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, 21:49 pm
@corporal punishment-147:
The biggest difference I see in the Bok forwards to the Ab forwards is in the support play. The Ab loosies in particular are more mobile allowing them to get into support positions and with their handling skills are able to make a telling contribution.
19 Nov 2012, 21:54 pm
146:Excellent comment corp punishment. Counter attack is an unknown entity in the Bok setup! France scored a great try last week against Aus and Aus scored a great try from counter attack against Eng on Saturday. Had both those balls been kicked onto Kirchner, he would have kicked the ball away / up and under.
I agree that the “scoring zone” is only (mostly at least) used for the forwards to take the ball up to score. We all know defence is much better organised in the 22m area
19 Nov 2012, 22:00 pm
Agree. Louw would fit in well to the AB style of play, he is a great link player and has excellent ball handling skills. However, the rest are relatively one dimensional and average to poor ball handlers.
Whilst the AB’s were too loose against the Scots, I thought their attacking play took rugby to a new level. The speed of the passing, both forwards and backs, took my breath away. They are playing a new and more effective style of rugby this season, and it has felt like a privilege to watch it.
It is fascinating to watch how other teams have adapted. The Argentinians and the Italians have copied the quick ruck clearances and the quick passing style, and I those teams have been good to watch (and I think they are both on the rise). Other teams have stuck to their knitting (the Boks) or regressed (Australia) and seem to be going backwards as the season progresses.
19 Nov 2012, 22:04 pm
@CharlesM-152: Agree. It’s not just counter attack tho. If the AB’s have a scrum or lineout from their 10m line onwards, they will usually run an attacking play, and this season they have been scoring tries from those sorts of situations. The Boks however would virtually alway kick in those situations.
19 Nov 2012, 22:31 pm
@corporal punishment-154: You are correct but I was immediately thinking of those 2 incidents. It seems as if the Springboks are afraid to make mistakes or conceding penalties or whatever. As a supporter it is very frustrating to say the least !!
The thing is that the defence is more spread out in the middle of the field which will invariably leave gaps in defence – wing falling back to cover for the expexted kick etc. The ABs know how to utilise space and how to do it at pace as well. The one try last week against the Scots, the ball was spread across the field from right to left and even some tight forwards handled the ball very well (they did not even contemplate taking the ball up into contact because the quick men were on the outside where there was space).
Thanks for your objective comments !! Just a pity the decision makers (HM and co.) can’t read it !!
I wish I could carry on but I still need to sort out a couple of things tonight.
Cheers
19 Nov 2012, 22:46 pm
@ryecatcher-141: Maybe Moaner & A.N.Other
19 Nov 2012, 22:54 pm
@corporal punishment-146: Very good post. The nail, you hit it….
19 Nov 2012, 23:15 pm
@CharlesM-155: Charles, yep, good analysis. Why can’t the Boks see what you are seeing??????
Thing is, playing running rugby isn’t that risky from the 10m mark inside your own half onwards. Added to the fact that this is within the penalty kicking zone for the boks, and penalties should go to the attacking team more often than the defending team, it seems a no brainer to me for the Boks to adopt this style of play.
Janties at 10, Lambie at 12 would be a nice combination to exploit this plan, but would require a different SH to Ruan.
Dare I say it, this style of play would suit a big fast ball runner like Spies much more than the current crash and bash style of play.
19 Nov 2012, 23:17 pm
I realise I probably lost all credibility with that last sentence. But Spies is one of the few Bok fowards that makes me nervous – because he is fast, so once he gets behind our defensive line he is extremely dangerous.
19 Nov 2012, 23:18 pm
Jordaan at 13 – he is perfect for a more attacking style of play. Faster than most other midfielders in the Super 15, super creative, just needs time to sort out his defensive alignment.
20 Nov 2012, 00:23 am
HM is a doos!
20 Nov 2012, 00:31 am
In all fairness to the bok players counter attacking rugby is an art … one which is not fostered/taught/natured in the current bok setup .
Every time the Abs have the ball kicked back at them, there are at least 5 players getting back behind the ball with purpose and the key phrase there is ‘BEHIND THE BALL’.
Watching the game on Saturday, most of the times when ruan ,lambie and zane kicked the ball there was no one coming up from behind them with any intention of attacking or looking to get the ball – at worst they are all standing in front of the receiver watching and waiting for him to kick .
The coaches and game plan can take the credit for that woeful style of play not the players
20 Nov 2012, 07:29 am
@corporal punishment-146: Agree 100%
20 Nov 2012, 07:32 am
@corporal punishment-159: I would agree with you if he ever did get behind a defensive line!
20 Nov 2012, 12:30 pm
Lol, I will have to sort through the video archives at chez punishment, I am sure he carved up the ab’s at times in 2008/9. Assuming of course that mrs punishment hasn’t recorded the kardashians over my reassured AB v Bok footage !!
20 Nov 2012, 13:15 pm
@ufo-101:
Don’t be so precious. I was being deliberately obtuse to try and get you to lighten up.
If you don’t like me showing up your judgemental attitude, why don’t you go and post on iamthechampionofthepeoplebutonlywhenifeellike.com
20 Nov 2012, 13:24 pm
@PissAnt-99:
I was not specifically referring to the opponents 22, which I surmise is what you are calling the strike zone. In that case what you say makes some sense.
But that is the inherent problem…..only regarding that area as the strike zone
20 Nov 2012, 13:47 pm
@corporal punishment-146: That must be the comment of the week my friend! Its these inherent ways of thinking about rugby that will prevent HM from being a great coach. Conversion rates/ tries overall are the problem…not conversion rates from within the oppositions 22. That space between halfway and the oppositions 22 is a key area for backline play. Thats where you call practised moves on 1st and subsequent phase ball. We were there a couple of times last Saturday but I saw nothing planned (as in something with a little more craft than bash em up) being executed. I don’t understand what there is to enjoy as players and spectators if these moves are not called…unless of course there were none practised to being with!
20 Nov 2012, 20:36 pm
@smallzm168: it does appear that there are no preactised moves! It appears that HM requires the players to follow a simple and robotic formula based on which part of the field the play is in.
The boks play has gotten worse as the season has worn on, which is probably because the players have gotten beter at HM’s game plan!
Unless you can field a forward pack that is so fearsome it can keep all opposition in a choke hold for 80 mins, I think this style of play will end badly for the boks. Even then, the rules are such that this may not be enough to consistently beat the best sides, because the rules naren to favour a faster paced ball in hand game.
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.