A lot has been said -mostly by complaining South Africans- about the breakdowns (way the All Blacks played this year) and about Hoskins and PdV handling of the excessive amount of yellow cards the Springbok team accumulated during the tri-nations (the so called conspiracy against South African rugby).

 

Some feel the South Africans whinge and Hoskins and PdV are cry babies. Tank has wrote awhile back about fatties and whether there is still a place for them in the modern game. Here is my thoughts on these matters as I think it (cheating, whingeing and fatties) is all sort of related.

 

All teams/players infringe from time to time. It is about amount of infringements, the constant nature of it, and most importantly when game plans resolve/depent on it; then it becomes a problem, for me personally. When you can only make your game plan work with lots and lots of off the ball stuff; either by bullying or by spoiling then I think opponents have the right to complain and “whinge”.

What gets me is the gloating -by rugby scribes- about NZ’s so called new style of playing and the consequent negativity -by these same rugby columnists- towards anybody who play differently.

 

Since when is running rugby the beginning and end of rugby?

That’s why there is rugby league; for people who wants to see running and bashing, running and bashing, running and bashing.

The media people’s drooling about NZ’s “new” style and their total inability to admit/see that the NZ game plan is dependent -to a disturbing extent- on off the ball hindering, spoiling, loitering, pulling and hassling is, as you can see, a thing that is working on my nerves. I foresee some rule changes (interpretations) after this year tri-nations or after next year’s WC because everyone is going to start doing what NZ is doing and the breakdowns is due to turn into a uncontrollable mess; a yellow card factory.

I am the first one to admit that the AB have played with more precision, structure and explosiveness than any other team this year and have wrote about it in previous posts. However, remarks like “Back in New Zealand, there must have been expressions of bemusement mixed with humour on the faces of the All Blacks players and coaches” and “It was helter-skelter stuff, harum-scarum rugby with desperation written all over two ordinary teams. No-one ever really got a grip on the game with some proper structured rugby in the style of the New Zealanders” that we’ve seen in News papers after the recent test between SA and Australia, just pisses me off.

 

Let’s all convert to rugby league, then, we can watch all teams doing the same stuff for 80 minutes, match after match. How bloody exciting will that be?

 

Why does everyone need to play like NZ?

 

Please before anyone misses the point. This article is not and was never intended as a criticism towards the All Blacks or to imply that they cheat. My point is mainly that South Africa should stick with what has worked for them (in the past) and not convert to All Blacks rugby just because rugby scribes in NZ thinks there is only one way to play rugby. If rugby rules no longer enable teams with a different approach -than the All Blacks- to be successful then the sport is dead, in my mind. We are not all the same and we can not make rules and apply it in a way that enforces sameness or that penalise teams who wants to play a different style.

The Springboks came very close in Soweto and if they play like that in the future and the All Blacks get better policed at the breakdowns the kiwi’s can be beaten.

A rule interpretation change made one hell of difference for NZ - from 2009 to 2010. In the same way more zealous policing of the breakdowns could change the fortunes of the Springboks in the future. 

 

Rule interpretation enforced by post tri-nation and S14 analyses -of refereeing in 2009- benefitted NZ rugby. The opposite might happen after this year’s tri-nations; I foresee that referee’s are going to take a stricter stance towards some things that did happen this year at the breakdowns; South Africa might benefit -just like NZ benefited this year- when that happens. It is by far the hardest part of the game to referee; it is a crucial part of the game; there is lots of unhappiness about that part of the game so some stricter officiating is in all probability going to happen.

 

Coming back to the fatties.

 

The scrum and lineout is what make rugby union different from any other sport. We can’t all be sprinters and fleet footed Quide Coopers neither can all of us be Victor Matfields. The game was historically constructed in such a way that there was place for big and small to compete against each other and I would like to see (hope) that to be continued/kept in mind with future rule adjustments.

 

The fatties, the beanpoles, the shorty’s, the Tarzan’s and the twinkle toe-see-you-here-see-you-there can all play together. That is by far the major reason why I like rugby union; it brings different shapes and sizes, strong and not so muscular, fast and slow, lean and chubby together in a way that each and everyone can contribute towards the outcome of the contest.

 

Once rugby union lose that the game will lost its appeal as a sport activity for the masses, I believe (definetely for me), and turn into a spectator sport played by increasingly smaller and smaller numbers of people. Australia has for ever tried to play a league type style within the union game. They pick ligther forwards to advantage their rotating style and use all sort of tactics at the scrum to spoil and have been critical about the set-piece structured game for many years. The lastest development in the game (around the breakdowns) and the way rugby columnist’s are drooling about the “exhilrating” faster game is directing the game towards a game which will only be suited for people with an “athletic” physique ala rugby league.

 

The game (and the rules of the game for that matter) should in the final analysis be about the people that play it and not about the spectators. At the moment the officiating managers or rule making decision makers is heading in the wrong direction. Money/spectators, TV viewing numbers are dictating how rules are manipulated because it has to be a spectacle for the crowds.

 

Are we changing into rugby league as a result of that; pushing average Joe bloke (the fatties) out of the game?  

This is what Peter Bills an Auckland Herald rugby columnist wrote about the weekend’s test between South Africa and Australia in an article entitled: Don’t be fooled by adrenalin thrill

 

South Africa and Australia came close to producing a new version of rugby this morning in Pretoria.

 

It was essentially rugby sevens played with 15 men a side – an interesting hybrid model which, alas, I don’t think has a future.

 

Neither, for that matter, does either of these teams if they continue to play the game in such a dumb fashion.

 

Yes, it was entertaining enough if you just want the vicarious pleasure of watching players dive over the whitewash. But for any serious observers of the game it was close to a joke at times. “Surreal” was how one leading world rugby official called it, and he was right on the money.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, it was a kind of rugby diarrhoea.

 

Tries spewed out at regular intervals, with no-one on the field apparently able to control the flow.

 

There were nine tries scored and only some desperate, scrambling defence by both teams prevented that number being doubled.

 

Back in New Zealand, there must have been expressions of bemusement mixed with humour on the faces of the All Blacks players and coaches.

 

For this was a game that told us exactly why New Zealand are already home and hosed as 2010 Tri-Nations Champions, not to mention Bledisloe Cup holders yet again.

 

I must say this is rather arrogant BS. My feeling was that South Africa had a very nervous start and let in a few soft tries. We played better in the second half limiting the Aussies to only three points.

 

Bills is right however in the sense that the Springboks (and for that matter Australia) lacked the structure, authority and composure the All Blacks have brought to the international game this year.

 

South Africa won in the end chiefly because Matfield seized two vital Wallaby line-out throws which stole away potentially vital Wallaby attacking platforms deep in our 22.

 

Also the Wallabies butchered two simple tries which were there for the taking had their players simply made the ball do the work. Australia seems to depend too much on the playmaking ability of Genia and Cooper and I cannot see them winning the next test in Bloemfontein or their last two encounters against New Zealand.

 

Peter Bills goes on to say:

 

There was none of the precision or clinical execution we had become accustomed to seeing from the All Blacks this season. Literally, they are in a class of their own on this evidence.

 

It was helter-skelter stuff, harum-scarum rugby with desperation written all over two ordinary teams. No-one ever really got a grip on the game with some proper structured rugby in the style of the New Zealanders.

 

So yes, for the uninitiated it was undoubtedly aesthetically pleasing and a real adrenalin thrill.

But don’t believe that all South Africans were fooled.

 

The vast swathes of empty seats in Pretoria, heartland of the South African game, told you plenty about what knowledgeable South Africans think of the present state of their side.

  

This article seems to represent to a large extend the current thinking or thought lines of rugby scribes in New Zealand. Essentially, that New Zealand has created a new way of playing rugby and that South Africa is at the cross-roads; they need to adapt or die. Here are some extracts from articles by Bills and his colleagues after the Soweto test (Game plan finally ran Springboks down).

 

So the All Blacks got out of jail?

 

Not in my book.

 

This match wasn’t won in front of 94,000 (initially) delirious South African fans who thought they had the old Kiwi skewered and on the braai midway through the second half when the Boks led 22-14.

 

No, this game was won last year in the Northern Hemisphere, and earlier this year when the Tri-Nations began.

 

As someone once said, you triumphed the moment you decided to become someone.

 

In other words, when the All Blacks management decided that they were going to go for bust; that they were set on ending the ghastly aerial ping-pong that afflicted the game last year like some 15th century plague.

 

I wonder whether Peter Bills would have been so anally arrogant and so superhero-worship one-eyed overawed by the All Blacks if they did lose the Soweto test. Yes, they did create their own luck by persistently asking questions from the Springbok defence but fact is Richie McCaw’s try was no try and that would have changed the outcome of that match.

 

Also the New Zealand cause was helped by some super stupid mistakes by the South Africans and some very average refereeing.

 

Chris Rattue in another article entitled (New rugby, new All Blacks’ supremacy) goes on along on the same theme raving about the All Blacks.

 

As a devoted critic of the All Blacks’ last World Cup campaign and, subsequently, the deplorable treatment of Robbie Deans, I gladly concede that Graham Henry is doing a brilliant re-building job, aided by the crucial rule-interpretation changes which encourage skilful ball work by making defenders struggle at breakdowns.

 

His supporters will have growing feelings of vindication.

 

Henry’s new All Blacks have a remarkable poise and nose for victory.

 

These All Blacks are also taking the game further as a spectacle, with far more to come when players such as Dagg are fully integrated into the deal.

 

Peter Bills in his article agree with this and states that in his opinion it was the game plan that brought SA down.

 

The Springboks cracked under pressure because they had spent the previous 20 minutes being exhausted by a side that insisted in keeping the ball in hand; continuing to ask questions of the defence.

 

New Zealand won this thrilling test match because they persevered with their philosophy of attacking running, says Bills.

 

He goes and state that he don’t buy the theory that the All Blacks just got lucky. They made their own fortune he says but then almost contradicts himself when he writes as follows about the referee:

 

Richie McCaw, it has to be said, again got away with blue murder under the nose of another so-called ‘leading’ world referee. How the New Zealand captain did not get yellow carded when he dived into the wrong side of a ruck a metre or two from the All Blacks line early in the second half after Dan Carter’s kick had been half charged down and the South Africans were set to score had they been able to work the ball clear quickly, defied belief.

 

Nigel Owens saw it and did nothing, apart from lamely giving the penalty.

 

Referees the world over, it has become manifestly apparent, are too scared to get McCaw off the field. I wonder why.

 

So does the whole of South Africa Mr Bills.

 

Peter Bills has the following on PdV and the Springboks:

 

Schalk Burger was immense, Juan Smith not far behind him. I thought it served the All Blacks handsomely when ‘Boks coach Peter de Villiers withdrew Juan Smith with 22 minutes still to play. I wouldn’t have done – for me, he was one of their most effective players. But I’m sure Peter de Villiers always knows best …

 

For much of the game, New Zealand looked slower, more ponderous and prone to wrong decision making compared to their previous performances. They made many mistakes, chiefly because of the pressure the Springboks exerted.

 

He is actually confirming that New Zealand were very lucky and that their cause was helped by very average referee decisions without actually saying the obvious namely that NZ was allowed back into the match by that very referee mistakes. Instead he finishes off with a smug remark that reeks of gloating:

 

And yet, when all was said and done, it was their faith in an attacking philosophy which prevailed and which got them home. It wasn’t down to luck or inefficient defending – South Africa did all they humanly could to deny their greatest foe.

