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it this attitude the kiwi’s have that they have developed a “new style” of playing and that South Africa are playing an outdated style.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 Words like “best” and “evolving the game” as well as “innovative” does not sound like out of date or old style to me.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:
-
Make first time tackles and
-
Make sure we force the attacker backwards in the tackle situation
-
Tackle in on the ball and try to dislodge the ball.
-
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.
I do hope that the Boks listen (or read) what Heynecke said. He should have been the coach. I like that he said we need a flank whose job it is to “Disrupt” them. In other words we have to play an out-and-out fetcher to steal and slow NZ ball. Don’t actually think we have a player like that in the squad.
Yes that remark was interesting to me too.
Louw is probably the closest thing we have to a fecther and it looks like he is going to be on the bench.
Brussouw and Stegman (maybe Botes) are the players we need to do the type of job he is talking about.
We need to formulate a game plan as suggested but we have to have a plan B too. The old game plans were built around Fourie du Preez and do not work with other 9s because they have a different kicking style and don’t read the field as quickly or as cleverly. New game plan built around a new scrumhalf with M Steyn in a support kicking role with a plan B will win us the game.
What about more stormers in the team and play the stormers game plan.
The Bulls won the S14 on the basis of their kick and chase game, against mediocre counter attackers. This then transferred to the unimaginative Div and Ass Coaches who were too lazy to see that NZ and Aus have brilliant counter attackers in Muliena(sp?), Jane, Rocokoko and Ash-Cooper, oConner and Mitchell.
If we kick unimaginatively on Saturday, we are screwed. Keep the ball in hand and away from the point of contact, and altitude will do the rest in the last quarter
That could work too. Just so long as our scouts are there to buy the best players. Maybe we can buy Hougaardt and let Cocky go to the Bulls.
we can, but will they?
I think the crux of what Heyneke is saying is what all of us have been saying all along. Perhaps the team knows it, but cannot execute it. Or else they are just totally hot headed and keep to kicking stupidly.
Morning McLook. Good advice here. I think the first 20 minutes is key. We should have 2 or 3 tacklers on the ball even if it opens up spaces in defence. It’s a risk worth taking. If they are tackled out of their wits in the first quarter they may just be a bit rattled.
I’m not a fan of slowing the ball down, I see it as negative tactic and it’s a punishable act which may just lead to us giving away penalties.if the new interpretations actually encourages cheating, then there is obviously a big problem with what the IRB wants at the breakdowns, if they want killing the ball or slowing it down, to take place, we are encouraging players to breach the laws.
what we have to do, is stop kicking, unless their back three are out of place , then, we can kick for the corners, but if you have the ball, rather get forwards who can get to the breakdowns quick, to secure ball possession, we need to hold onto it, give it to the backline and forwards to run with, we have the players to go over the advantage line, and create scoring opportunities.
Louw should start, he might not be able to stop or counter the AB’s , but in good form, he will be able to steal a few balls , which will be crucial, he should also be used to secure ball possession when we are on attack, but that doesn’t mean that the rest of the forwards should hang around in the backline, and I will be pissed off if some of the forwards who are known for playing like centers , don’t do their bit at the breakdowns, and we get abused and cheated their again.
I still believe we need Burger at 8, if we have three hard working loosies , we will be sure of ball possession,and possession is key
If Meyer speaks I will listen. Good post M!
I like what I read here, but who in the bok structures will take any notice?
We should just not get a yellow card in the first minute of the game again.
Great post as usual Mc, and really would have been interesting is Meyer had been rightly awarded the job.
Personally though – I’ve studied the options and in my opinion, there are a couple of ways to approach this test, but after careful planning, this is the best way :
Great post.
I just find the analysis a bit pointless unless the insight into reasons for playing that way are clearly explained and understood by the players.
The All Blacks like the Boks when they are on top of their game will score at least or close to 30 points a game against any of the top sides. The AB are currently doing everything for a reason and that reason is the scoring of points.
At the moment we tend to be trying to do the right things (game plan) which only leads to running up and down the field without the ultimate goal of scoring points.
We cannot rely on the bounce of the ball or trying to catch the AB out of position with gamble tactics. We need to have a game plan in all the vital stages of the game that will give us points.
I know it is obvious that we want to score points, but is it really built into our structures and game plan in the reasons why we need to do or play a certain way.
On Sat. our best defense will only limit the AB to +- 30 points. Our main game plan and every thing we do should not be to stop the AB but to score more than 30 points.
