Comments on: Gap widens between Boks and Blacks

By: rocco

rocco — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 07:21:43 +0000

Sad to say, but we will never catch the ABs. We may achieve parity for fleeting moments as they go through change-of-the-guard periods. But as soon as their team settles, we will remain no match.
That is until there is a radical mind-set change in our own rugby philosophies. I will continue to hope, as there are signs of such change at domestic level. In the Currie Cup, more and more teams are adopting a ball in hand approach. It is the difficult route to success, but one that promises to take our rugby to a higher level of sustained excellence. For too long we have hoped and prayed for that messianic player that can win a game on his own. For too long have we gone into matches with the mindset of dominating up-front being the be-all-and-end-all. It is time to realize that at the highest level, one can never guarantee upfront dominance for 80 minutes, and even if this were possible, the result is still an uncertainty.
One difference between NZ and SA rugby philosophy is clearly visible when noting the crowd reaction to drop goals. In NZ it is met with a mixed response, while in SA, especially up north, crowds get all excited as though this were the be-all-and-end-all of the game.
Personal perception is that in SA crowds don’t really care how a win is achieved. It is great to win, but if it all depends on one or two players, anyone can see that sustained success will remain a pipe-dream as players are injured or experience loss of form.
The ball-in-hand approach demands a greater level of team cohesion, taking the game to its ultimate level. One can draw the analogy with soccer, which is dubbed by its fans “the beautiful game”. It is indeed a beautiful game, but only when the teams involved produce seamless passing moves to create scoring opportunities. It becomes something less beautiful when dominated by individuals.
So why have we never really bought into the ball-in-hand approach? Simple, it requires too much work. It requires for players to develop a psychic understanding with their team-mates. It requires for players to believe and be encouraged that creating opportunities for team-mates is as gratifying as scoring the points themselves. It requires for players to develop and master all the skills they should have gained at age-group level. To coaches, this could possibly seem a daunting task, especially when senior players still cannot do something as elementary as passing to both sides. No, the more individualistic crash-ball and kick-and-chase approaches can yield the result, be it that these are non-sustainable. It is the game at its most primitive level…

By: rex

rex — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 06:25:49 +0000

Sjambok – I think you are probably correct. There are definitely people who understand the problems; whether they’ll get a look-in at the coaching level is another matter. Cobus Visagie is a pretty astute analyst if you’ve seen any of his columns. I have no idea whether he can coach. Alan Solomons is another – and he does have a record as a coach.

People keep talking about Mallett. Well it’s not as if he didn’t make his own major mistakes- getting rid of Teichmann at a most inopportune time has to be the main one. He has a huge ego, with all his rugby smarts, and that can get in the way.

Naka Drotske’s team plays good rugby. The question is whether their defensive liabilities would be replicated at a higher level or whether with the righ defence coach, they could find the right balance. We have David Campese resident in SA. Could he be helpful? Who knows. Why isn’t the rugby fraternity seriously considering personnel who could sort out these problems?

So there are people around. Mitchell and Spencer might be helpful as consultants. Everything should be considered. But the problems are glaring and until we face them and solve them, we will never reach our potential as a rugby nation, or we will never know what it truly is.

By: jacoshark

jacoshark — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 06:10:05 +0000

heyneke out!

By: TheTackler

TheTackler — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 04:28:59 +0000

When Heineken moved up from success at Currie Cup to a greenhorn at Super 12 level, his Bulls team won only 2 out of 22 games over two full seasons, and they got the wooden spoon.

The man is a VERY slow learner. His record proves it.

And that there is a substantial gap between Currie Cup rugby and Super rugby is nowhere in dispute. Nor is the fact that the step up to test rugby is an even larger step. Once again, just like the last time, Heineken has fallen feel first clean through the cracks. And he denies it has happened. He cannot grasp that he just doesn’t have the coaching nous to hack it among proper test coaches. His tenure will, once again, involve a l-o-n-g learning curve and he sees nothing wrong with using the lucrative test coach position as an experimental kitchen and a personal development laboratory.

He says “the players have faith in me” as if his rugby tuition is some sort of religion into which devotees have to show prior commitment in order for the magic to work. It doesn’t cross his mind that if any player dared contradict or scoff at his “system” he’d drop them and they’d lose lots of money. So they have no choice but to pretend he’s their messiah.

Hallelujah, Heineken! Huzzah!

Yeah, right…

By: SjamBok

SjamBok — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 03:22:50 +0000

I agree rex – its like we dont have the current personell to do anything about it, so we hide our head in the sand . I refuse to believe that we dont have a single coach in the whole republic that can understand and manipulate backline processes and work out and coach good set pieces. Our highschool rugby has great running in it, and good set piece moves. But at higher levels, the level of understanding and coaching and adaptability of players does noot seem to go up. its still viewed as a “intuition thing”, which a player eaither has or has not.

Frankly thats rubbish. Why is there no S African that has made a science out of it?

By: Bliksim

Bliksim — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 02:25:12 +0000

Spot on Rex.

