to tire of our tirade and just like the kiwis in post 2007, we along with the less than perfect A Watson will be told to get a life and move on.
13 Oct 2011, 00:26 am
@out wide(out wide)-67: totally agree. Pretty disgusting this whole thing with Smit. As i said earlier he as captain is as responsible for guiding his ship on to the reef. They have openly admitted they were( the senior players) in charge.
This is also a team that got really stretched by Wales and Samoa so to play the Wannabees was always going to be a step up….but as you say, after the first step there was no more plan. Tough titties as far as I’m concerned.
BOKS ITS TIME TO SWEEP THE CLOSET OUT AND START OVER WITH BETTER COACH AND MANAGEMENT AND CAPTAINCY!!
13 Oct 2011, 00:41 am
@out wide(out wide)-67:
Im yet to see ONE incident or decision where the Boks can hold up and blame the ref/B.Lawrence. Not ONE.
Ive watched the match 3 times.
Actually, I think its exciting when the breakdown has players flying in. As long as they stay on their feet and dont come in from the side, it resembles the modern version of the old-school ‘ruck’ with fwds going hammer’n'tongs. It was an excellent match, now just soured by a team and nation completely unable to accept defeat without blame.
No Tries scored from fwd-passes.
PenaltieS awarded in kickable positions.
No sympathy here, none whatsoever.
13 Oct 2011, 01:19 am
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-69: I watched the game twice last night – breakdown was a free for all. Decisions could have been given all over the place to both sides.
Some ridiculous ruling both ways – still not sure how we got the scrum feed when Habana knocked down a Cooper pass when the Aussies were on attack.
So in summary – Referee was atrocious and deserves to be attacked – but by both teams.
Reason we lost could be down to a number of points but dropping the ball on three separate occasions with the try line in sight was probably one of the main ones. Can’t blame the ref for that.
13 Oct 2011, 01:49 am
@mshiniwami(mshiniwami)-31: Unfortunately in SA, coaches and fans alike are obsessed with size. Once we got over this obsession we can start selecting players who genuinely deserve to be there and have the right skill set and not based on how they weigh and how big they look.
Spies is a perfect example. Massive hulking piece of meat and more tender than the finest ribeye. Lambie’s defence is harder than Spies. He goes down like a sack of **** everytime. He should be much stronger for someone his size. I would’ve expected Spies to be much more of a handful but he is easier to bring down than JPP.
13 Oct 2011, 02:03 am
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-69: Bryce Lawrence is not the reason Boks lost, though some of the decisions irked us a bit for sure. I just hope Craig Joubert doesn’t pi$$ off any Aussie or Kiwi fans on Sunday night.. Wouldn’t like you guys to blame a ref like we do.
13 Oct 2011, 02:18 am
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-65: Remember that old saying BP, ” facts are sacred but comment is free.” It’s a small point but in your over-written diatribe, lecturing and denigrating Bok supporters, there is an error of fact. You state:
“Did the Boks go an entire 2ndH without ONE penalty awarded to them, like ABs at Cardiff ? No. In fact, they were awarded 2 penalties in kickable positions, both converted, including the 2nd penalty which put SA in from 9-8 having trailed 3-8 at HT.”
However here’s an extract from many “as it happened” records of the match. This one is from TVNZ and reads:
“59min Aus 8 SA 9
“Steyn lands a dropgoal. Straight down the middle and they’re in front for the first time.”
As I said, it’s a small point but if you want to point the finger and criticise Bok fans’ comments, you need to ensure that any statements you make are 100% correct. That’s assuming, of course, that you know the difference between a penalty goal and drop goal.
13 Oct 2011, 03:41 am
@diewareouboet(diewareouboet)-64:
Aussies 251 tackles @ 81% success rate
Boks 69 tackles @ 65% success rate
Sorry I’m not buying that the Bok’s (Stormer’s) defence was any good at all…
A plus this RWC was the temperament shown against the filthy Samoans, the downside their soft ruck attendance on own ball allowing Pocock free reign… the Aussies did to Brussouw exactly what Boks should have done to Pocock all game…
3 heavy men clearing out at ruck at all times, Vickerman’s cheap-shot that put Brussouw out of the game was vintage Bakkies!