Question every tactic by asking- Why. Why kick the ball short from kick in’s? Not because the AB will go through phases and end up on our 22m, but – So that we dont have to spend 15 phases tackling. So that if we get a penalty we will be in position get points. So that if they do get possession and clear it will be our line out in their half etc etc. That’s why.
Classic
Nice piece and that is why someone like Meyer should be consulting at national level. The village idiot and his merry men have been caught with their pants down. It has not been rocket science to figure out Steyn & Kirchner is going to put it in the air at every opportunity. Meyer also makes an interesting point on kick off’s. We saw it in the 1st test when the AB’s played OZ. Every time OZ put points on the board they were immediately under pressure from the kick off. Whereas Carter had them under pressure with that low flat kick just beyond the 10-meter line when the AB’s restarted. In fact that game was won & lost at the kick off. With Fourie Du Preez out we should be playing Peter Grant. He may not kick prodigious distances but when he kicks it out it stays out. This is one thing but to add to this he likes playing flat and 9 times out of ten he breaches the gain line and retains the ball. Morne stands too deep which is okay if you have Fourie making the decisions. Without him Morne is a fish out of water. Pienaar at 9 and Grant at 10 would have made the world of difference. (In my opinion anyway)
Very intersting point you make about the kick off. I’ll have to look at that again.
Regarding Grant I have mixed view aboout him. I like also his abity to play flat but feel that he need to learn to vary his game and espesially the way he lines his backline up. Always flat makes you predictable.
However I think if you dop want to have a plan B you shpould pick your loossies and no10 accordingly.
Great point about the focus on scoring point. I agree players/athletes can get caught up in the technicallities of a particular skill and so absorbed by it that they actually forget why they are doing it.
Your forth paragraph is spot on, I think: “We cannot rely on the bounce of the ball or trying to catch the AB out of position with gamble tactics. We need to have a game plan in all the vital stages of the game that will give us points.”
We need to built/have starter moves or a set sequence of play’s which will lead to creating a opening.
We are so focuessed on trying to recycle the ball that we get repetitive, forget that the aim is to score and/or to set play up for some sort of line breaking move. This is were FdP was so useful namely his ability to constantly mix it up and to keep the focus on scoring points.
Hahahaha, Hilton. I really appreciate your ability to keep things light. Good one mate.
Yip they been pretty quiet, lately and that for means they are hurting and are doing some serious prep work.
Don’t bargin on not getting a yellow.
If we do that would a world record I think; four yellow cards in the first 10 minutes of four consequative test matches.
Pedro, So you have your doubts about the coaching team being open headed enough to understand the message? Don’t feel alone I have similar worries.
Its a great analysis, but I think Meyer rather contradicts himself. He talks about “the team that has the ball is the team that controls the game” but then says we only have to kick smarter not less? Why kick as much at all? The Boks have always been built around the forwards – let then keep the ball a tad longer, and kick when morne/hougaard have the space/time to make it count…some chasers this time round would be nice too…
I think (my meaning with the phrase definetely) with “slowing te ball down” is not to obstruct at the breakdown but to play a more structured game.
In other words don’t allow the game to get loose.
Play a stop start type game mostly mostly; moer first phase type game with lineouts and scrums and don’t allow them to start speeding it up recycle the ball ad infinitum.
Hi Dar. Sure you liked it as a bulls supporter but Heyncke sure makes a lot of sense,
I also agree with an in oyur face approach. We need to rattle them at the collision points.
Yip if you think about it we’ve been throwing these ideas around since the first test.
I am also concerned that they know what to do but can’t get it right.
Tactical kicking can work great if you execute well. It help to keep the forwards on the front foot (going forward).
Our problem in the last 3 test was that we were tacled backwards at the collisions and we kept losing the ball as a result of that. When we didn’t lose the ball it came out so slow (because of being forced backwards) that we couldn’t do anything with it.
Howzit, Lobo. I really liked your piece on the lions. Good on you for sticking with your team. Were are the days when they won the CC with Gerald Bosch and the S10 under Chitch? Would like to see the “rooibontes” alive and well again.
think I misunderstood you there.. so you want them to play similar to WP at the moment, tactically dictating the game?
So what you’re saying is that we cant carry the ball up and we clearly cant kick well tactically without du preez…and we all know we cant run it. That leaves counter attacking, for which you need at least one fetcher, which we wont have starting…or a fullback/wings who will run it back successfully, which unless we start with aplon, we wont have either…
Hahaha, Yes you’ve got my concerns pretty much summarised. Doesn’t look good.
