Plan B – Is it a myth or is it just misunderstood?
September 4, 2012 in Uncategorized
Let me start by congratulating Western Province with a superb show of total rugby. Those first tries were a thing of beauty and they hammered their point home. The Bulls knew they were up against a non relenting pack and there was nothing that we could do about it. Province’s forwards were rewarded for their efforts when the backline showed their trust in the heavies to do the job by giving the ball some air and they managed to score some superb tries.
OK, hopefully this is the last time that I’ll be forced to acknowledge a good WP performance. Hopefully their days of foolish purchases and mismanagement will start again soon.
Back to the Castle Rugby Championship… (Name change, anyone?)
Apart from everybody’s pet hate, the ‘Skop en Hoop” tactic currently employed by Meyer and his merry men, the Boks’ other shortcoming seems to be the lack of a plan B when this tactic does not work for them. (As were the case against the Pumas last Saturday?) I’m not quite sure what people mean when they call for this so called “Plan B”
By the way, the most popular night club in Upington is called “Plan B”. Now there’s a random fact you can pass around next time you and your buddies have this conversation.
What exactly does it mean to have a plan B in place? Does it mean that a team will go into a match playing a certain style of play and, if it doesn’t work, the captain shouts “Plan B” at the top of his voice and suddenly the whole team approaches the game differently? I cant recall many sides, even the most experienced Bulls, Crusader and All Black sides in history, doing this. These teams built their success on empowering their strengths in such a way that the opposition cant do anything about it.
Basically, they just did what they did best and the opposition just had to adapt, which makes sense if you think about it. The All Blacks always had big, fast and skilled backs that were at home if they were given space and time to mesmerise the opposition and the crowds with their sevens style approach to the game. The addition of the off load pass just added to this. But they always were a good scrumming nation as well. And, especially in the times when rucking was still allowed, their loose forwards always made sure that the backs were supplied with quality ball and that they were supplied with it fast.
If they suddenly came up against a Springbok side that was able to counter their forwards at the rucks and a fly half that kept them pinned in their own half, they seldom tried to counter this with a tactical game of their own. They just found ways to speed up the game and keep their backs in the game with quick throw ins and spreading the ball wide as soon as possible and not standing too deep. But they didn’t change their game plan.
The Boks did the same. If the All Blacks suddenly ran them off their feet, they didn’t try to counter it with a free running approach. They used their forwards to control the pace of the game and their flyhalf pinned them back in their own half, ensuring they did their running from way back. They used whatever advantage they had in the set pieces to gain the upper hand as well. In short, they sticked to what they are good at and didn’t try to do something that the opposition are better at.
Looking at the current Bok side, it seems Heyneke decided that our strengths lie in a powerful game upfront and keeping the opposition pinned back in their own half. And it makes sense. We have powerful runners, excellent kickers and fast chasers. We also have a good defence and our opponents will think twice before they take us on in their own half. Our set pieces aren’t too shabby as well, especially the lineouts.
There isn’t anything wrong with this approach, but we haven’t really reaped any rewards from it.
Why?
Is it because the gameplan is out dated? The answer to this seems to be a resounding “Yes”. But it’s not that simple. Please read this quote from Heyneke’s latest press conference:
“Our problem, against Argentina, was not just taking the opposition’s ball at the breakdown, it was protecting our own ball at the breakdown and that is not just the openside’s role that is the whole team’s responsibility. We need to be more effective at the breakdown, our body height should be lower and we should clean out more effectively.”
If this is what’s wrong with you’re team, then any gameplan will look out dated. I am yet to see a team pulling a game off against quality opposition while being manhandled at the breakdown like we were against Argentina. The answer to this isn’t employing a cavalier approach because then you just give them the opportunity to manhandle your backs instead of your forwards. Kicking it away, like we have done against Agrentina, is also not an option.
Something had to be done to at least help us break even at the rucks if we cant dominate in that area. Maybe the addition of a specialist fetcher like Brussouw (Not in the squad, but injured anyway) or Flo on the bench could have made up a more balanced loose trio should the all grunt approach backfire the way it did against the Pumas. Maybe Bismark would have been able to slow a few balls down if he was there.
Whatever the case, the correct approach would have been to win back the ascendancy at the breakdown, not run away from it. The addition of Daniel, Liebenberg and Pienaar went a long way in doing this, but by that time it was too late and the the Pumas had too much fuel left in the tank for us to make any progress.
