Playing to win
31 May 2012
SIMON BORCHARDT, in his SA Rugby magazine column, says tactical kicking is a vital part of the game.
The Springboks will not play 10-man rugby under Heyneke Meyer and they will not play running rugby either. They will play winning rugby, according to the new Springbok coach, which does involve kicking.
There’s a common misconception that Meyer wants the ball to be kicked as much as possible. He doesn’t. He only wants the ball to be kicked if his team can get it back again.
This year’s Varsity Cup final provided a good example of this. Tuks were leading Maties 21-13 midway through the second half with just one score separating the sides (converted tries were worth eight points). The hosts launched an up-and-under that was chased and collected in the air by fullback Clayton Blommetjies, who timed his jump to perfection and sent lock Franco Mostert away for a crucial try. This was not a case of ‘kick and hope’ from Tuks – Blommetjies had practised how to regain possession in this manner with Bulls backline coach Ricardo Laubscher throughout the tournament.
The next time a ball is kicked in a match, those groaning fans might want to consider why it’s being done. If the defence is flat, kicking behind it allows the attacking team to chase and put the retreating defenders under pressure, which could result in a turnover (if only one defender gets to the ball and is forced to release it when tackled) or penalty (if that defender opts to hold on). Or the first defender to the ball may have no choice but to kick for touch, which will result in a territorial gain for the team that kicked first.
Click here to read the latest issue of SA Rugby magazine
Another good reason for putting boot to ball is that research shows a team only has a 10% chance of scoring a try after going through three phases. This is because outstanding defensive systems (like the Stormers’) commit just one player to the breakdown (the tackler) with the other 14 standing back and waiting for the next ball-carrier. If the attacking team commits three players to the breakdown, as is often the case, and they inevitably go to ground, then the attacking team is effectively playing with 12 men against 14. That’s why it makes sense to kick.
Another common misconception is that South African Super Rugby sides kick more than their Australasian counterparts. When the Chiefs played the Highlanders in the opening round of this year’s tournament, the commentators raved about the New Zealand teams’ positive approach to the game. Yet there were more kicks in that match than in any of the other round-one fixtures (according to ruckingoodstats.com, the Chiefs kicked 27 times, averaging a kick every 34 seconds in possession, and the Highlanders 24, averaging a kick every 57 seconds in possession). The Reds, supposedly the flag-bearers of running rugby, kicked 46 times (one every 25 seconds in possession) in their round-seven win against the Brumbies, which ended a three-match losing streak. And last year, when they won the Super Rugby title, they kicked more on average per game than any other team.
As Meyer says, people don’t remember how you win, they remember whether or not you win. That’s why the Springboks will play winning rugby while he’s in charge.
29 Comments
31 May 2012, 09:55 am
Winning rugby dragons!
31 May 2012, 10:00 am
imo it’s always the losers who point out how the other team won by kicking…. and not “attractive running rugby” …
31 May 2012, 10:32 am
Kicking dragons
Kiwis will never recognise their side kicks more. It’s just that our Boks are clueless when the backline receives the ball which makes them (the Kiwis) look like superstars. What we really need is someone from the 1980s team to coach our backline.
31 May 2012, 10:39 am
@Michael(mikeybrass)-3:
exactly.
31 May 2012, 10:39 am
@Michael(mikeybrass)-3: problem is, our kicking is too often aimless/just plain poor. it’s often a case of “what now? ok lets kick an up-and-under”.
31 May 2012, 10:41 am
@Michael(mikeybrass)-3: like the way the cheetahs backs handle the ball – there coach might be an option. just not for defence…
31 May 2012, 10:52 am
We need to find a way to marry an outstanding defensive system with a great counter-attacking strategy. The problem is that we have good defense coaches but we need a proper attack coach, someone who has done it for the Boks at the highest level: CAREL DU PLESSIS or RAY MORDT!
Oh and to get Naas in to teach our kickers how to execute proper tactical kicks to the corners.
31 May 2012, 10:53 am
@the peanut gallery(peanut)-6: Or Gysie Pienaar is another option, to avoid disruption.
I just don’t like Ricardo as the backline coach. I hope to be proven wrong.
31 May 2012, 11:04 am
@Michael(mikeybrass)-3: yes they do, the crusaders, who before last weekend were the only team to have beaten the stormers this year kicked a s.hit load over the them impenetrable defensive wall. new zealanders on blogs and media bemoaned the excessive kicking, even tony johnson talked about it on reunion that week.
31 May 2012, 11:06 am
@Transformation(Transformation)-9: No they don’t – they didn’t ***** and moan at their side for winning the WC by kicking the ball.
31 May 2012, 11:13 am
@Michael(mikeybrass)-3:
So we kick more do we?
Looked at the last 4 games vs the Boks and actually the Boks kicked more with percentage of posession in all those games.