I don’t really see a light in the tunnel to be honnest.
exactly – we need to pick players in positions. Not just a collection of the best players. Louw is good, but he’s not a fetcher. Neither is Burger.
That’s correct.
Is it not amazing how quickly the Boks caoching staff forget that it was the Stormers great defensive and ball retentive skills that got them to the finals. Forget the fact that they got stage fright and duffed the final, the game plan worked throughout the S14. Instead The Boks are now still going to kick away poseesion and hope for lucky bounces. Pathetic!
I just hope Morne is up for the task without FdP … a question I’ve had for a while, what does Willem de Waal need to do to get a bok call-up , specially if we want a kicking flyhalf, he’s in his own league
Morne has limitations and FdP makes him on international level. De Waal is a kicking flyhalf and you are right he can do what Morne does and probably better. However I would rather go for Grant before picking de Waal.
Your point that if you want to pick a kicking flyhalf why not go for one that doesn’t need another player on the field to do his job, is valid.
Remember, back in 2005, Jake played a game plan of rushed defence. It was risky, and was critisized pro-foundly, yet it worked and we won the tri-nations.
Recently, the Sharks played the lions, and refused to kick until the something like the 71st minute, it seems to be working, as the oppostion teams tire out, with like 150 tackles. Then at altitide, they switch to a more conservative approach.
What I am trying to get at, is these teams dared to use a gameplan that was not tradional in its approach, but worked or seems to be working with great results.
We got a great bunch of forwards, with some really good backline players. Cant we put the two game plans of the Stormers and the Bulls, and come out whit some creative plan. I mean, its the springboks, sure their must be someone who can create their own gameplan
With Morne as Fly Half, I dont feel that the backline is getting engaged too much. As soon as Butch comes on, you can somehow sense that the backline are engaged, and the game opens up, although I know for certain that their are better fly halves . This brings the likes of Habana (Who always seemed unhappy, from that the Jake left, yet scores 5tries for the Barbarians)into the game.
Morne is only suited to one style of play, and in todays world, a player has to be versitile to all game plans.
Lets hope, that PDivvy has a plan A,B,C and D.
i’ve been wondering about the rush defence myself lately. The AB’s don’t like it when your are in their face.
Essentially they are doing the same thing with us now; they rush up to smother the pods and they hit us behind the advantage line.
The backline can’t get going becuase Morne is lying to deep and when they rush-up in defence they constantly catch us way behind the advantage line.
The thing that I really enjoyed about the bulls this year (and I am not a bulls supporter at all) is the fact that they often played 4 different game plans in one half. FdP was the architect; he would switch the game paln constantly.
They would play the pods (3 to 4 different variations with the pods) for 10 to 15 minutes; the moment the defence start lining up teehy would start box kick and chase and keep on with that until you think taht’s all they are going to do. Defefence start hanging back FdP will cahnge the game plan in an instant to kcik for the corners and maul of the lineouts, next moment they keep repeating the crash ball thing with Wynand Olivierm, Spies, Gutro and Danie Rossouw seemingly ad infinito then suddenly they start sending the ball to the wings with angled runners coming in on Morne.
They boks can get it going at the moment because 1) we don’t have FdP and 2) we are losing the battle at the breakdowns.
Problem is the players in the key/decision making positions are not stormers.
McLook for the next Springbok coach!! It seems like you quite knowlegeble on the sport.
I rate your Blog the best by far.
The modcern pacy game effectively means that the scrumhalves are called to make the intuitive calls from the relative safety of being behind the scrum. The flyha;ves are always under immense pressure. That said, we have a problem as Hougaard is lacking experiecne and a kicking game to make those calls.
It seems to me we are over awed by the AB style. They carry the ball through 15 phases when we don’t tackle properly and fail to stop them behind the gain line. If we catch them behind the gain line .. let them keep it for 15 phases, it will cost them 15-20m of field position. Agressive defence that does 2 things a keep them behind the gain line each time and secondly stop the “offload” in the tackle. With out those the Ab have no game. Their set piece play is ordinary where as ours is a traditional strength.
What happend to the pick and drive? If our forwards are superior why don’t we force them into containing our forwards and stop them fanning out on defence? Once they close in at set pieces, our backs will find space and holes.
When we also offload in the tackle .. we will be hell to contian. Watch the Lions back line this CC I see NZ style rugby being taught there.