 

Chris Rattue writes that the All Blacks brand of rugby is exciting and a joy to watch and that SA has bigger problems than they think:

 

Rugby has rarely been better to watch, if ever, and this re-built All Black team is already among the best ever.

 

Rugby is bristling, and again the credit goes to Henry and his team. They are showing the rugby world how to play, in a way that probably only Australia would match if they had more power.

 

Remembering rugby from the past is like remembering New Zealand life long ago. Both had their charms, but overall – and with the benefit of hindsight – they were a bit of a bore.

 

The highlight reels, on television and in the mind, play wicked tricks, turning them into magical days.

 

Watch those old matches in their entirety for the whole truth, nothing but the truth. The game of yesteryear staggered about, littered with interruptions. Few teams – the Auckland side of the late 1980s and early 1990s being one – could rise above the dross.

 

That’s all we knew at the time, and loved the whole charade.

 

New rugby is the real deal.

 

As for the Springboks, they are in even bigger trouble than we thought.

 

If that’s the best the world champs can come up with in a home colosseum while celebrating John Smit’s century of tests, then they are indeed one large tank skidding out of control down one very steep hill.

 

No wonder Smit sank to his knees after Ma’a Nonu had created Israel Dagg’s superbly taken winner.

 

The Boks had a lot of initial huff, then ran out of puff. They were clearly second best, even if it did take a late score to prove this.

 

Remarks like this infuriate me. The fickleness of some of these rugby columnists is sometimes just too much to bear.

 

What was wrong with the way the Stormers played and the way the Bulls played? Some commentators have referred to the bulls as playing total rugby. Graeme Henry was quoted to say that the Stormers play the best rugby in the S14 and that the bulls are the most innovative team in the competition. The bulls kept innovating new moves around the best players utilizing their strengths.

 

You structure your game plan according to the players you have. South Africa has always done this and in times they deviated from this and tried to play in a way that will satisfy the opposition the results were disastrous.

 

Our strength has always been our big forwards and in the 1930’s we had Benny Osler so the kicking game took off in SA. Osler was a tactical genius and if you read what Craven wrote about the man it is quite possible that he was the best Springbok flyhalf ever.

 

 

Bennie Osler in all probabilty the father of flyhalf play in SA; responsible for SA’s obsession with a kicking and dictating flyhalf.

 

In 1937 the renowned Springbok side of Phil Nel toured to NZ and played total rugby on the back of our superior scrum. We ran them ragged scoring 5 tries in the last test accomplishing a series win in NZ. We didn’t have a kicking flyhalf -Osler retired in 1936-  so we started running the ball but we scrummed them into the ground selecting for scrums instead of lineouts (as the rules allowed it at that stage) staging starter moves from our solid scrum.

 

In 1952 we had Hennie Muller so we develop a style of running the ball with the forwards with huge success staging the most successful end year tour ever.

 

Photo of Hennie Muller. I would unhesitatingly say that Hennie Muller was the greatest loose-forward I have ever seen. Bob Scott the legendary All Black fullback wrote in his biography.

 

Then from 1953 to 1969 our fortunes changed when we forgot the lessons learned and tried to enforce a certain game plan with the wrong players.

 

In 1953 we lost the second test against a very average Australian touring side after having won the first test convincingly with 5 tries. This is what Chris Greyvenstein writes in his book Springboks saga about that shock defeat:

 

It is my theory that the Springboks lost mainly because they had been subtly brainwashed into playing a game that was basically not sound. Muller admitted often in later years that he knew that every member of his team wanted to “show up” the crowd and the critics by keeping the ball in play as much as possible.

 

Craven’s mistake in 1957 was that he decided to try and repeat what the 1937 team did namely playing running rugby against the All Blacks. He opted for some youngsters and lighter forwards and paid the price losing the series 3-1 against New Zealand.

 

In 1965 Terry McLean had the following to say about South African Rugby and the legacy of the 1952 Springboks:

 

The 1951-52 Springbok team which lost only one match, to London Counties, during a tour of the British Isles and France which was so successful that the team, with every right, came to be known as perhaps the greatest South Africa had ever sent abroad. The team had many strengths one of the most significant was the skill at running the ball of the forwards. From this developed the belief in South Africa that the running game was the fruitful game and that the old power-play style of South African forwards backed by intelligent skilful inside backs, was strictly old hat. An insidious disease of superficiality entered South African rugby; and this brought about the defeat of the Springboks of 1964 by France during a short tour, worse, the incredibly  ill-stared expedition of the Springboks of 1965 who in five matches in Ireland and Scotland were beaten four times and drew once.

 

In 1970 under Claassen we got it right again, playing to our strengths bringing Mof Myburg and Lofty Nel back after we lost the second test. Rugby writers on that tour essentially stated that this move by Claassen won us the third and fourth test and the series against an All Black team undefeated since 1965.

 

In the 1980 we had Gerber, Naas and the du Plessis brothers with Mordt and Gysie to top it up. We also had the likes of Hempies du Toit, Flippie v/d Merwe, Louis Moolman, Stofberg, and De Villiers Visser in the pack. So we played it of the scrum and lineout and scored some brilliant tries. In 1981 we toured NZ and if it weren’t for some selection mistakes in the first test, flour bombs and a very dubious referee decision we should’ve drawn that series at least.

 

Then we came back after isolation with MacIntosh trying to play All Black rugby. It was a disaster.

 

In 1995 we got it right again with Kitch Christie and then we had Carl du Plessis and Harry Viljoen trying to enforce an expansive game. Harry was a dreamer but Carl could have gotten it right if he were given the same vote of confidence Graeme Henry got from his bosses. Who would forgot that 61 points the boks accumulated against Australia in Carl’s last test. Fact is we did it off our normal structured play and not by hit and rotating ad infinitum like the Aussies or with illegal tactics at the breakdown like New Zealand.

 

Mallet took over brought even more structure into our set piece and with Carl’s ground work in terms of creative backline play the Boks went on and won 17 matches on the trot. The wheels came of when Monsieur Mallet got a bit cocky and were playing injured players because he didn’t want to let go of his stalwarts.

 

Some turbulent years followed after that until Jake White took the reins and started to play according to Springbok strengths again.

 

So where are we now? The game has sped-up but we have never been able to play the rotating ball type of rugby that the Aussies or New Zealand play. Western Province/Stormers and Cheetahs and maybe the Sharks play a more expansive game than Northern Transvaal/Bulls but not the ball rotating game the Aussies do.

 

The way forward is intriguing. Is SA rugby at the cross-roads? Do we need to adopt or die? Are we at a place where we have to succumb and change our traditional ways or stuck to our guns and dwindle away in obliviousness?

 

Chris Rattue elaborates in his article on how he sees South African rugby:

 

The world champion Springboks are not in good health though, and desperate changes to their line-up failed to find victory.

 

The South African Rugby Union is bonkers if Peter de Villiers, the fake coach, remains in charge.

 

Luckily for their World Cup opponents, South Africa’s rugby administrators are so immature that a few rough on-field decisions get them barking about quitting a multimillion- dollar broadcasting deal they’ve only just extended.

 

Coach de Villiers lacks the authority to clean out the old guard and make tactical changes. He is groping in the dark, and his latest backline was too lightweight for the modern rugby battle. Their battle plan is confused.

 

I believe we need to work on our breakdown skills and our fitness levels to enforce more speed, precision and better execution at the breakdowns mostly so we can defend better and keep the ball longer but our strengths is our lineout, our mauling and our structured game.

 

Reading Pedro latest blog there is some indication that South African rugby might be changing but then we’ve always ran the ball at 0/21 level.

 

In the final analysis I don’t believe we should try and play like the All Blacks. It is a well known concept in warfare and in sports like boxing and the martial arts that you counter your opponent’s strengths by doing the exact opposite.

 

I would like to see if the All Blacks can win a world cup with this flamboyant flashy style they’ve adopted. They nearly got unstuck in Soweto and my feeling is their fortunes are going to change the moment they are put under real pressure and when referees start picking up on their illegal tactics at the breakdown.

In 2009 the All Blacks turned over 13 rucks per test in the Tri Nations
In 2010 the All Blacks turned over 13 rucks per test in the Tri Nations

In 2009 the All Blacks conceded 17 turnovers per match in the Tri Nations
In 2010 the All Blacks conceded 12 turnovers per match in the Tri Nations.

In 2009, the Half back pairings of the All Blacks kicked 22 percent of their possession away.
In 2010, the Half back pairings of the All Blacks kicked 10 percent of their possession.

In 2009, the All Black forwards handled the ball 49% of the time and the Backs 51%
In 2010 it is 40% forwards and 60% backs.

So what changed?

The All Blacks is not winning more ball at the breakdowns but have become more efficient; they are conceding slightly less ball at the breakdowns but more importantly the quality of their ball coming from breakdowns has improved.

What changed is the speed and precision at the breakdowns. The fact that roles have been clearly defined and that the All blacks have superior fitness and unity at the tackle ball area. The result is they can do more with their ball therefore kicking less and more backline play. 

Go and sit in front of your TV and look at the match as if you are an All Black supporter. Stop trying to see how they cheat start looking at exactly what are they doing.

Look at how they play.

So what are the All Blacks doing differently from the Springboks (or for that matter Australia)?

They simply apply themselves better to the game of union as it is played and officiated at the moment. Tactically they are smarter and they have a far better game strategy than South Africa.

I for one was admittedly quite surprised with the Springboks success in 2009 considering the high-school-rugby-tactic of kick and charge. The way the bulls game plan evolved this year left me with a feeling that we’ll smoke them this year. So the hammering we received so far this year was a bit of a surprise, as I was expecting better results than in 2009. So what went wrong with the bulls game plan at the Springoks? 

Much has been made how the team currently misses the likes of Brussow and Fourie du Preez. I agree that the loss of the mentioned players is disruptive to any team but feel that it is by no means the primary reason for the poor performances this year.

I’ve wrote in one of my previous posts about the breakdowns or the tackled ball area (see here) and I have also wrote in another previous post about innovative training methods and the lack there off in the South African set-up (see here). I’ve pointed out in these two posts that the All Blacks target the breakdowns and have started this season by taking a serious look at the breakdowns and that they’ve did serious ground work in terms defining roles and cohesiveness in this area of the game. My last two posts have been about training and how the Springboks are in all probability not integrating skill training with fitness. I want to bring the four posts together in this one. My feeling is that the clear definition of roles specifically at the breakdowns and the ability to work with speed and precision at the tackle ball area -as a team because of how they clarified tasks and integrated fitness and skill training- is what is giving New Zealand the edge over both South Africa and Australia.

The point I want to make in this post is that South Africans in analysing the situation and our perceived weakness in this area of the tackle ball are getting it wrong – specifically with what, or who, can turn the team around.

I am referring to the topic of the fetcher and his importance today. I think his role is overstated. I am not saying a fetcher is not important. I am saying one player cannot turn us around.

Skills to win the ball on the ground and turn-over possession are vital, but it is not limited to one person or position.

Let’s focus for a moment on the so-called fetchers in Richie McCaw and David Pocock in the All Blacks an Australia teams.

In all the Tri-Nations games to date none of these players forced a ruck turn-over. In fact, team statistics favoured South Africa in all but one test (Soweto test) as scoring the most ruck turn-overs sometimes even double that of the opposition team.

Defensively McCaw only scored one defensive turn-over in all the tests he has played against the Springboks, Pocock none. Even Matfield has done better than that!