Suddenly switching to an all attack approach while we were still loosing the battle for the ball would have been wrong and would surely have lost us the match.
I believe, with Meyer, that the problem lies in the execution of our game plan. It definitely is best suited to our strengths and we definitely have a backline capable of scoring a host of tries if they are provided with quality ball, but then the problems at the loosies must be sorted.
So, in short, I believe that your plan B should not be playing in a different way than how you’ve trained. It should only be a minor tweek in your approach to nullify whatever it is that’s keeping you from doing what you are best suited to do.
Cheers!!!
Bloues

Met uysh said on September 4, 2012
Plan A-Having most of your forwards in the backline waiting for the ball at the rucks instead of protecting the ball.
Plan B-Seeing that the opposition is stealing your ball time and again. Instruct forwards to commit more players to the breakdown. Only Willem and Strauss to carry it up from the backline.
See, imo (and as Mallet says) it’s not rocket science. We are not looking at saying “Monday’s you guys must train for Plan A, here is the 50 page book, Tuesday we train PLan B, here is the 53 page book”.
In simple terms what we are saying is exactly what you are saying. By all means, try your bash and hope approach, but “adapt” when it is not working. I don’t think anyone is saying go fron daylight to darkness and shout Plan B to initiate it. That’s stupid and that’s why you would never have seen it happen. But what you may have seen is teams adapting when they seem to be out for the count. Look at how many games the Crusaders have won in the last 20 minutes while being out of the game for 60.
It’s that little instinct I’m concerned about and what we are not seeing in the Bok squad. That adaptation. That Plan B. Otherwise we just stick with the same thing and hope for different results.
Meyer seems to be the one misunderstanding this concept of “adaptability”. He seems to think the “horses for courses” approach is “adapting”. In other words, he picks a slightly different side for Australia, who will employ (hopefully) a better approach. But if this approach doesn’t work, can this team adapt using their personal skill sets or will they stick to what coach said they must do otherwise they are fired?
By the way, it seems Meyer is now using this horses for courses thing and apparantly have always said he will use horses for courses but I find it strange that all courses doesn’t seem to suit Lambie but Steyn/Kirchner. Just a thought.
gertbloues said on September 4, 2012
Maybe the forwards are the horses and the cart is represented by the backs. So the cart stays the same, but you change the horses…
Read it over and over and it will make sense.
Met uysh said on September 4, 2012
Lol! So the cart will remain despite the wheel;s coming off! Lol!
gertbloues said on September 4, 2012
Then he’ll replace the wheel.
gertbloues said on September 4, 2012
That type of adaptability was also present when Meyer coached the Bulls, but it took time to develop.
Being able to read what’s happening on field and adapt to the circumstances definitely was the Marfield/Du Preez combo’s strongest attribute.
It is one thing to tell them how too adapt on the training field, but it takes vision and experience from your players to be able to correctly read the situation during the match and to deal with it.
This is where the experienced guys in the team must step up. Unfortunately, there isn’t too many of them in the forwards.
Met uysh said on September 4, 2012
If that’s the case then we won’t see any improvement. Especially if he keeps on picking inexperienced forwards like JacPot over experienced forwards like Daniel/Deysel heck even Dewald Potgieter is more experienced.
Met uysh said on September 4, 2012
Also, I really find it difficult to understand how top, world class Rugby players, can be so dumb as not to understand that they need to provide clean ball to the scrumhalf. I’m inexperienced as a Springbok, Super Rugby player and Provincial player but even I can see that. How much more should a top class Rugby player not know? Are they really that dumb that they cannot adapt? I really don’t buy that excuse. These guys are world class players, you don’t need so much experience as a Springbok to be able to see the obvious.
gertbloues said on September 4, 2012
I have thought of an explanation for this as well, but I hope that’s not the case because it is still only September.
Weren’t the Argentinians just quicker than us at the breakdown because we simply weren’t able to keep up at this stage of the season?
Met uysh said on September 4, 2012
I don’t think fatigue is a valid excuse. We’ll see how NZ approaches this vs Argentina. I just think our forwards were either too dumb to understand the plan and get the clean ball, or played to a plan that didn’t focus on producing clean ball but focussed on who can gain the most yards with the crash ball.