Meyer rejects Blacks comparison
19 Nov 2012
RYAN VREDE, in London, reports that Heyneke Meyer says comparisons between the Springboks and All Blacks are ill-formed and unfair, explaining the world champions are far advanced in their development.
The Springboks’ victory over Scotland somewhat polarised opinion. Some lauded an almighty defence performance that restrict their hosts to just one try despite their comprehensive dominance of territory and possession in the second half. Other lamented another match in which the Springboks looked impotent, imprecise and unimaginative in what Meyer calls the ‘goal zone’ (between opposition tryline and 22m).
For most of the latter group, the All Blacks’ 51-22 victory over the Scots six days earlier was used as the benchmark for the Springboks, and their inability to meet those expectations then fueled their frustration.
Meyer is acutely aware of the criticism and comparison and has generally tried to be diplomatic in explaining the mitigating factors for their struggles. However, speaking in London ahead of the final Test of an unbeaten year-end tour against England, Meyer’s own frustrations were obvious.
‘Comparisons are always fun to do. Let’s do another one,’ he began. ‘They’ve played Australia, who are one of the better defensive sides in the world and scored three times. We scored five in one match against Australia at Loftus and one in the other [in Perth], so we’ve got six against their three in a game less. Suddenly the picture looks different.
‘They have the luxury of playing a different side if they choose because they’ve developed the depth. There’s more than 19 players either injured, unavailable or retired from the World Cup Springboks. They use their whole system to ensure the side peaks at the rights times. They are far more experienced – with Richie McCaw there as 100 plus games as an assistant and Steven Hansen 100 games an assistant. So you have to compare apples with apples.’
Meyer, however, tempered that stern rebuttal by acknowledging the Blacks’ killer instinct when presented with scoring opportunities, which is a glaring deficiency in the Springboks’ game.
‘Where they are definitely ahead is that they are far more clinical than us. Whenever they get a chance to score a try they do. Scotland were in the game against them, then they made two errors and the game was different. We were 16-12 up at half time of the Soccer City Test and a mistake from the kick-off and they were away.’
The Springboks’ forwards were awe-inspiring at the gainline on attack in the first half of the Murrayfield Test, as they were in the second against Ireland. Still there is a large degree of predictability about the attack and an apparent lack of spacial awareness of intelligence in contact, which is a hallmark of the Blacks. The New Zealanders carry the ball powerfully, but also possess the presence of mind to do so in a manner that allows them to free their hands often, after which they have the option of picking off support runners, who are never in short supply.
This is the legitimate criticism of the Springboks’ attack, not that they appear to kick away possession (often their opponents, including the Blacks, have kicked more). It is this refinement that is required and that is entirely a coaching issue.
169 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 » Show All
19 Nov 2012, 17:09 pm
@TooMuchRugby-79:
okay just “suppose” we get this straight…
you’re not offended by someone making racial insults…
but you are offended by someone criticising racial insults…
then you go on to make assumptions about it too…
AND
then go on to proclaim yourself the mouthpiece of all afrikaners…??
well okay then…
i “suppose”…
and here’s a headsup… i will stand up for whatever and whenever i so choose… if you don’t like it go and post on isupposeimarugbyfan.com
@wnbb-80:
good for you…
19 Nov 2012, 17:10 pm
@kaksioek-86: good comment
19 Nov 2012, 17:10 pm
@Heavens Game-91: flip f’ng flop
I called it what it is from first light of his first selection criteria .. it took you and your highly endowed intelligence at least 5 months longer to recognize what some saw from day one….. now you singing exactly same tune some were singing back in March or April.. only difference is you reckon you the first to recognize whats what when its pretty obvious it took you a lot longer to come around to ‘rationality’ than it took some others.
19 Nov 2012, 17:11 pm
I do feel for Meyer, but he is a grown man who took this job with his eyes wide open.
Everybody knows that critisism and comparisons ( whether to teams past or opposition present) is part and parcel to the post.
Personal attacks however should not be allowed and generalizations without knowing the bloke personally is wrong.
In a manner he is living the dream of the majority of rugby supporters, getting well paid, traveling the world and living and breathing rugby, so if the critisism and tough questions are justified, he must suck it up and not get annoyed.
19 Nov 2012, 17:12 pm
Anycase, time is limited. I must be off.
Cheers.