So if we kick more in a game, maybe we had more posession.
By the way, our backline is superstars, you bad kicks does not make us look any better.
wew still have to come up with a play of some sort.
Fact is AB backline is better. Has been for a while now.
31 May 2012, 11:17 am
@Michael(mikeybrass)-10:
Its called adapting to the play/oposition.
You cant run every game, you need a plan.
GH had a plan for the Ozzies and we took them part in the RWC, best game played all tournament.
France he may have had a different plan for the final.
All i know is it worked.
31 May 2012, 11:17 am
@Michael(mikeybrass)-10: were they kicking the ball the WHOLE world cup?
31 May 2012, 11:28 am
@Staal(Staal)-2:
hehehe…
imo your opinion is spot on…!!
31 May 2012, 11:45 am
@Hurricane(Hurricane)-11: Our kicks were perfectly fine in 2009 when we beat you and you guys bleated. Then you guys started incorporating more kicking into your game and all of a sudden it is ok when you do it.
The point is about hypocrisy.
Two points we do agree on: Kicking is perfectly fine, when executed accurately. The ABs have a superior backline.
31 May 2012, 11:48 am
@Transformation(Transformation)-13: The ABs play a balanced game now they incorporated more kicking since their 2009 defeats. The point of course is they bitched about our kicking and what do they go and do, kick themselves. Only difference is they have the backline to capitalise on it to a greater extent than the Boks.
31 May 2012, 12:07 pm
@Michael(mikeybrass)-16:
So you saying the Boks of 2009 invented the kicking game?
31 May 2012, 12:15 pm
Its not about kicking its got to do with where you kick the damn ball. He kicks for touch more often?
31 May 2012, 12:15 pm
Bloody autocorrect!!
31 May 2012, 12:20 pm
@Hurricane(Hurricane)-17: Don’t be an idiot.
31 May 2012, 13:42 pm
@Hurricane(Hurricane)-17: No, that would be the Bulls of 1632…..
31 May 2012, 14:14 pm
1 Beast
2 Bismark
3 Jannie
4 Bakkies
5 Kruger
6 Brussouw
7 JP Potgieter
8 Spies
9 Fourie
10 M Steyn
11 Hougaard
12 Frans
13 Jean
14 Basson
15 Lambie
31 May 2012, 19:30 pm
Tactical kicking is not kicking for the corner only. It is also targeting any one of the back three who might be poor in the air, or kicking into space to pull defenders out of position, kicking high balls just in behind the midfield to condense their backline and prevent them from being able to counter attack whilst you ae able to pressure them for penalties. Kicks can also be used to turn around a flat line defence, or put a big winger in for a try when the defence is too narrow and you can isolate a smaller one. Or a clever grubber when you are isolated. There are many possible uses for tactical kicking and to be quite honest, our players are actually very good at this for the most part. Far better than they used to be eight or so years ago.
My backline would be (for England)
15.Joe Pietersen
14.JPP
13.de Jongh
12.Frans
11.Habana
10.Morne
09.Du Preez
With 9-10-12-15 we have unequalled ability to play a tactical game without sacrificing the ability to use the ball. It’s extraordiarily balanced.
31 May 2012, 22:13 pm
The idea behind kicking is to create pressure. Either through kicking it slightly shorter and having good chasers, or by kicking it over the heads and forcing them to fall back. I recently watched a school rugby match where the opposing flyhalf just kept nudging the ball over our winger’s head, out in the corner, ’bout 22m from the tryline. While the first 5 lineouts were fine, you miss number 6 and you’re suddenly under serious pressure.
This kick-and-hope ping-pong strategy is nonsense though. Up-and-unders are also far less effective than they were not too long ago, but the laws around retreating and so forth have rendered them a gamble. 50/50 chance of retaining a ball and maybe winning 10m, or keep it through 4 phases and win 10m, but 90% chance of retaining ball.
31 May 2012, 22:14 pm
Kicking can be an extremely dangerous weapon, but kicking for the sake of kicking is just stupid.
1 Jun 2012, 07:56 am
@Hurricane(Hurricane)-17:
no just showed you how to do it
1 Jun 2012, 08:45 am
If the Boks aren’t running the ball incessantly into tacklers, then their kicking the leather off the fricken thing, perhaps this read should be focusing on the real way to achieve winning rugby, that is the ability to put runners into holes with a beautifully timed pass.
7 Jun 2012, 10:41 am
Here we go again, it’s only the keeewees who play attractive running rugby. Talk about giving yourself a BJ…… Makes me want to kotz
7 Jun 2012, 10:50 am
It is not about kicking or running – it is being predictable. Mostly the opposition can predict what the Boks will do 5 moves ahead, and adjust accordingly
I hope HM can do something about that.
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.