Why are we still beaten at the ruck then? Why is Pocock and McCaw such a nuisance in this area?

In the modern game there are a few crucially important things you need to get right if want to dominate at the breakdowns.

1. Balance of the loose-trio, the lock and the frontrow combinations. Included here is that selection should be based on technique and ability at the breakdown, Wayne Smit indicated that NZ select players based on their ability to do clearly identified and defined tasks at the breakdowns.
2. Speed and commitment as well as numbers to the breakdown. Here is where integration of fitness and skill training come into play.
3. Not kicking possession away.

McCaw and Pocock’s effectiveness is not the result of ball-stealings as is the common definition of a fetcher. They are effective because of their speed, technique and fitness and becuase of the clearout and spoiling work they do which essentially buy time for the cavalry to arrive and blow over the ball. The operative phrase in New Zealand rugby (go stand at a club or school rugby match in New Zealand and you hear it all the time) is BLOW OVER.

McCaw and Pocock are so effectiveness because of the work the other forwards do in this area. Their tasks is mostly to spoil, or slow down opposition ball and thanks to a clear role definition of other players (primarily props and locks in close-in channels and their loose-trio partners in rucks or tackled areas further wide or away from the original point of contact) they don’t need to worry about stealing the ball.

If you study the All Blacks the one thing that stands out as clear as daylight is their attention to detail and clarity of role definition of virtually every players in defensive and offensive rucks. Their ball carrying forwards, cleaners, pillars, spoilers, loiterers, obstructors and so forth. are clearly defined within the team and when you put all that together, and you hunt as a unit in both defensive and offensive situations, you are hard to stop.

In short, McCaw and Pocock are so effective because the whole pack -responsible to control the tackle ball area- contributes and finish off the task (winning or dominating the breakdowns). All McCaw needs to do is to start the process by getting his hands on the ball; slowing it down for the cavalry to arrive.

The speed with which cavelry hit the breakdowns and with which the ball carriers take the ball into contact as well as the speed with which they send the ball wide is in essence what makes the difference. The game has sped-up. You don’t wrestle for the ball anymore you blow over at speed and you move the ball away from the contact points with speed. Speed, precision and clear definition of roles is what it is all about; hunting as a unit and committing numbers to the breakdown.

This is the reason why the All Blacks and Australia had so much possession, handled the ball so much more, created more line-breaks and effectively scored more tries and generally look more effective running the ball.

This is the reason the Springboks always look out on their feet having to commit more players to defensive rucks than their opponents and defend themselves physically into the ground.

This is the reason the Springboks cannot close out a game.

I think a true fetcher like Brussow can make a difference but for him to be effective in the faster game the Springboks will have to change the way they train, change their game-plan and they will have to start by clearly define roles at the breakdowns and select players accordingly.

The use of small sided games in football (soccer) to integrate scientific training methods that athletes use to peak with skills training is an exciting new innovation in repeated sprint sports. I thought it might be useful to add some additional explanation as most readers probably don’t have a background in the science of training and peaking.

I am going to do the explanation using a typical 10 week running periodization program. For the purpose of the discussion I will focus only on the interval sessions because that is essentially what I want to emphasize in this post; how the interval sessions differ from one phase of the periodization cycle to the next.

Phase 1; Base line training

If you follow a 10 week training program towards peaking you will spend at least 4 weeks doing base training; laying a foundation. The aim in these 4 weeks would be to do lots of continuous runs just below the lactate threshold. On top of that you’ll do 1 or two interval sessions per week and your interval session will look as follows:

Table 1; Interval session for the first 4 weeks of a 10 week periodization program to improve 10 km run time.

	Warm-up	Set 1		Set 2		Set 3		Set 4
Wks		Ex	Rest	Ex	Rest	Ex	Rest	Ex
1&2	3 min @ 10km	2 min @ 15km	2 min @ 12km	2 min @ 15km	2 min @ 12km	2 min @ 15km	2 min @ 12km	2 min @ 15km
3&4	3 min @ 12km	2 min @ 15km	2 min @ 12km	2 min @ 15km	2 min @ 12km	2 min @ 15km	2 min @ 12km	2 min @ 15km

  

This would work best on a treadmill but can also be done outside. The running speed selected for the high intensity bouts and recovery bouts in this table what I’ve been using and is based on my fitness level. Essentially you would select a speed that the client would rate 6 on a scale from 1 to 10 with 10 being extremely hard and 1 being very easy for the hard bouts and a speed that he will rate 4 for the recovery bouts. So a running speed that is just above comfortable level for the hard parts. If you’re a coach you will use a speed that will push the athletes heart rate to about 60% to 75% of Heart rate max during the high intensity intervals.

So if you look at the third horizontal column (weeks 1 and 2). You will start with a 3 minute warm-up at 10 km per hour (level 3 on a scale from 1 to 10). The warm-up is essentially very comfortable running.

After 3 minutes warm-up you will then start with set 1 during which you will do 2 minutes at 15 km per hour (level 6 on your personal comfort scale) and then recover on 12 km per hour for the same length of time. You will repeat this for 4 times (2 minutes hard then 2 minutes recovery) or until you reached a predetermined overall distance. My aim was to keep rolling on with this sets until I clocked 6 km; normally about 5 sets. Essentially you are learning the muscles to work for longer at higher intensities.

In terms of team sports and small sided games you will set up games using relatively bigger groups and larger paying areas. You will inform the players what you want to do and you’ll monitor their heart rates and provide them with constant feedback on how they are going. Groups of 6 to 11 competing against each other doing repeated bouts of 2 to 3 minutes skill related tasks with active recovery in between (jogging to a marker and back) and then repeat the activity.

The activity could be something like having tackle bags lying on their sides on the sidelines of the square area used. A ball is placed behind the tackle bag. Players have to run criss cross to the tackle bags bend over and pick up a ball without going to the ground. Trainers and coaches are standing behind the bags forcing the ball down on the ground providing just enough resistance to make them work. Once the player get the ball he (throws it down) runs to the next tackle bag and so forth until the 2 or 3 minutes are over then jogs to the marker for his recovery before he repeats the activity. You can do lineout jumps followed with driving against the coaches or team mates holding a light tackle bag.

With kids we do the building a railway track exercise (picking up a ball jumping over a team mate going down placing the ball for the next person to pick it up and jump over go down and place it. This will keep on until the last one in the row is through after which the first person starts again jumping over very one until he get to the ball jump over the last person and place the ball).

With adults you could also set up a circuit around the rugby field with different task at the various spots. So you blew the whistle players run to their spots and start doing the activity (example repeated lineout jumping and/or repeated rucking and/or tackling a bag getting- up and tackle again and so forth) until you blew the whistle after which everyone cycle on to the next task (lineout person go to the rucking spot, rucking person go to repeated tackle spot); the run to the next task is the recovery run. The aim is set-up a circuit which results in interval training with rugby skills. It takes a bit of thinking but players could be involved in coming up with ideas.

During weeks 3 and 4 you do the same thing but notice the speed of the warm-up is a little faster now. The rest stayed the same.

The aim during this stage of the program is to get “miles” on the legs and you’ll do the interval sessions to drive the O₂ uptake to close to maximum levels towards the end of the session/run. The adjustment during this phase of training is mostly in the legs/muscles with some heart lung (cardiovascular adjustments) because of the overall duration (6 km total distance in case of the treadmill runs I used as and example).

Phase 2 – interval training also called anaerobic interval

The next phase starts in week 5 (this is for a 10 week cycle of course; if you have more time each phase will be proportionally longer).

In terms of my treadmil program (preparing for a 10 km run) your interval runs will look as follows:

5	3 min @ 12km	90 sec @ 16 km	2 min @ 12km	90 sec @ 16 km	2 min @ 12km	90 sec @ 16 km	2 min @ 12km	90 sec @ 16 km
6	3 min @ 13km	90 sec @ 16 km	90 sec @ 13km	90 sec @ 16 km	90 sec @ 13km	90 sec @ 16 km	90 sec @ 13km	90 sec @ 16 km

The aim at this stage is to improve the buffer capacity or the body’s ability to handle lactate. Your intervals pitch now at speeds/intensities that will push you above your lactate threshold levels (75% to 85% of max heart rate). Practically you will have difficulty talking after each high intensity bout, your heart rate will still be accelerating for the first 30 seconds of the recovery run and your legs will get very rubbery, burning like hell and your feet starting to flop during the later sets (sets 3, 4 and 5). The overall duration will be a little less than in weeks 1 to 4 because the duration of the intervals is shorter (90 seconds versus 2 minutes in weeks 1 to 4).

Notice in the table that the speed of the runs have increased to 16 km per hour (level 7 on your personal 1 to 10 comfort scale) but the duration of the high intensity intervals have decreased to 90 seconds. The recovery runs is still at 12 km per hour and still 2 minutes. So you pushing harder and then give the body time to get rid of the accumulated lactate before doing it again. In week 6 you start to reduce the recovery time as well forcing the body the start getting rid of the lactate quicker.

Phase 3 – interval progression also called aerobic intervals

You now start to do intervals above the anaerobic lactate threshold and the aim is to spend more time training at Vo_2max. Top class athletes can keep going for 3 to 4 minutes. During this stage you work on cardiovascular (heart, lung fitness) and you use short intervals at game pace. In doing so you improve the VO_2max or cardiovascular fitness; you essentially force fitness to a higher levels by using short rest intervals and short high intensity work sessions.

During these sessions the lactate levels seems to stay low because the intervals are not long enough for the lactate to accumulate. So you don’t get the rubbery leg feelings any more but your lungs are burning and the heart rates go to 85-100% of heart rate max.

This is how your intervals will look on the treadmill:

Week 7	3 min @ 13km	60 sec @ 17 km	90 sec @ 14km	60 sec @ 17 km	90 sec @ 14km	60 sec @ 17 km	90 sec @ 14km	60 sec @ 17 km
Week 8	3 min @ 14km	60 sec @ 17 km	60 sec @ 14km	60 sec @ 17 km	60 sec @ 14km	60 sec @ 17 km	60 sec @ 14km	60 sec @ 17 km

In week 7 you’ll push the speed of the run up to 17 km (level 8 on your personal comfort scale) but bring the duration down to 60 seconds. So it is 1 minutes at average game pace with 90 seconds recovery. The recovery is slightly faster that in weeks 5 and 6. In week 8 you’ll bring the duration of the recovery run down as well. The overall time of the session is now three quarters of what it was in weeks 1 to 4 (because the intervals is shorter 4×60 seconds + 3 minute warm-up = 7 minutes versus 4×2 minute + 3 minutes= 11 minutes).

Your small sided games will now be done in smaller areas and with less people forcing everyone to keep working. There is less time to rest, everyone has to keep working. You can set 6 players (two groups of 3) against each other with the task to try and score tries of a rucking situation. Team that scores keep the ball. So the three with the ball will have the ball carrier go into contact and place the ball next person needs to drive over so that number three can pick-up. The tackler(s) try and steal the ball and counter ruck. No passing is allowed; it has to be rucking and picking up for the full 1 minute.

Body position, leg drive, upper body strength, explosiveness and rucking technique are all important but it is all done at game pace/intensity. Trainer will have plenty of balls on the sideline so if one teams scores the game just keeps rolling on until the 1 minute is up. Recovery would be 2 or 3 medium pace sprints across the playing area.