19 Nov 2012, 17:12 pm
@Heavens Game-95: you singing exactly the song I sang in April.. what took you so goddamn long dumb fck superior intelligent specimen of scientifically tabulated ‘evidence’
19 Nov 2012, 17:14 pm
@skopdiekan-103: Lies, damn lies and fantasies…
You were clueless in your first decision…
Like you are clueless now…
As clueless as your “expertise” in backline play…
I actually reckon you probably make Lievremont look sane, Van Graan exciting and Dippy Divvy, heavenforbid… knowledgeable…
Now gooi your rubbish elsewhere, dunce…
19 Nov 2012, 17:14 pm
@ryecatcher-100:
didn’t see that…
conjures up funny images though…
(but surely not in a test…)
19 Nov 2012, 17:15 pm
@PissAnt-94: It is impossible for forwards to play a Test against top-class opposition where they have most of the ball for 80 minutes without getting tired. The ball must be shared with the backs, if only to give the forwards a break.
In the game against Scotland, the **** hit the fan when CJ came on and dropped every scrum and got penalized. This was due to his inability to perform at tighthead, but the point is that this was just the last straw that broke the camel’s back.
The reason things deteriorated at such a rapid pace is because the Bok forwards were already close to exhaustion. You cannot run headlong into the opposition for 80 minutes – no one can.
The alternative, under Meyer, is to do it for 40 minutes and then tackle for 40 minutes. The problem with the latter is that it is even more tiring than the former.
This game plan is not sustainable.
New Zealand, France, Argentina, Australia and probably even Wales would have beaten the Boks on Saturday. Luckily for Meyer, we were only up against Scotland.
19 Nov 2012, 17:15 pm
@ufo-75: Hello UFO
19 Nov 2012, 17:16 pm
@PissAnt-105:
cheers bud
19 Nov 2012, 17:20 pm
@ryecatcher-110:
hey rye… how’re yo doing…?
also gotta saddle up the palomino…
another time…
19 Nov 2012, 17:21 pm
@Heavens Game-107: that’s the kind of two face pseudo snake skin shedding Springbok ‘supporter’ you are
Heyneke Meyer was your goddamn hero and messiah you so eagerly were embracing.. you called all those who said the contrary were despicable turncoats and not worthy to be classed as patriots… now you .. thye so called ultimate /patriot’ have turned around 180 degrees to be calling the tune exactly what I and others were saying a whole lot earlier…
and you want to still take credit for your dumb bloody hindsight enriched ‘insight” what a dumb bloody self righteous little fuckup fool are you actually?
Just another self righteous Moron.. that is all…
19 Nov 2012, 17:23 pm
I don’t think blaming the average Springbok supporter is helpful at all. Rugby is one form of entertainment among many, and when it ceases to be entertaining, people will find something else to do.
Saying that Springbok supporters are too critical of the team is like a restaurant owner blaming his patrons for his unpopular establishment.
19 Nov 2012, 17:24 pm
@wnbb-96: Good evening.Did my post lack clarity.If anone said that to my wifes face she would klap him/her
Unnecessarily hurtful.You are better than that.
19 Nov 2012, 17:32 pm
@ufo-108: Test was in early 60,s
19 Nov 2012, 17:32 pm
I humbly apologise to you and your wife,Rye.I will stop using the word coined by your English ancestors.Can I use the word ‘klipkop’ when I refer to HM’s stubbornness??
19 Nov 2012, 17:38 pm
Thanks.Cannot answer 2,nd part of post.It actually takes a lot to apologise
if you mean it.My wife has several folksy sayings.One of them is
“Jy moet altyd die minste wees”.Even if you are right.
Actually,she also often tells me that I don,t know **** from apples
19 Nov 2012, 17:44 pm
@ryecatcher-116:
Are you sure it was Moaner?
He was born in 1951 and stopped playing in 1980, I think. Kirkpatrick played his last game for the Boks in 1961. Moaner would’ve been 10 years old.
Not trying to put you in a spot here.
19 Nov 2012, 18:13 pm
@kaksioek-109:
That might be true, but I am yet to see statistics on first carries by Boks in the strike zone compared to the other top 5 teams.
Also how do you explain the Boks finishing stronger against Ireland because the theory is they will always get tired the longer the game goes on?
19 Nov 2012, 18:13 pm
@ufo-111:
How are you doing bud?
19 Nov 2012, 18:22 pm
@skopdiekan-113:
Do you ever do anything but b ! tch all day !!!!! and no im no bigot either!!!!!!
19 Nov 2012, 18:26 pm
@kaksioek-109:
I really think we are getting it wrong in our tight 5 and that is where we lose momentum. We are simply not producing ball any ball carrier, Pat or ***** himself can do much with and for my money it is because we cannot create pace on the ball after 2 phases.
Mark Andrews made a very good point last week, Eben is used as a ball carrier and we need the lad to hit more rucks and clean irritating ***** off our ball. Jannie might be our best tighthead and he is good in first phases, but he is useless in the tight loose in my view.
Best used to do nicely in this department but he is not having the best season imo and is injured now too.