Japies are too staid in their thinking as per normal… ie one fetcher negates another fetcher… it’s rubbish and I’ve said it before… Aussies don’t buy into that and the T5 or anyone else arriving at the breakdown simply smash and clearout anyone threatening their ball… Bok’s left this to one man… and he had free reign all game (ref or no ref)…
13 Oct 2011, 03:48 am
@jeest(jeest)-70:
Adapt or die… when someone who I don’t rate at all in the modern game (Naas Botha) can come out at half time and say…
“Right chaps, you’ve seen how the ref is policing the break-down… so damn welll adapt and protect your ball more, up the ante with clearing out and counter-rucking… and play the breakdown the same way the Aussies are…”
… Then you’d damn well think the Bok brains-trust could see the same thing… how obvious was it at half time… how obvious was it Joubert let things go too in the Welsh game… not that obvious to the brains-trust though…
Adapt or Die in a RWC… there are ALWAYS going to be many dubious ref calls or lack of calls…
13 Oct 2011, 04:01 am
@bryce_in_oz(bryce_in_oz)-75: Yeah you make a good point. Totally agree.
Most of my animosity towards Bryce has built up over a few seasons – it certainly isn’t based on his game on the weekend. In fact, I think, it was one of his more even performances. Not that it was good.
13 Oct 2011, 04:08 am
Having watched the game just now I have no idea how the Boks lost it. It was there for the taking. I’ve never seen Aus get so completely and utterly dominated. Had we some attacking nous we would’ve smashed them. The Wallabies were very lucky to win that game.
We can’t blame Bryce Lawrence. He played a part but we had so many chances. If FdP had held onto ball as he went over the tryline it would be the Boks in the semis now. We lost that game because we have no decent backline and no attacking strategy. I don’t understand why we didn’t just go for another drop goal. Another 2 drop goals and then a try to land that killer blow. I think there was nerves and desperations on both sides but the way I see it is that some Boks playing for their careers just gave up in the end. Habana shouldn’t have been taken off. I was disappointed in Fourie. JdV had a good game but he is terrible at hardly ever passing or offloading in the tackle.
If you swapped the Boks for the ABs with that amount of dominance, territory and possession they would’ve put 40 past Aus. We have to put our hands up here. We failed to adapt to Lawrence’s reffing of the breakdown coupled with a poor attacking strategy. The Boks threw this game away. The ref cannot take the blame here. Aus quite simply played a more intelligent game.
13 Oct 2011, 04:21 am
@Samba Bok(JayDaFiveOh)-77:
Clap Clap Clap, excellent post.
13 Oct 2011, 06:42 am
@cambok(cambok)-73:
and you are bl00dy well right about the ‘pen to go up bu 9-8′ – I read that wrong off the RWC-app thingy. It most certainly was a DG by Steyn.
Notwithstanding that, Steyn DID kick a pen to go 6-8 and SA WERE awarded 2 pens in the 2ndH (on 51 and 55mins).
The point I was trying to make is that SA were awarded penalties in the 2ndH – hardly an indication of unfair treatment by Lawrence. This contrasts, starkly, with Barnes in Cardiff’07, the very point I was trying to make.
13 Oct 2011, 06:44 am
A.Watson
B.Lawrence “allowed a free-for-all”
ALL
has it *clicked* yet, Ladies ?
13 Oct 2011, 08:16 am
click… ALL
13 Oct 2011, 11:36 am
@Black Panther(Black Panther)-69: Geez BP, I have been reading this website everyday for the past five years or so and I have mostly enjoyed your typical Kiwi honesty but that statement is a bit harsh. While I am also getting sick of our moaning (I am sure you know what’s it’s like to be this gutted) to say that the reffing was not poor is totally incorrect. Pococks hand in after a ruck was formed 1m from their line? In fact Pococks hands in all day after rucks were formed not before. I don’t expect you kiwi’s to tolerate our whining after you guys copped heaps in 2007 but at least stick to the honesty.
13 Oct 2011, 11:40 am
@Hurricane(Hurricane)-66: Come on that’s not fair, trawl any blog site and you will get some tools who have no rugby knowledge and talk out of their behinds but a lot of us saffa’s are not maoning and are trying to take this on the chin.
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.