Phase 4 –Sprint training

In second last week before the big event you’ll start with true sprint training. The program on the treadmill (for someone preparing for a 10 km race) will look as follows:

Week 9

2 min @ 14km

40 sec @ 18 km

60 sec @ 15km

40 sec @ 18 km

60 sec @ 15km

40 sec @ 18 km

60 sec @ 15km

40 sec @ 18 km

You are now recovering at the speed that you initially did your training intervals (15 km per hour). You can do this because the training bouts are short (40 seconds) and the overall duration of the session is less than half of the sessions in weeks 1 to 4. It is hard and intense but it is short. The speed of your training bout is an almost full out sprint (faster than average game pace). You not trying to force new levels of fitness any more but training the neuromuscular system to work with precision at extreme intensities. You are sharpening-up for the contest. The overall duration of the sessions is long enough to still test the cardiovascular system; you are doing enough overall work to maintain fitness. This phase can last anything from 1 week to 4 weeks depending on how much time you have available.

Phase 5- tapering.

In the last week you’ll increase the intensity even more but reduce the duration to very short sessions. You are priming the system; not training any more. You want to do this with the most important skills namely tackling, acceleration, explosive rucking, mauling and so forth.

Here is what the treadmill program for a 10 km run will look like:

Week 10

2 min @ 15km

30 sec @ 19 km

30 sec @ 15km

30 sec @ 19 km

30 s @ 15km

30 sec @ 19 km

30 s @ 15km

30 sec @ 19 km

It is full-out sprinting now or at a pace way faster than normal game pace. You are priming the system to work with precision at extreme intensities so that you will feel comfortable at game pace.

Wave cycle to maintain

Once you’ve reached this stage you can normally stay up there for 6 to 8 weeks. So in sports like rugby were you have a long season a wavelike program is followed during the competitive season.

Table 2: Wave like program rugby league use during th competitive season.

Provided in Table 2 is an example of a strength program used by league rugby players in Australia.

A 6 week cycle is followed. In week 1 they work at 75 to 77% of 1 repetition maximum. In week 2 at 80-82%, week 3 at 85-90%, week 4 at 77-85%, week 5 at 85 to 90% and week 6 at 85 to 95%. Essentially increasing the resistance and dropping the amount of lifts over 6 weeks after which they start at week 1 again.

For those interested here is the gym exercises they use in rugby league with some more detail regarding sets and reps used during the 6 week wavelike program. Note this is used during the competitive part of the season.

Table 3: Gym exercises used by league rugby players

The small sided games will be used in a similar fashion namely you’ll go back to what you’ve done in week 5 and then follow what you’ve done until week 10 and then start at week 5 again.

In summary

The problem with the boks and the thing I want to point out with this article is that skill training like passing, hand and foot drills, rucking, mauling, counter rucking, tackling need to be incorporated with fitness training. Why, because practicing those skills at slow pace and when you are not fatiqued with lactate pumping through your veins and not under pressure defensively means absolutely nothing in terms of the game.

 

Small sided games where you create a competition situation between 2, 4 or 6 players should be used to hone skills and players should do it at increasingly higher intensity. You can ensure high intensity by manipulating the size of the playing area. There is essentially three types of intervals that need to be done meaning that drills/skills need to be done in small sided games in three different ways (different in terms of length of the run/contest, length of the rest intervals, total amount of intervals done per session and how high the heart rates should go during the session). These three types of intervals produce three different physiological responses.

 

Think in terms of the ruck. Every player in the team should contribute at the ruck and body position, explosiveness, leg drive and core strength are required to ruck successfully. This need to be trained at increasingly faster and faster pace and intensity until it becomes second nature; you don’t think about it anymore you just do it no matter how tired you are.

 

This is what happened in last Saturday’s test at the last ruck. We had the ball two players in support and Spies. Spies were in lalala land and our two supporting players were too upright and slow. AB came in with speed, low trajectory and just blew us off the ball. Why did that happen because they practice it over and over in small sided games at increasingly faster pace with less and less rest between each rucking contest and then they sharpen-up just before the contest with real high intensity drills.

There has been quite some reaction on perceptions that the Springboks are not fit enough (see Graeme Henry’s remarks on this issue). Some bloggers have made remarks like “they are professional athletes. How can they not be fit enough?” This is essentially what inspired this post because fitness can mean a number of things depending on how you define fitness and there is quite a difference between being fit and being sharp.

 

To be sharp means that you can perform game skills with precision at extremely high intensities; at fast pace; for prolonged periods of time. This requires integration of skills-practice with fitness training. This is essentially where I think the problem lies with the Springbok team. Plumtree -the sharks coach- has complained that the Springboks come back to the sharks not sharp and fit enough.

 

After what I’ve seen on the weekend I have my doubts about the fitness trainer(s) in the bok camp.

 

Senior players can have quite a negative impact on fitness training sessions as these type of sessions I am talking about are intense and normally something that the older players tend to try and avoid.

 

One of the black caps (NZ cricket team) pervious fitness trainers have told me how he struggled with senior players like Stephan Flemming during his tenure as fitness trainer because Flemming just didn’t want to do high intensity training sessions and essentially changed training schedules to suite his preferences. I think the same think is happening in the springbok camp with Matfield and Smit calling the shots in terms of fitness sessions. I can just imagine how hard it would be for a new fitness trainer to introduce something new/different –which is essence painful- to players who have won a worldcup and who have played 90 tests. I don’t think PdV has the stature, authority and knowledge base to enforce certain training habits. He is clearly relying too much on senior players to enforce S14 game plans.

So what is this integrated high intensity training that I am talking about? A blog is obviously not a text book so I’ll keep it brief sticking mostly to the most essential aspects of it and hopefully this will help supporters to understand what Henry implies when he says the Springboks are not fit enough.

 

The classic periodization model

 

I wrote about peaking in one of my previous blogs (see here). To peak you follow a persiodization plan which is essentially a structured plan which aim to first develop solid base line fitness and then to sharpen-up for competition.

 

By definition: ‘A logical phasic method of manipulating training variables in order to increase the potential for achieving specific performance goals’.

 

By definition periodized training programs are non-linear. A linear training program would be constant and volume and intensity would not change (example 3 sets of 10 reps at 75% of the 1 repition maximum in a gym doing mostly the same exercise)

 

The classical persiodization model used by athletes consists of base training, followed by strength training, followed by speed work and then by tapering.

Figure 1: the classic or standardized periodization model.

Notice how you start with high volume but low intensity and not a lot of focus on technique. During the early stages the coaches will work on certain things and the fitness trainer will have the players afterwards for fitness training. Scrums, lineouts, rucks, kicking and so forth are not really integrated with fitness although not totally separated from it. Players will do lots of scrums and lineouts and will spend time in the gym doing weights and on the field running and passing; just running; hitting heavy bags to improve base line fitness. The focus is on volume, lots of repetition but not neglecting technique; mostly trying to enhance sport specific base line fitness with lots of repetition at reasonable pace.

 

When you enter the competitive season you would cut down on volume but increase focus on intensity and skill training. So less volume but at higher intensity and more integrated with technique or skill training. As the season progresses the volume drops considerably over time and the trainning sessions become short but pitch at extremely high intensity with lots of focus on technique (more about this later).

 

Phase 1 – base training

 

So in the beginning the team would do what we would call base training.

 

•  Runners use continuous slow (CS) running (close to critical velocity) which if maintained long enough (1 hour + or until exhaustion) will drive VO₂ to VO_2max.
• Continuous slow running would enable the athlete to run for a longer time at VO_2max provided they maintain a speed close to critical velocity during training.
• This is the corner stone of the Arthur Lydiard system.
• Also used by the Kenyans

 

Explaining some terminology
Critical velocity	Average between lactate threshold and speed at VO2max. Equal to 85-90% of speed at VO2max.
VO2	Oxygen uptake during exercise – essentially the harder/faster you train the higher the oxygen uptake.
VO2max	Indication of fitness. It is the maximum amount of oxygen that your body can use during exercise. Olympic athletes have values between 70 and 85 ml.kg.min. In continuous sprint sport trainers use the bleep test (or something similar) to assess fitness levels.
Bleep test	A test of continuous short sprints over 30 meters at faster and faster pace until exhaustion. Bleep refers to a bleeper that indicates pace from one end to the next. The longer the player can keep going the higher his fitness and VO2max.
Arthur Lydiard system	Arthur Lydiard is a running coach who developed a unique way of training distance runners in the 1960. He was the man who coached Peter Snell to two Olympic gold medals in 1960 and 1964 in the 800 and 1500 meters respectively. Peter Snell had a modest VO2max of 69 ml.kg.min.

What does this mean in terms of team sports like rugby? Essentially with professional athletes they should have a solid strength and skill foundation which means that when the springbok coach starts to work with them he starts in the middle of the graph in figure 1 namely with an equal amount of work on skill and volume and reasonable intensity. Base training should actually be completed by the time the Springbok side assembles; base training is done in the pre-season and at the home provinces/S14 franchises.

 

What New Zealand did this year was they started with block work (see my previous post on this here) doing high volume work focussing on technique -at late stage 1 intensity- and once they perfected the technique they moved on to phase 2 or interval training doing the same stuff but now at higher intensity.

 

During the base line phase players or athletes will do interval training once a week. An interval session is where you alternate faster and slower runs on a continuous or repetitive basis in order to train/learn the body to work at higher intensities. The interval sessions will consist of 3 minutes runs at intensity of 80-85% of heart rate max and the athlete will do 5 to 10 of these runs imterspurred with recovery runs of more or less the same lenght. The recovery runs will be of the same length but at intensity equal to 65-75% of the maximum heart rate.

 

Here is a short summary of the intervals used during this stage of the training program:

 

• Duration of runs is 1-4 minutes- close to max speed interval runs.
• Train close or above Lactate threshold levels; the purpose to improve lactate removal or buffer capacity.
• 1:1 or 1:2 work:rest ratio @ 80 to 85% of heart rate max or 85-102%+ of speed at VO_2max .
•  Lactate keeps increasing as the session progress until it reaches max levels.
• Glycogen depletion mostly in fast twitch fibres’.Anaerobic energy production.
• Used mostly during the endurance and strength phases of training.
• Active recovery is used at 50-80% of work speeds.

Phase 2 – Interval training

The following graph illustrates the three day rotation that is followed during the phase 2 training stage. Notice also the higher intensity of the intervals on day three and shorter duration of the intervals.

Figure 2: Phase 2 training.

A sort of 3 day rotation is now used namely 1 day for each of the training zones. In day 2, the athlete spends the majority of the time in Zone 2. The goal is to keep the heart rate up, but not to overload the athlete. In terms of rugby this could mean that the players do rucks, line outs and scrums at a continuous pace for 30 minutes. The emphasis is on continuous work at a reasonable intensity. This is normally done in sizable smaller groups in the form of small sided games pitching groups between 6 and 11 players against each other. Players will rotate through different squares/block in which different skills are practiced example in block A lineout jump, block B lineout mauling and rucking, block C tackling with rucking and leg driving, Block D competing for the ball at the breakdown.

 

In day three the same games/skills are practiced but now at faster pace with short recovery intervals in between. Notice the 2-3 minute recovery after 3 intervals before another set of 3 intervals are done. As the season progresses the 2-3 minute break in the middle between the intervals are taken out; forcing in effect the players to keep at it for a longer overall duration.