Our strongmen are simply standing off rucks way to often and the opposition defence is having a field day because of this.
Our tight forwards need to hit rucks – in Duane, Alberts and Flo we have enough big ball carriers.
Adriaan Strauss is about the only guy hitting rucks hard, but this is a team or in my point, tight 5 effort. Our tight 5 is too soft at the moment or not being used correctly.
19 Nov 2012, 18:28 pm
@PissAnt-123:
Best = Beast
19 Nov 2012, 18:42 pm
@PissAnt-123:
As much of a so called forwards guru this Meyer likes to think of himself as.. he has got the tight five as much wrong as he has got the backs..
Etsebeth should not have been made his enforcer.. that was a wrong call and a poor recognition of the players talents.. Andrews is correct, Etsebeth should be playing 5 not 4 and Alberts or Elstadt or Flip should be starting 4
His selection of the front row with CJ ahead of Cilliers was also despicably poor recognition of either character or strength or rugby talent..
And they still reckon this dunce is a forwards genius.
19 Nov 2012, 18:43 pm
@skopdiekan-125:
CJ’s selection is a shocker. There is not a more overrated prop in SA.
19 Nov 2012, 18:45 pm
hey pa…
always good bud…
19 Nov 2012, 18:47 pm
pa…
you got any info on eben’s alleged eye-gouge…
i’m looking for an exact time it’s supposed to have happened so i can see for myself…
19 Nov 2012, 18:47 pm
@ufo-127:
I have a nice long holiday coming up, we must get together for a beer or a nice sundowner wine bud. Will test you early December if you are in Cape Town this holiday.
19 Nov 2012, 18:47 pm
Test…
Now you know I watch too much rugby.
Meant to say TEXT!
19 Nov 2012, 18:49 pm
@PissAnt-129:
i would enjoy that pa…
let me know when and i will be there…
19 Nov 2012, 18:49 pm
Eben cited for possible eye-gouging, will appear before IRB panel tomorrow.
19 Nov 2012, 18:49 pm
19 Nov 2012, 18:54 pm
@ufo-133:
that was for @130
19 Nov 2012, 18:59 pm
I must be in the wrong profession.. nice long holidays from coaching rugby sounds like a nice change.. reckon rugby coaching got far more perks than what I’m doing currently.. pity I missed my true vocation in life…
using a little gut wrench instinct simply comes naturally.. who ever thought that coaching rugby was a science when its far closer to being an art form.. no wonder these dumb saffa rugby coaches don’t know wtf is actually cutting most of the time.
19 Nov 2012, 19:02 pm
@PissAnt-123: And yet the Stats suggest otherwise.
Eben hit the 3rd most rucks (5) after Flo (7) and JDV (6),
He made the 2nd most tackles (14) after Flo (15), except Eben missed ZERO compared to Flo who missed 2.
The criticism of him as a ball carrying forward also doesn’t stack up either. he carried 5 times for 12 meters, Juandre carried 4 times for 8 meters.
Hardly damning in fact the opposite.
These stats are for the Ireland game which is the basis of Andrews’ criticism.
Now I’m not suggesting that he is the finished article. Far from it and Mark Andrews is a player with a lot of intelligence and experience and his comments are his opinion, but I am struggling to find a lot of factual support for what he is saying other than an observational opinion.
19 Nov 2012, 19:08 pm
@stormersboy-136: Observation counts far more than stats
rugby is not a static science its far closer to a fluid art form
Etsebeth would be a far better athletic ball carrier linking No.5 type lock than the No.4 enforcer Meyer and the hyper press are trying to mold him into. Trying to mold players to emulate others like trying to force Etsebeth into a Bakkies or Hougaard into a FdP is just plain dumb and wrong.. Meyer is trying far too much to try and mold his current players into carbon copies of his 2007 class of zombies.
19 Nov 2012, 19:13 pm
@skopdiekan-137: I hear you, and I’m not totally discounting what Andrews says, but the stats from the Ireland game suggest him playing the role of a hard grafting ruck cleaning, tackling machine. The exact opposite of what Andrews is saying he is.
19 Nov 2012, 19:18 pm
@nama1-119: Thanks.Not sure
19 Nov 2012, 20:15 pm
@stormersboy-136:
JDV hit more rucks than Eben?
**** dude, that’s our problem right there.
19 Nov 2012, 20:19 pm
@nama1-119: Definitely Moaner and Kirkpatrick.Will research.Thanks and goodnight.Memory shot to all hell.
19 Nov 2012, 20:20 pm
@PissAnt-140: 1 more.
That says more about the obsession with bashing it up the 12 channel than anything else to me.
As I said, not saying that Eben hasn’t room for improvement, just saying that he is ahead of most of the forwards. And where does it say that a 4 lock must hit rucks all day?