By: rex

rex — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:54:19 +0000

The Boks backline has been an endemic problem. They never sorted it out even when we had some of the best forwards in the world. The reason we’re “rebuilding” is because there was no foresight to begin with. Has there ever been a “weak” AB team? No. Even when they’re rebuilding, they remain immensely competitive because they’re continuously drafting in new players and managing them well. Graham Henry traveled to the US to learn from the NFL. Even though the ABs were already excellent, he was still looking at other ideas to solidify them and improve them further. In SA we keep talking about our “traditional” strengths – which, without innovation are fast turning into our weakness, because it’s all we know. There is no sense of development, no one appearing to take a really hard look at our game and asking “what’s missing?” And “what’s missing” is abundantly clear. We are one-dimensional, our selections are off, we have no coherent backline nor backline play. We doggedly insist on doing things our way when an injection of techincal nous from someone like Plumtree or Mitchell might really help. Is it a surprise that the Sharks played so well in the Super 15? They have a Kiwi coach and we have players who can offload and play exciting incisive rugby…except when they show up in the Bok team. As has been pointed out recently, the Kiwis manage their players better. We have far too many key players injured for it to be merely due to chance. Until we rectify these things and add what’s missing, we will continue to stagnate. It’s amazing that we go through the same soul-searching year after year and never really see progress in our game or our approach to it. Everyone is so worried about our inability to play like the ABs, so they default to this nonsense about our “traditional” strengths. The definition of a delusion is adhering to the same beliefs against all evidence to the contrary. Our focus on these so-called Traditional Strengths is preventing us from developing new strengths and new traditions.

By: SjamBok

SjamBok — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 20:42:21 +0000

again, for all of oru big players that should be able to power intp gaps and free their arms up for an offfload, we did not seen ay offloading. the one move that included it was a try.

By now we should know that the AB’s are highly trained in slowing and stealing ball at the breakdown, by whatever means possible – that means we should avoid teh breakdown at all costs by offloading.

By: Bell

Bell — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 18:42:13 +0000

yeah, the problem is Ryan, the mentality is consistant to what you guys wanted. When Div spoke of running at space you guys spoke up the ‘traditional strength’ argument. When the rest of the world values skill over bulk, Meyer values bulk over brains. Stop the mentality that games are purely won and lost up front, they do lay the foundation, but the bulk of your points has to come from 9 to 15, and thats what wins you matches, not purely territory or posession, or upfront dominance but points. The likes of Gerber,blanco and cullen.. We need brains…

By: Lang Giel

Lang Giel — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 17:16:26 +0000

@W.P-51: Agreed. Management team is a bunch of second raters. Heyneke's praise singers should be deported back to the Bulls' camp. Loud mouth Van Graan inherited the best pack of forwards in the world (Bakkies, Victor, Danie, Guthro) when he became the Bulls' forward coach. The next thing we notice is that Uncle Heyneke promoted him to the Bok forward coach. If this isn't vintage Broederbond tactics, what is?

By: AiDoc

AiDoc — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 13:26:49 +0000

more blacks v all blacks. That would be cooooool

By: AiDoc

AiDoc — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 13:23:58 +0000

Gap widens between Boks and Blacks????? Is P duh right? The only way to beat the Blacks is with blacks?

By: W.P

W.P — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 08:36:50 +0000

Rangerman – WP players were the problem? You’re seriously delusional. Stop your petty provincialism dude. Vermeulen and Etsebeth got through more work than any in the pack. Habana is the only Bok backline player with any penetration. How hopeless were the Boks when Sharks and Bulls players dominated the lineup? Rather focus on a poor management team.

By: Predawn

Predawn — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 08:33:32 +0000

Fact is Donkey is yesteryear’s hero…like five years ago.

By: Predawn

Predawn — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 08:32:20 +0000

@Robzim-48: Plenty of better players than them. Alberts has been running into defenders all season. Meyer's gameplan has made him a walking bruise.

By: Robzim

Robzim — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 08:18:10 +0000

@Predawn-47: It has also now been a while since "Bonecrusher" (I nearly said bonehead) Alberts crushed any bones. Or since the Beast did anything more than to stand hands on his knees next to a ruck staring at the opposition players. Sweep out and bring on the fresh ones as you said.

By: Predawn

Predawn — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 07:55:10 +0000

Donkey de Villiers is so slow that he’d battle to make The Sharks second team. Guys like Daniels, Botes and Sithole would finish him on a flat straight.

Time to sweep out the flotsam and bring in a fresh replacement.

By: Hondo

Hondo — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 07:41:52 +0000

Most astonished aspect yesterday was that the ABs went from 19:16 to 32:16 while Dagg was sin binned and Nomu substituted!

By: Gumboots

Gumboots — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 07:40:43 +0000

@lepel-43: ‘

….and if plan A don’t work it is the players fault for not being able to adapt or implement it… So sick of HM’s excuses – the messiah is a waste of time and space…

By: lepel

lepel — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 07:40:41 +0000

@Hondo-42: Jantjies was better than the limping Goose. He manned up in defense and if our old backs had just a smidgen of ball skills left he would've been much more threatening on attack. Whenever they receive a pass from Jantjies they fall over themselves. See if Mapoe or Taute have such difficulty with his passes in CC, or a guy like Willie le Roux etc. The longer you play in SA it seems the more your handling declines...