 

The aim here is:

•  To improve endurance capacity (VO_2max)
•  To increase the ability to recover faster following high intensity exercise bout
• Predominantly central adaptations

 

Intensity is manipulated with the size of the grids and the number of players in the grid. See Table 1.

Players	Area	%HRmax
4 v 4	30m x 40m	Approx 94%
5 v 5	35m x 45m	Approx 91%
6 v 6	40m x 50m	Approx 90%
7 v 7	50m x 60m	Approx 88%
8 v 8	50m x 60m	Approx 85%
11 v 11	Full Pitch	Approx 75%

Table 1: Manipulating training intensity with numbers and grid sizes when using small sided games.

The smaller the playing area and the fewer players in the group the higher the intensity. Players need to know what the aim of the session is and they need to get constant feedback regarding their heart rates. They will wear heart rate monitors and trainers will be able to provide feedback. There is high emphasis on technique and precision of execution during these sessions.

 

Phase 3 training – Sprint training

 

This training is done during the competitive phase. The sessions are shorter but pitch at extremely fast pace/intensity namely repeated short sprints lasting 30-60 seconds each. The aim is to try and increase the overall time of the training session; spend more time training at max level. Top class athletes can keep going for 3 to 4 minutes using 30 sec exertion followed by 30 seconds recovery. 

 

Characteristics of sprint training are:

• Short duration (10-30 seconds) max speed interval runs that “prevent” or delay glycogen depletion and lactate production.
• 1:1 or 2:1 work:rest ratio @ 112%+ of V_max maintained for up to 1 hour.
• Lactate levels stay low;
• Glycogen depletion same in all muscle type fibres’;
• High fat burning
• Allows athlete to sustain VO_2max for up to 83% of total run time.

 

In team sports you will use small sides games but in small areas with only 2 to 4 players in a group. They will work extremely hard against each other for 10 to 30 seconds have a rest of the same length and then repeat the activity. At the same time there is an emphasis on skill namely hand, arm and leg positions, body height during contact, explosiveness on impact, leg drive and so forth.

 

Players will have two of these sessions in the week before the the test. It is short but intense and keeps the neuromuscular system primed and prepare the players to work with precision at high intensity.

 

My feeling is that this type of training are not done by the Springboks and this is why we run out of puff and lose our precision in the last 10 minutes of the game.

 

Our players might be strong but they lack game specific sharpness and fast pace fitness.

 

There is of course a lot more to it as I don’t have anything in at the moment on how to periodize and train during a long season or how to integrate gym work with sport specific fitness training. However my aim was not to provide a textbook description but to enhance understanding why the Springboks might be “fit” and “strong” but not game specifically fit and strong.

 

In summary

 

Peter de Villiers was quoted as follows regarding the fitness concerns: “It is true that our guys were tired towards the end of the All Black game,” he said. “But that was from them having to make a lot more tackles in a very high intensity game. Stats that we have from our GPS system show that this was our highest intensity game to date. The pace was the fastest we’ve had and the intensity of the collisions was the highest too,” he said.

 

So what am I saying? I am saying that with the new rule interpretations the game has sped-up. South Africa has always played a very structuerd game. High intensity training integrated with skills have never really been part of our training regimes.

 

If you have relatively average skills (as copmpared to the All Blacks and Wallaby’s) at the breakdowns and poor lactate buffer capacities your precision at the breakdowns and your ability to keep your focus will deteriorate to very low levels once the legs turn rubbery and the feet start flopping from the high lactate levels in your system. We need to adjust our training methods to include high intensity rugby specific training sessions.

What a great game of rugby. Credit to the players for staging such a fantastic spectacle.

 

In the end, a rather disappointing result if you are a Springbok supporter. A heart-broken loss is the word that has been thrown around in the newspapers. I’ll concur with that and with that in mind I believe it is important to dissect what went wrong as that is the only way to learn from your mistakes and to move forward. The Springbok team would undoubtedly do their own dissection but for us Springbok supporters dissection and discussion of the match helps to brings closure.

 

I believe we showed massive improvement at the breakdowns (as compared to our previous two games against the All Blacks) for 90% of the time. However, the 10% of the time that we were not up to it -at the breakdowns- actually cost us the match.

 

For me there was six reasons why we lost the match.

 

Fitness

The primary reason why we lost is fitness or more exactly a lack of fitness. Most of the other errors/reasons –for the loss- that I list below stemmed from our inability to keep up with the pace of the game. The Springboks were clearly just not fit enough to keep up; they ran out of puff and started making silly errors that essentially handed the match to New Zealand –not that the AB didn’t play well.

 

The coaches and fitness trainer should take the blame here. We were unable to control the pace of the game because we couldn’t keep possession partly due to the aggressiveness of the New Zealand defense but mostly because our team lack precision at the breakdowns at fast tempo. Why? Probably because they don’t train at a past pace and because of lack of attention on detail in training.

Unnecessary substitutions

Most of the substituting I believe was done because the players were exhausted but there were a few very dumb and unnecessary substitutions that indicate a total inability by the coaching staff to read what is happening on the field.

 

I see-in the media that John Smit blame himself –after missing the tackle on Nonu- for the loss. I think the coaching staff member(s) who called for the substitutions of Hougaard and Juan Smit should take the blame. In fact I think they should feel so guilty about these bad calls that they should hand in their resignation papers with immediate effect. Both Hougaard and Juan Smit were instrumental in our improved performances at the breakdowns and they were clearly not tired when being subded.

 

Juan Smit was for me man of the match and was the man that kept us on the front foot at the breakdowns. The moment he went off our improved performance at the breakdowns started to change for the worse.

 

Hougaard was instrumental on defense. He was the man who took Carter out of the match and destroyed all attempts by Carter and Nonu to set play up in the midfield. His speed allowed him to get to these players and because he played of the base of the scrum/rucks he came from the side and could counter the block runner scissors move that New Zealand use to make line breaks.

 

The block runner scissors move is where the ball carrier start running on a 45 degree angle just before contact –drawing the defender sideways- and then hands the ball back to a supporting player coming straight through or angling in the opposite direction. They used this quite a lot on the blindside but this is also how Carter tend to put either Smit or Nonu in space in the midfield. Hougaard was fast enough to get to the ball receiver and strong enough in the tackle to not only stop the receiver but also to slow the ball down. When Hougaard went off New Zealand started to break through our defensive line on a number of occasions with this manoeuvre.

 

PdV’s inability to see the role that Juan and Hougaard played at the breakdown and in the defensive structures is absolutely shocking. The subbing of Hougaard and Juan Smit is without a doubt the main reason why we couldn’t slow the game down and why our defensive broke down in the last 5 minutes of the match.

 

We lost crucial turnovers in the last 10 minutes

 

We lost a few crucial turnovers which allowed New Zealand to keep us under pressure -speeding the game up- and preventing us from controlling the tempo. Nonu’s break which lead to Dagg’s try came after one such a turnover. We had the ball went into contact and were literally blown of the ball by the New Zealanders. The ball went wide at speed and Nonu slipped past Smith ran an extra 10 meters or so –without Hougaard to get to him- before sending the ball to Dagg who ran through for the try.

 

HOTFOOTING IT: Ma’a Nonu, minus one boot, makes the break that led to the All Blacks’ dramatic last-gasp try in the thrilling win over South Africa.

 

Fitness is one reason why these turnovers happened but the other reason was the absence of both Hougaard and Juan Smit.

Simple concentration errors

There was quite a few but at least two were crucial in context of the outcome of the match. The one was the scrum right in front of the New Zealand goal post when we were still leading. This was an ideal drop kick position but we got penalized before we ball was actually put into the scrum.

 

New Zealand started running from that position and McCaw’s try came shortly thereafter. I am not sure who did what to give away the penalty but that was and unforgivable blunder that eventually cost us the match.

 

The second big blunder was the line kick that Steyn made against the right hand sideline. All he needed to do was to kick the ball out but he kicked the ball all the way over the dead-line and play was brought back to our 10 meter line with the possession then being handed to New Zealand. An absolute unnecessary and stupid mistake which kept us under pressure.

 

These are the type of mistakes that you just don’t make at test level.

Not using our opportunities

At the start of the second half a Carter kick was charged down and we were meters from the goal line. McCaw got his hands on the ball and slowed the ball down just long enough for the New Zealand defense to regroup. Reason why McCaw got his hands on the ball was because we were not rucking forcefully enough; just standing over the ball.

 

I’ve got a feeling McCaw came in from the side and not through the gate but would like to look at the replay again. Anyway this was a scoring opportunity that we didn’t take.

Referee blunders

There was a forward pass in the movement that lead to McCaw’s try. It boggles my mind how this could have been missed by both the linesmen and the referee.

 

Lastly I have my doubts over McCaw’s try. It was simply too close to call but that was not something the players could do anything about.

 

Fitness, inability to use and keep the ball as well as ridiculous substitutions being the main reasons why we lost.

 

The fingers has to point at the coaching staff. 

I found the following article: Rugby: Stats show refs favour All Blacks written by Peter Bills in yesterday’s New Zealand Herald.

 

Essentially the article states that official figures show the All Blacks incur 43 penalties a yellow card, more than seven times the figure of the Springboks (6 penalties per yellow card) and six times the figure of Australia (7 penalties per yellow card).

 

The article states further that this appears to reveal at best an extraordinary imbalance in the way the three countries are refereed and at worst, a complete lack of consistency by match officials in their dealings with each Southern Hemisphere nation. It also seems to bear out the view of certain Springbok officials that there is one law for the All Blacks and another for their rivals.

Now this is a topic that has received lots of attention lately and I don’t want to keep hammering on the same nail but I found this article interesting for a number of reasons.

  

It is an interesting article firstly because it has been published by a New Zealand newspaper and a New Zealand journalist (although originally from the UK). It is also the first time somebody actually report the number of penalties per yellow card. Now no matter how you look at this –even arguing that we deserved the yellow cards- fact is Richie McCaw got away with murder –being warned three times without receiving a card- in the last test against the Springboks.

 

In today’s newspapers feature an article entitled; All Blacks captain rejects breakdown criticisms.

 

In this article McCaw makes a number of statements, including: that he believes his side adjusts well to refereeing interpretations. This is what he said in this regard:

 

“My point of view is that there has been no disparity in the refereeing. People put stats out and then come to a conclusion, but the statistics don’t give the full picture.”

 

“If we feel we are close to a yellow card, then we back off and we don’t give away a penalty in that facet again. If you’re on the borderline, then you back off, if you’re warned about something then you adapt. That’s what I make sure I do personally and the team does too.”

 

“I would be very frustrated if we did not learn from how the referee is blowing, you’d be an idiot not to change if you’ve been warned,” McCaw said.

 

Yeah right! You could have fooled me, Mr McCaw.

 

However the most significant info in both these articles, for me, relates to what is revealed about the breakdowns.

 

In the first article Bob Dwyer says the following regarding the breakdowns:

 

“Just as the All Blacks value the necessity of quick ball for their own attack, they clearly recognise the threat that opposition quick ball poses to their defence.”

 

“In fact, I thought the All Black defence was unusually vulnerable to attack from quick ball, as evidenced by two quite simple Springbok tries in their second test in Wellington and a few similar efforts by the Wallabies. They strive, therefore, to limit such recycles from their opponents.”

 

“There is nothing wrong with that so long as they do so within the laws of the game. It is here that I, and many others, question their tactics. Black- jerseyed tacklers finish on the ground, on the wrong side of the ball, so often, that I can’t believe that it’s by accident.”