The front rankers must pull their weight, if there is criticism around workrate there is planty of blame to go around, I’m surprised it came Eben’s way is the point I’m making.
19 Nov 2012, 20:24 pm
Eben should play 5, Alberts should play 4
Cilliers should play 3, I guess Strausss will have to stay at 2 though I wouldn’t have made that call, and Heinke should start at 1
and like Mallet says may as well play Alberts at 12 and vermeulen at 13 in Meyers game plan because that is all Meyer is expecting his No. 12 or 13 to do.
19 Nov 2012, 20:39 pm
@skopdiekan-143: Meyer wants Taute at 13 as a kick chaser. He knows the guy will rarely carry the ball so he wants fast strong outside backs to chase down up and unders and have a physical presence at the ensuing contest/tackle/ruck.
Ja i know.
Makes no sense to me either.
19 Nov 2012, 21:10 pm
@kaksioek-109:
I’ve taken interest in your post with regards to Meyers game plan revolving around forwards hitting the ball up endlessly being unsustainable and think you have hit on something that will one day be seen as fact. The Bok forwards do fall away in intensity as the game gets longer because of two probable reasons….fitness and conditioning or the type of game that they are asked to play for eighty minutes, or a combination of both.
19 Nov 2012, 21:16 pm
Bok supporters. what do you think of HM’s statement that the “stike zone” is inside the opposition 22? Reading this thread (which has been entertaining and even somewhat informative for a change!!) it seems like most of you accepted this statement as fact.
I personally think that this is only correct if when talkiing about tries by the forwards, and that it is incorrect when talking about tries scored by backs, and that this is causing a lot of the Bok’s backline attacking problems.
If you watch a lot of AB rugby as I do, you will have noticed that many if not most of AB attacking plays that result in tries, PARTICULARLY FROM SET PIECES, are launched from outside the opposition 22. Many of these plays start from closer to the half way mark than the 22, and a reasonable number start inside the All Black’s half.
The AB’s usually don’t manage to pin opposition sides in their 22 for long periods, and IMHO they are actually quite poor at converting pressure inside the opposition 22 into tries.
I have thought about this quite a lot, and I think the reasons for this are:
- outside the 22, defences tend to be set deeper (because they have more territory to defend, and to defend against kicks), so that once the AB backs get through the first line of defence, they usually have some open space to run into (both the ball carrier and supporting players) before the cover defence is engaged. The AB’s manipulate that space cleverly, and whilst the attack may stall with a cover tackle the opposition is having to retreat back to get onside and is disorganised. At this point, the AB’s are in their element – fast ruck ball or better still offloads create havoc amongst the retreating and/or disorganised opposition defences.
- inside the 22, defences are shallower, and the offside line stops at the goal line. This cramps the AB backs, and makes it a lot harder to get behind the opposition defence (who only have to retreat to the try line to be onside). At this point, forward strength including bashing it up and mauling become the best weapons for try scoring. The AB’s have been poor at these aspects of the game for some years, and whilst there has been some improvement this year, the AB’s are less than 50/50 to score a try from any sort of static ruck 5m out from the opposition try line. Contrast this to the Boks, who would be closer to 75/25 to score in those circumstances.
If the Boks want to start scoring more tries from backline play, they need to start treating the area from the opposition 10m line up to the 22 as the red zone for back line attacking play, with the default position being to keep the ball in hand in those areas. Whereas at the moment, most of the time the boks kick for territory or put up and unders in those areas – terrible waste of attacking ball.
Thoughts, Bok fans??
19 Nov 2012, 21:17 pm
@Te Rangatira-145: Good point TR. What do you think of my analysis above? Related issues, I think.
19 Nov 2012, 21:22 pm
@wnbb-29:
I have quite a few Afrikaner friends that will be very comfortable with you using the word ‘rockspider’ ……………….
…. that’s after they have each given you a pussklap……..
Don’t degenerate your arguments simply because you extremely pissed of with the coach
19 Nov 2012, 21:34 pm
@corporal punishment-146:
Corporal my apologies for an unfortunate outburst at you, will keep it civil in the future. This fascination of the Bok strategists/number crunchers with getting inside the oppositions 22 seems slightly, can’t think of the right word, but will use silly. You have rightly pointed out the the Abs will attack you from basically anywhere, preferably from inside their 10 m to the opposition 22 for all the reasons you pointed out in your post.Once you get inside the oppositions 22, the oppositions defence is harder to crack,unless you can draw them into the rucks and mauls, deliver quick ball, drive over or get it wide where you have an overlap, otherwise 60% of the time the ref will call a penalty either way.
19 Nov 2012, 21:37 pm
What outburst is that tr? I don’t remember it!
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.