 

“This prevents their opponents from arriving quickly to support their teammate and allowing other All Black support players to attack opposition ball on the ground. Further, opposition scrum-halves are having difficulty getting in close to clear the ball and are forced to ‘lift’ the ball for their pass to clear All Black bodies.”

 

“This slows down the clearing pass and gives valuable time to the defence. And it’s illegal.”

 

The Australian also highlighted what he called New Zealand’s “outrageously offside” positions when they enter the breakdown on their own ball.

 

“All players play their part, and while McCaw, Franks and Smith have been serial offenders, Kieran Read has recently perfected his technique also. It is dramatically effective and frequently brings tries – and it’s illegal.”

 

Read more of Bob Dwyer’s views at: www.bobdwyerrugby.com

 

McCaw said the following about the breakdowns:

 

“I think since the start of the Super 14 we have gone back to having a good contest at the breakdown. The change of habit, getting the tackler out of the way, has been a good thing. But if the ball-carrier is isolated and I arrive on my feet then I should get the benefit. The same applies for the team with ball in hand if their support does arrive.”

 

“If players do the right thing at the breakdowns then teams can play. The big thing is to adapt to what is being blown because no referee is identical.” 

 

What McCaw is saying is that the All Blacks as a team went back to the breakdowns and made sure that they compete better at the breakdowns.

 

He went on and said:

 

“The physical battle is crucial. The team that is up for it, that wins that battle, will go a long way to imposing their game on the opposition.”

 

“For us loose forwards, a lot depends on how our team-mates up front have done. Obviously they’ve been good so far,”

 

McCaw and Dwyer is saying that it is not up to one or two individuals to make it work at the breakdowns; it is a team approach and that the fetcher flanker is as good as the tight forwards are at the breakdowns. You look at the video that has been going around and it is clear that everyone in the current AB contribute with explosiveness and commitment at the breakdowns in anyway they can. They were so committed against SA that they almost appeared frantic at times; Conrad Smit took two players out when Nonu scored his try; Owen Franks were hazzling everyone he could behind the advantage line.

 

I want to stress the commitment the AB’s showed at the breakdowns (let forget for a moment that we feel it was illegal). They won these tests because they put absolutely everything into the breakdowns. The attitute was if we win the breakdowns we will win this test and if we want to win the breakdowns we need to be explosive and quick at the collisions and work as a team. 

 

A few years back I listened to an interview with Steve Hansen.

 

He was asked if you could single out one thing that is key to the success of the All Blacks what would it be. His answer: “Our ability to dominate the breakdowns”.

 

If you compare this year’s AB’s with this year’s NZ s14 teams then you’ll see that speed, power, explosiveness and team work at the breakdowns is the primary difference. Compare this year AB’s with last year’s AB and again that is the primary difference. Everything else (whether they cheat or not, it doesn’t matter) flow from the dominance and structure at the breakdowns.

 

Go and look at the Bulls and Stormers this year and you’ll notice that the matches both these teams lost was when they didn’t dominate at the breakdowns and the opposite also applies.

 

The Springboks so far have not shown the same amount of structure, teamwork, organisation and most importantly explosiveness at the breakdown than either the Stormers or the bulls. Team selections –especially the loose trio combo’s- have been part of the problem but essentially New Zealand has stepped up in that department and we did not.

 

I believe everything will fall in place if we dominate at the breakdowns. As long as we get forced back at the collisions and get tackled behind the advantage line we will lose and none of the players will be able to step up. What is required is more physical presence; explosiveness and most importantly better team work at the breakdowns.

 

I am concerned about our loose trio. Brussouw, Bismarck and Beast was instrumental at the breakdowns in 2009 and all three are not playing this year. Spies seems to dissapear in the hard matches and Schalk is at best an average “fetcher”. Louw on the bench is also not a specialized fetcher in the mold of Brussouw or Stegman. It is not only our ability to steal ball that is important but also -probably more importantly- our abillity to force the opponents back at the breakdowns and to not loose our ball when we go into contact. I am keen to see how the Boks are going to approach the New Zealand intensity and commitment at the breakdowns. This is for me what this test is all about. Can we man up at the breakdowns?

All Blacks coach Graham Henry has praised the selections of his opposite Peter de Villiers in a Springboks team that has eight changes to their starting lineup.

 

Gio Aplon, JP Pietersen, Juan de Jongh, Jean de Villiers, Francois Hougaard, Juan Smith, Jannie du Plessis and Flip van der Merwe have all come into the Springbok team for the Soweto game.

 

“Peter de Villiers has done a great job selecting his team. It’s a very strong side and they’ll be very motivated playing in Soweto for the first time,” Henry said.

 

“It could possibly signal a change in plan by them, I think they will use the ball. There’s not going to be any rain, so it will be great conditions to use the ball.”

 

Henry added the All Blacks were under no illusions as to the size of the challenge awaiting them.

 

“We’re not getting ahead of ourselves, we know the challenge in front of us. The last time we were here in Johannesburg, was at Ellis Park in 2004 and we were cleaned up well (40-26) that day by the Springboks.”

 

“It is a harder challenge playing them here on the highveld than it is in Cape Town or Durban. Our guys only play at altitude once or twice a year, so they don’t have that experience of knowing what’s required, getting into the right rhythm.”

 

“Obviously, it is a motivating factor for us to reverse the clean sweep of last year, but it’s more about our preparation this week and trying to get ourselves right for a very tough challenge,” Henry said.

 

I am not sure if Henry is really honest or just dubbing some honey.

 

Richie McCaw said something slightly different which leave the impression that they are not really sure what to expect. He predicts an under-siege South Africa will revert to what they do best – kick and try to smash the All Blacks at set piece time. Sort of what Heynecke Meyer advised as I showed in my previous post.

McCaw said South Africa were caught somewhere between embracing the new law interpretations -which encourage running rugby- and their traditional kicking method of play.

McCaw’s further indicated that the real South Africa was yet to stand up this year.

When they does, he said: “We have to be prepared for anything, but what’s worked for them traditionally, I’m sure there will be an element of that. On the high veldt they love to kick. It is pretty effective because you get field position. But I think they will look at the way Super 14 went and start adding those things in.”

 

“So, it’ll be bombs away in Soweto, the match venue, and don’t forget the rolling maul.”

 

Kiwi journalist have also aired the opinion that South Africa have attempted to load their deck as much in their favour as possible by staging the test on the Highveld and in what will be an incredibly hostile environment.

 

This is for me an interesting statement. It is sort of complaining without really doing it.

 

In the kiwi news also the fact that Victor Matfield has accused the All Blacks of dodgy tactics in the lineouts.

 

Matfield accused the All Blacks of jumping the gun at lineouts, stating that in the two tests against the All Blacks this year, the ball was thrown into the lineout too soon. Matfield has put the onus on Welsh referee Nigel Owens to stamp out this practice.

 

Another Northern hemisphere ref. Goodness gracious me. Expect another yellow card within 10 minutes. Expect a mess at the breakdowns. Sorry but I’ve lost all confidence in NH refs.

 

However, I like this approach by Matfield. He is just making them (NZ and the ref) aware that he has picked-up on what NZ are doing in the lineouts. Putting the pressure on the ref and the AB’s in the process.

 

So what can we expect from the Kiwi’s?

 

They are certainly there to win and they are preparing for high kicks and a set piece battle.

 

Their approach/game plan won’t change, I think. They will try and disrupt at the set piece (scrums and lineouts), counter attack from the high kicks and run the boks off their feet and try and win the battle at the breakdons. To counter the high altitude they will probably target certain periods of the match and lift the tempo namely just before and after half time as well as in the last 15 minutes.

 

These would be the times when the boks will need to step-up and make sure they control the ball and speed of the game.

 

I also think they are going to target Hougaard as they would expect him to be in the team to create something special. I for one are unsure about Hougaard. He is a good player but I haven’t seen enough of him on No9 to feel comfortable with him there.

 

My concern is that he haven’t really played on No9 this year. When he came on against Australia he tried to break way to often –about every second ball- and the All Blacks will be prepared for just that.

 

SOUTH AFRICA: 15 Gio Aplon, 14 JP Pietersen, 13, Juan de Jongh, 12 Jean de Villiers, 11 Bryan Habana, 10 Morne Steyn, 9 Francois Hougaard, 8 Pierre Spies, 7 Juan Smith, 6 Schalk Burger, 5 Victor Matfield, 4 Flip van der Merwe, 3 Jannie du Plessis, 2 John Smit (capt), 1 Gurthro Steenkamp. Reserves: Chiliboy Ralepelle, CJ van der Linde, Danie Rossouw , Francois Louw, Ricky Januarie, Butch James, Wynard Olivier.  

One of the things that are starting to infuriate the absolute hell out of me it this attitude the kiwi’s have that they have developed a “new style” of playing and that South Africa are playing an outdated style.

Funny that this didn’t come-up during the S14. Instead, Graeme Henry was referring to the bulls as the most innovative rugby team on the planet and the team that is most actively evolving the game. He also referred to the Stormers as playing the “best” rugby in the S14. Now am I missing something here? Words like “best” and “evolving the game” as well as “innovative” does not sound like out of date or old style to me.

In the mean time nothing is mentioned in the kiwi media about the obvious cheating that has been going on at the break down. My feeling is that this is where South Africa’s greatest challenge lies for the upcoming test, namely how to counter the Kiwi’s pattern and ‘illegal tactics” at the breakdown.

I am quite keen to see how the Springbok team are going to approach this match and especially the breakdown. Heynecke Meyer has recently made the following suggestions on how the boks should approach the match.

Meyer said the most important thing was to accept that “you can never beat them at their own game”.

  

“You need to break their rhythm, play a stop-start game and force the set-pieces because the only place you can attack them is the set-pieces,” he said.

 

“If you kick out you need to sacrifice distance to make sure that you kick into the stands to stop their quick lineouts. “They can definitely be taken at the lineouts and we’re good enough to do that.”

 

Meyer said it was more difficult to put pressure on their scrum, because it is good, but “at least your defence is set”.

 

Having already mentioned line kicking, he said a huge part of the answer lay in kicking.

 

“When you kick off, you have to mix things up by kicking short and down the middle so that guys like Victor (Matfield) can contest the ball,” he explained.

  

“If you kick long, they keep it and are good enough to do that for 15 phases, and suddenly you’re under pressure on your own 22.”

 

Meyer cautioned that the kicking would have to be judicious:

 

“People think it’s easy to have a good kicking game – Fourie du Preez has worked for eight or nine years to have a kicking game like that. The All Blacks have also worked hard on their back-three’s reception of the high ball and they’re basically picking fullbacks there at the moment.”

 

Meyer said kicking along the ground could also be useful. “You need to turn them by kicking long grubbers to the corners because they can’t counter-attack from that. Also, if you kick behind them they can run out of steam because they won’t change the way they play.”

 

He said altitude could also play its part. “What you want is for them not to get early points so you don’t have to play catch up,” he said. “If you kick correctly, altitude can catch them out in the last 20 minutes.”

 

At the breakdown, Meyer said the Boks couldn’t afford to give them quick ball, so they would have to appoint an openside flanker to disrupt them.

 

Asked how the All Blacks’ new high tempo could be countered he said the easiest way was to have the ball: “We never had the ball in the first two Tests and under the new laws the team that has the ball is the team that controls the game. But in the last 20 minutes we must force the pace because they will tire at altitude.”

 

He made a few very valid points, I think.

 

Firstly, his point about breaking their rhythm is key. Once they start rolling and string phase after phase they are almost unstoppable. To break their rhythm we need to do four things:

1. Make first time tackles and
2. Make sure we force the attacker backwards in the tackle situation
3. Tackle in on the ball and try to dislodge the ball.
4. Each and every Springbok should be a fetcher namely have only one thing on his mind to disrupt their pattern or to take the ball away.

 

Secondly, his point that we can’t win them with their own game forms part of breaking the rhythm. They have prepared themselves for the box kick so the rolling kicks could be, as Meyer said, be very useful to keep them turning around and force them to take the ball over the sideline, providing us with lineout ball. Frans Steyn could have been very useful with this sort of tactic. We need to play our own game namely play to our strenghts. Slow the game down and control the ball in a way that won’t allow them to counter attack.

 

Lastly, his point about keeping the ball is valid especially towards the end of the first half, the first 10 minutes of the second half and the last 10 to 15 minutes of the game. Stegman played, I believe a very vital role at the bulls, in this regard. Getting his hands on the ball when the pods goes into contact to prevent the bulls from losing the ball. I don’t know who is going to fullfil that role with the boks but that is something that needs to be worked on.

 

Owen Franks and McCaw’s tactic of stealing the extra meter by storming past the point of contact and then standing in the way of the opposition is also something that needs to be dealt with. They need to be cleared out in no uncertain way and John Smit will have to show his assertiveness and “highly acclaimed” captaincy skills by making sure the referee take action.

Run up to the test

 

A interesting relationship developed between Danie Craven, the media and the New Zealand public during the 1956 tour –when Craven was coaching the side. Adoration and apprehension probably the best way to desbribe the curious fascination they had with the man. They adored him for his dedication, his competiveness and the excitement he brought, by posing a real challence but they were apprehensive because of the uncertainty within that very challenge; the fear of not being able to overcome the challence or that their beloved All Blacks might lose. Craven was literally front page news -on a daily basis- in 1956. A man they loved to hate and in 1965 he was treated like royalty on arrival in New Zealand.

 

Terry McLean and Craven had a bit of a history; an intense relationship based on respect but also with a bit of needle and competitiveness –trying to outsmart each other. Craven tried to use the media to his advantage in 1956 but McLean had a way of using Craven’s words to produce the exact opposite result; so the rivalry extended to a battle of words in the newspapers.

 

McLean’s observations and thoughts about Craven is therefore interesting. Here is what he has in his book about Craven’s arrival:

 

He came down from the airplane through the door of the first-class compartment -Good. The New Zealand rugby union was treating him as befitted his rank and station. There were many other passengers in the aircraft and whether they rode first or economy class each was of importance to his family, his business, his friends. But none was so important as this man – for this was Dr. Danie Craven, president of South African Rugby Board, a member of the International Rugby Board, a man of such prodigious influence in Rugby throughout the world that in east and west and north and south he was called, in the highest compliment, “Mr. Rugby”.

 

Mclean goes on to describe how Craven was swooped away by television and high officials; being made unattainable to the general newspaper reporter. He then describes how he essentially ignored all restrictions and forced his way into the room to have his moment with Craven.

 

I burst into the television room, prepared to plunge a cathode tube deep into the heart of anyone who attempts to bar the way. Instead, Danie comes, like a lamb. “I have only two things to say at the moment, “says he. “I refuse to believe that these Springboks are not dedicated and-.” “Ah, but it’s true,” says AC Parker, firmly. “You shake me, but I can’t argue with you,” says Danie. “The second thing is that people of New Zealand feel sympathy for this team. This, I cannot accept. They must tremble at the very name, “Springboks’. ”He throws back his head, his eyes dilate, as he speaks the word. In his utterance, there is the defiance of a battle-cry. This is the real Danie – the man who has given his life to South African Rugby, to whom Rugby is the beginning and the end. It is impossible to withhold respect.

 

A delighted Danie Craven after the victory in the third test. Look at the intensity of emotion in his eyes. Notice also the body language of the players. 

 

The Springbok team was announced and 5 changes were made to the team that played in the 2^nd test; De Villiers in for Smith; Barnard for Oxlee; Hopwood for Schoeman; Naude for Goosen; Walton for Malan. Naude in all probability for his place kicking with Oxlee and Mans –the only two reliable place kickers- not playing.

 

The team was: Wilson; Brynard; Roux; Gainsford; Engelbrecht; Barnard; de Villiers (Capt); Hopwood; Ellis; Du Preez; Naude; Nel; Macdonald; Walton; van Zyl.

 

Only one change was made to the New Zealand side with Malcolm Dick –hitherto on the injured list- brought in for Smith on the wing. The New Zealand side can be seen here.

 

The day after the announcement of the team Naude, du Preez and Ellis were put to work as goalkickers. Naude was goodish, du Preez was a little beter and Ellis was hopeless. Danie Craven ran the team practice but the session did not impress McLean at all.

 

On the day before the test McLean wrote:

 

Mind you, the atmosphere generated by the Springboks and the newspapers has shaken Danie Craven as never before. He told Michael Robson during the afternoon that he had never known such pessimism around a Springbok team before a test match ever.

 

The ground was wet and greasy but bright sunshine prevailed throughout the game.

 

South Africa 19; New Zealand 16

 

This test was described afterwards as the most dramatic comeback in the history of world rugby. After New Zealand took a commanding –even regarded as an unassailable- half time lead of 11 point (16-5) South Africa came back to score 14 points in the second half. The match had drama and suspense.

 

Drama: South Africa’s first try in the series in response to a try by NZ in the first 5 minutes to take an early lead; NZ running away with the score board thereafter -in the first half- with a opportunistic try and some good place kicking; South Africa scoring 3 spectacular tries from set play in the second half; good defense preventing some incredible backline created scoring opportunities.

 

Suspense: An out of this world, almost impossible, penalty kick by Tiny Naude in the last 3 minutes, with a wet ball out of a muddy patch, to edge ahead on the scoreboard; desperate attacking by New Zealand in the last 2 minutes and a impossible and agonizingly slow, time wasting, place kick by Naude, from the half line, in the dying minutes just to miss and see New Zealand starting to run from their own goal line, breaking through several tackles, before the ball spilled loose, allowing Roux to hoof it over the side line.

 

To use Terry McLean’s words: It was a prince of a game. One of the greatest.

 

The drama started in the first minute when Roux charging out of line to take a flykick at a ball thrown over the lineout; missing it completely; leaving a gap in the defensive line wide enough to turn an ox wagon. Colin Meads ran into the bouncing ball at speed and went straight for the gap left by Roux. This forced Gainsford to come in and defend in Roux’s channel allowing Meads to send Tremain through Gainsford’s channel to score his third try –one in each test- of the series. Why Roux didn’t just grabbed or fell on the ball only he will know? Williment missed with the conversion for NZ to lead 3-0.

 

Minutes later de Villiers hoist a clever box kick on the blindside. Engelbrecht chased and hassled, big Sakkie van Zyl was at hand to foot charge the ball towards the goal line.

 

A definite try scoring opportunity, prevented only because one of the All Blacks was at hand to force the ball dead.

 

 

A box kick by de Villiers on the blindside started South Africa’s first try in this test and the series. Here is Dawie de Villiers in the third test with Hopwood behind him.

 

Gainsford’s first try came from the ensuing scrum and was actually the result of a bit of a mix-up, in the Springbok backline.

 

The Springboks forwards were going for a push-over scrum. When their forward momentum got checked the ball went in a flash from de Villiers to Barnard.

 

Barnard drifting sideways, with the incoming ball, almost ran into Roux, who in an attempt to avoid a collision started to hang back and cross behind Gainsford; standing outside him but very close. This pulled the All Black defenders on 10 and 11 (the inside centre then) together and had them drifting sideways towards Gainsford. Barnard realizing he is going to collide with Roux popped the ball past Roux to Gainsford who instinctively stepped off his left foot passing in the process on the inside of the All Black numbers 10 and 11, bunched together, and charging at him. This placed the AB numbers 10 and 11 between Gainsford and his immediate opponent. Gainsford straightened in  two or three strides, then chopped left a second time -inside the incoming cover defense- and in a few swift strides went over for a classic try.

 

A significant try.

 

The first try for the Springboks in the 1965 series; after the conversion also the first time the Boks took the lead in the series. But more importantly a try that gave South Africa the self-belief that they could break through the intimidating defensive structures of the black team and score tries.

 

 

John Gainsford scoring his first of two tries in this test match.

 

The lead and timid spark of self-belief didn’t last long, though, for the All Blacks scored a long range opportunistic try after yet another Springbok mistake. Pat Murphy -the man on whistle duty in all three tests, so far, in this series- instrumental. Murphy who pulled a hamstring in the second test -although able to hobble his way through that test- strained his hamstring, again, in an attempt to stay with the flying Rangi. It hindered him as he raced after the chasing All Blacks; unable to keep up he awarded yet another very dubious and controversial try against the South Africans.

 

This is how Terry McLean describes this particular try and both the referee and Lionel Wilson’s contributions to this underserved soft try:

 

From his own 25 yards area Moreton (No11) let fly with a high kick into the South African 25 yard area, so well placed that Wilson had to wait for it to bounce. As it bounced it bounced into the dreadful muck left by the spectators in the in-goal area, he slipped and twisted. Nevertheless, he appeared fairly to force the ball a moment before Rangi travelling at speed, dived it to score a disputable try which Williment converted. This was a serious misfortune for the Springboks and may well have been attributable to a recurrence in Mr. Murphy, the referee, of the hamstring injury which affected him in the second test. Once Williment had placed the goal, Mr. Murphy whistled for himself to be replaced, a very sad experience for a referee making his seventh appearance in a test match –a New Zealand record.

 

 

Referee Pat Murphy leaving the field.

 

New Zealand went on attack and stringed a barrage of vigorous charges while camping in South Africa’s 25; swinging the ball first to the right, then to the left and when the ball carrier got checked -close to the goal line- they set it up, recycled quickly and attacked the narrow side at speed. The ball went from Laidlaw to Murdock (No10) who ran straight and hard before sending it to Moreton (No11) who with Birtwistle on his outside skidded in for a try near the corner.

 

The teams went into the half time break with New Zealand leading 16-5.

 

Dawie de Villiers sensed a relaxation, on defense, by the New Zealanders after Brynard first try, early in the second half, and urged the forwards for more ball. The result was that the 11 point deficit was reduced to a zero point lead within 20 minutes of play in the second half. Barnard, Gainsford, Roux and Brynard were elusive and full of enterprise on attack and apart from Brynard scoring two tries and Gainsford scoring a second try there were at least two other close calls when Engelbrecht first and then Naude were stopped just short of the line after inventive play in the backline.

 

 

Barnard in process of executing a clever stab-through-grubber, in a gap between the two New Zealand centres, with Mannetjies Roux next to him. Like a falcon, swooping down on his prey, Roux accelerated onto the rolling ball. He scooped it off the ground in a flash, then blitz past two defenders with a 20 meter rocket like take-off, as he came out of the scoop-up like a sprinter out of his starting blocks, before sending Engelbrecht –ball tucked under his right arm-, gliding like a Greyhound, towards the corner flag. Engelbrecht was eventually forced over the touch line, just short of the corner flag. This move started in the Springboks 25 yard area and happened in between the two Brynard tries with South Africa trailing by 6 points. The Springboks sensed they had the upper hand in the backline and were running from every possible position trying every trick in the book.

 

Brynard first try, in the left hand corner, came after 5 minutes in the second half with Barnard, Gainsford and Roux combining in sterling fashion to put a flying Brynard in space. This is how Terry McLean describes Brynard first try:

 

At a scrum to the Springboks right near the New Zealand 25, Hopwood picked up the heel and made to the right, towards touch. Then he checked and chucked the ball left to de Villiers, to Barnard, to Gainsford, who trust through the opening, to Roux. Roux gave to Brynard and the latter skedaddled in at the corner. Two tries from set-piece plays? In a test match? Wow!

 

Play went on and there was a drop kick attempt by New Zealand before Engelbrecht was first flung out the corner after a long run, set up by Barnard and Roux. Then from the lineout South Africa mauled and the whole pack drove towards the goal line with Naude eventually taking a plunge at the line through a wall of humanity. Hopwood was sure it was a try. It was no try. Recompense was soon offered, though, in the form of Brynard’s second try which resulted from the scrum following the Naude plunge. 

 

De Villiers, Barnard and Roux were the architect’s. De Villiers ran on the blind then switched play to the open side. Barnard ran across the field through a gap, after receiving from de Villiers, and then send a high overhand pass – over Roux’s head who was boxed in- to Brynard on the wing. Intuitively and cleverly, Brynard changed his line of running -on receiving the overhand pass- to cross behind Roux, and wrong footing the cover defenders, before diving over three defenders for a spectacular finish.

 

This is how McLean narrates the second Brynard try.

 

Ellis was the originator. His assistants were de Villiers, Barnard and Roux, all running fast and trickily. Brynard, with a stroke of genius, crossed Roux to take the pass and as he reached towards the goal-line, he flung himself right in the air. Momentarily, it seemed as if Williment and Laidlaw between them would hold him, in mid-flight. Vain hope. Brynard was down, it was a try, it was a goal for Naude and the Springboks with 26 minutes left, were 13-16. Wow!

 

Brynard scoring his second try by diving over two defenders.

 

Gert Brynard
Gertjie Brynard in full flight.	1965 to 1968.   7 tests.   2 tries.
Here is how Terry McLean profiled Gert Brynard in his book “the bok busters”:   Gert Steenkamp Brynard was always known to his team-mate as, phonetically, “Kairkee” (Gertjie in Afrikaans), and this was measure of the special regard they had for him. He deserved it, too. Having been a graduate, in 1964, of the medical school at Stellenbosch, he doctored their ills, advised upon their complaints and, if they were foolish enough to play poker against him, took their money.   As a wing, a centre and a scrumhalf in various stages of his career, he took on all three positions during the tour. He disqualified himself as a centre because he had an obsessive desire to play the game according to his own rules, played two blinders at scrumhalf when de Villiers was injured during the matches with New South Wales and Auckland, and was put, rather tentatively, at wing, the theory being that if he couldn’t be a Springbok at centre, he might show some faint traces of skill when removed as far as possible from the main area of conflict.   All of a sudden, the player who had looked lucky to be on the tour began to make the fullest use of his natural talents. These attributes were, not necessarily in order of importance, a sharp brain, a heart the size of a pumpkin, the feet of a feather-weight boxer, and the speed of a springbok –four legged, not two. Match by match “Kairkee” kept improving. By two thirds of the tour he was easily the most improved back of the team.   In many ways, thanks to that oversized heart, he was also the best back. He scored many tries and, being on the left wing, which is the right wing for scoring tries, he would have scored many more if his centres had appreciated how gifted he was.   If he had a weakness, it was his obsessive belief that three cards could beat a straight flush. But that was the wonderful, lovable thing about “Kairkee”. He took on life as if he was always playing at centre.

 

In the 23^rd minute of the second half Roux made a half break from a scrum in the home teams 25 before flipping the ball to Gainsford who hand-off one defender and then went round Williment to score in the corner. Here is McLean version of this try:

 

The original fault was Williment’s, for placing a dropout from the 25 directly into touch. At the scrummage on the 25, South Africa heeled. They ran to the right and Roux made a break. Gainsford, 20 yards out, put his ears back and ran and when Williment came at him from his left he simply sidestepped to the right, out of arms’ reach, and dived in at the corner for a masterful try. Another try from a set-piece. Wow!

 

Gainsford on his way to his second try in the third test.

 

The scores were even now and Hopwood was screaming at the forwards, smashing a clenched fist into an open palm. Ellis made a long kick down the field. The Springbok backs charged after the ball and Barnard hacked it ahead. Laidlaw on cover was rushed into a hasty clearance kick, which was short, and caught by Wilson. Colin Meads in a desperate attempt to stop Wilson, in the clear, tackled him from an offside position. The penalty was called and the Springboks decided upon the penalty kick where Wilson caught the ball -5 yards from the sideline and about 3 to 5 yards outside the home team’s 25- instead of a scrum at the place where Laidlaw kicked it. What followed was one of the most dramatic events in Springbok rugby history. A moment which, above everything else, defined Tiny Naude for the rest of his life. This is how Terry McLean describes the unfolding of this incredible moment:

 

No one except the two concerned knew the comedy which went on while Naude came up to take the kick. Brynard, slippery, quicksilvery Brynard, urged Naude to take a tap-kick instead of a shot at goal –he and Naude could run the ball to the goal-line and score.

 

Brynard trying to convince Naude to tap-kick and run.

 

Naude’s heavy bass responded that against the All Blacks’ poised defence, the possibilities were small. Brynard whispered some more. Naude answered, doubtingly. All the time, Naude was using Brynard’s jersey to wipe down the ball.

 

By now, the touch-judges were at the goalposts. Naude shrugged way the last despairing whisper. With Detailed, almost maddening care, he teed the ball up.

 

 

Naude setting up the ball for his place kick; taking meticulous care.

 

After he had stepped back his run, he stood upright, his head sunk on his chest, and for long seconds meditated himself into the right frame of mind for his kick. Then he ran forward, struck at the ball and waited. Waited while in its low flight the ball ducked a little, slithered through the air and carried the bar.

 

Naude kicking his famous kick. Second photo Nel embraces Naude after the kick.

 

Waited while Nel rushed at him to embrace him, while other Springboks stood on tiptoe, their arms high above their heads, yelling in intoxicated delight.

 

Never again in his lifetime will Naude know such a moment as this -the triumph, the pleasure, the overwhelming sense of happiness.

 

Tiny Naude
Tiny with Frik du Preez later in his life.	1963 to 1968.   14 tests.   2 tries.   4 conversions.   11 penalties.
Terry Mclean profiling Tiny Naude:   Jacobus Naude acquired a certain dubious fame among the Springboks after a passage with a leading member of the Tour Committee (no doubt Abe Malan although not stated by McLean) following the victory of the All Blacks in the first test. “You were checked by Whineray at No. 4?” the committee-man asked. Naude nodded. “Whineray was putting you of your gait, you couldn’t jump properly, right?” said the committee-man again. “And the referee wasn’t stopping this?” Naude nodded. “Then why on earth didn’t you kick him?” A heavy frown gathered on “Tiny’s” great long face. “But I couldn’t,” he said. “I like the man.”   The tour committee dumped Naude from the next team. When he was reinstated for the third test, he won eternal fame and immortality by placing the goal which won the match and nothing else about his play that day is ever likely to be remembered.   Fact is his greatest contribution had been made long before the opportunity of the kick. Whineray, Gray and Colin Meads had jostled him out of effectiveness in the first test; in the third test, it was Naude who jostled Gray and even Colin Meads out of effectiveness. Whatever they did he did beter.   From here to the end of the tour, his improvement was startling. He became an automatic choice for the first team. He demonstrated that he was the most improved forward in the side.   Don Clarke said of Naude at an early stage: “He kicks like a girl.” He always did kick like a girl at the short ones, many of which he missed. But he got the kick that really mattered –really mattered a great deal more than any kick he might have aimed at Whineray.

 

Interview with Colin Meads

 

In a recent interview on the rugby channel -about this series and the third test in particular- the question was posed to Collin Meads: “What happened in that third test -how did you end up losing with a half time lead of 11 points?”. The great Pinetree’s response was something along the lines of: “I don’t really know, maybe we relaxed a little. We might have been a little too confident which affected our focus resulting in less concentration in defense”.

 

Fact of the matter is that South Africa played with a lot more urgency and presence at the breakdowns and there was also more driving, structure and forward momentum in the lineouts, as compared to the previous two tests. The 11 point lead was misleading because it resulted from three soft tries. New Zealand was not really dominating procedures to the extent that they thought they were but that perception -the All Blacks had at half time- of being totally on top, in all probability, created the psychological framework for this fantastic comeback.

 

Meads also remarked that they made sure not to make the same mistake in the fourth test which culminated in an easy win for NZ. That also is a bit of a wrong impression as South Africa did all the play in that fourth test running from impossible positions with NZ just feeding of the Springbok mistakes. The difference between the two teams as the 1970 series 5 years later would show was not that big at all. Political issues –about which I’ll write later more- as well as lack of leadership and confidence -the result of selecting a young team and captain, the wrong manager, an introvert for a coach, and no leader for the forwards, as well as having a tour committee being run by a previous captain -not good enough the make the test side- all contributed to indecisiveness, lack of cohesiveness and commitment in the team and played a bigger part in the outcome of this series as what the New Zealanders wanted to admit.

 

Run of the game

 

5th minute	Tremain scored New Zealand’s first try after of over throw in the lineout and a flykick attempt –coming out of the defensive line- by Mannetjies Roux. Williment missed the conversion.
7th minute	Gainsford scored after a 5 meter scrum; stepping of his left foot twice. Naude converted.
10th minute	Barnard missed with a dropkick.
20th minute	Rangi scored a long range try after Moreton kicked the ball into the Springboks in goal area and Wilson got beaten by the bounce. Williment converted.
22nd minute	Referee left the field with a hamstring injury to be replaced by the touch judge Mr. Alan Taylor.
26th minute	Van Zyl was ruled offside and Williment placed the goal from 45 yards out.
34th minute	Moreton scored on the blind side after continuous attack by the All Blacks. Williment missed with the conversion.
41st minute	Naude missed with a 40-yard penalty.
45th minute	Brynard scored his first try after a line break by Gainsford. Naude missed with the conversion.
50th minute	Engelbrecht bundled into touch at the corner flag after innovative play by Barnard and Roux.
54th minute	Brynard scored his second try just left of the upright by diving over three defenders. Naude unsuccessful with an easy conversion.
60th minute	Naude hit the upright with a penalty from 35 yards out.
61st minute	Drop kick by Barnard floated under the cross bar.
63rd minute	Gainsford scored his second try in the right hand corner after a break by Roux. Scores are even now on 16 all. Naude missed with the conversion.
70th minute	Williment unsuccessful with penalty attempt from 40 yards.
77th minute	Naude kicked the match winning penalty from about 26 yards out of a muddy patch against the touch line.
79th minute	Naude misses with a longe range penalty from the half line.

 

 

Doug Hopwood after the third test.

 

Terry McLean finishes his section on this match as follows:

 

Heroes? Hopwood. Naude. Du Preez. Macdonald. van Zyl. De Villiers. The backline. The entire backline. Roux –wonderful hands. Gainsford –magnificent sidestep. Brynard –electrifying alive. Barnard –an admirable servant. Al heroes, all the Springboks. For they did what sportsmen aren’t suppose to be able to do –they came back.