What a game!

An advertisement for rugby, for sure.

The confidence and composure the AB showed after being totally bamboozled by the Wallabies and the referee in the first quarter was astonishing.

They looked done and out and then with persistent targeting of the Wallaby scrum and some help from the referee -in terms of blowing penalties at each scrum for infringements that I had a hard time to see (agreed I am not a Prop)- they were back in the game in the blink of an eye.

Just few turn arounds at scrums time and suddenly the AB were back and ahead with two quick tries.

Awesome rugby! Why the hell can’t the boks play like that?

Here are a couple of observations I had watching the game and afterwards while listening to Robbie Deans during the post match conference.

Coaching philosophy

Deans calm relaxed exterior impressed me. When asked how big is this win for you his answer: “It’s got no more meaning other than the fact we got up. This is just a game along the way.” He is saying in effect it is no bigger than any other win. This is just part of a process.

I often see people shouting for change (and have been one myself) when their team lose but this remark by Deans made me think. Success in sport is a process it doesn’t come overnight no matter how talented you are.

Clearly Deans have a long term development strategy with his coaching. He knows where he wants to get with the team and he and the players have certain markers or criteria on which they evaluate each performance irrespective of whether they win or lose. It is hard to get the media and supporters to understand that, Deans admits: “I don’t live in a bubble and do feel the pressure but in the end it is a process and I am happy with the progress we’ve shown tonight.”

I think everyone outside Australia (and some in the country) can see that this Aussie team is improving game by game. This is still young team with an average age of just 25 (with the average bumped-up by some outliers which are in their early thirties) which Deans is developing with meticulous precision and patience.

How I wish I could have said the same of the Springbok side and coach where there is no evidence of a process; no evidence of a long term plan or proactive planning and development. The coaching and team selections all seem reactive.

Influence of the referee on the match

I got a distinct feeling that the referee went into the match with some preconceived plans to stamp out certain things in both teams. In the first quarter he targeted the All Blacks at the breakdown blowing them up repeatedly for just about everything they did at the breakdowns. This put the Wallabies right into the match producing two tries for the Wallabies because it allowed them to get flow and contingency on attack.

He then targeted the Wallaby scrum and for the next 10 to 15 minutes blew-up the Wallabies for everything they did in the scrum. This broke the Wallaby momentum and created turnover ball for the All Blacks putting them right back into the match. This for me was an extremely irritating part of the game and I am not sure whether there really was anything wrong in the scrum or whether the referee was just trying to establish his authority and set the operating procedures at the scrum.

The result of this was that the scrums became a very carefully orchestrated “non-contest” with the Wallabies too scared to do anything in the scrum other than just taking meticilous care to do nothing wrong. All credit to the ref that when the AB’s tried to push their luck at the scrums he pounded on them as well and that sorted out all the hassle and bustle at the scrum.

The result of all this was that the game only really started to become a “non-referee-trying-to-establish-his-authority-contest” -as it should be- in the last 30 minutes of the first half.

Aussie playing style

The Aussie style of playing was quite interesting. They have a significantly different approach than the AB. Deans is clearly not following the AB 2010 tri-nations style of hitting the gain line and blowing-over.

The Aussies played the ball wide on almost every occasion with the Cooper lying flat; receiving flat ball but then passed the ball behind a dummy runner -lying flat- to a runner coming from behind angling slightly sideways and running with speed onto the ball. This created space on the outside for the Aussie back line. Cooper scored the Aussies first try by being the deeper runner with somebody else acting at the first flat lying receiver. The second try came when they suddenly altered this practice (going flat and then deep behind a dummy runner) with Cooper sending a second flat pass to Gitau who left it for the Aussie No13 who run a clever line slightly against the traffic but straight into space between the two NZ centers. Like a hot knife through soft butter, he went before stepping past Corey Jane for a brilliant try.

The most important thing for me is that the Aussies showed that you don’t need to play like the AB’s to be successful in the modern game. The Aussies can of course do this because they have precision at the breakdowns; few teams in world rugby can recycle a ball and maintain phases like they do.

Kicking by the flyhalf’s

Kicking has become an art in the modern game. Kicking to re-arrange the back field and how the wingers defend is crucial to keeping the ball and attacking with purpose. The Kiwis initially in the Tri-nations basically ran everything. Then, tactically, they introduced the short kick – grubber and chip kick behind to push the wingers back and make the 9 defend out of the line. This reduced the front line to 11 defenders, creating space.

Then, they (the AB’s) started kicking long – forcing the wingers further back – and therefore taking 2 defenders right out of the line which meant the next time they receive the ball they can explore this space by running and passing. They kept the defence guessing allowing them to have various attacking options – run, pass or kick plays.

A kick or run philosophy in attack is now vital. Look at how the defence position, then use kicks or running, passing plays to manipulate the defence.

Both the Aussies and the All Blacks used the kick quite a lot this weekend; grubbers and long kicks to push the defenders back. It was not all just smash-up and blow-over. The latest tendency seems to be to play what is in front of you; read the defence and apply counter tactics to manipulate and change the defensive line-up in order to create space.

Fetchers

The role that Pocock played in this game was also for me quite fascinating, showing that the fetcher can still be influential towards the outcome of a game. Pocock had at least three crucial turnovers mostly arriving as the second man at the tackle. This allowed him to immediately go for the ball.

It seems to me that teams need to practice this namely hunting in pairs with the first player going for the tackle and withdrawing immediately allowing the next player to almost instantly graph the ball; the first player can then re-enter the contest by helping to stabilise the second player. If the tackler withdrew by charging over the player (tackle and then getting up by charging forward) on the ground he prevents the opposition from getting to the ball.

Lineouts

There were very few lineouts (so it seemed to me – I didn’t really count it) in the match. Furthermore, the lineouts were not used as an attacking platform; no driving mauls. In general the lineouts were avoided and those that did took place was a bit sloppy at times.

With the emphasis on keeping the ball alive the sideline is no longer the safety sanctuary of yesteryear but something that is avoided especially by teams –like Australia- who are not particularly strong in the set piece part of the game.

It will be interesting to see whether Australia will start using the lineout more often once their top locks like Vickerman returns.

After watching the Bulls/Sharks and the WP/Cheetahs semi-finals a couple of times I reckon the crucial factor in this match is going to be depth or penetration on attack.

Depth can mean different things to different people depending how you look at it. I use the the word depth within context of  making contact on the defenders side of the gain line (taking the ball up in speed or running onto the ball). Most importantly depth, for me, refers to forcing the opponents defensive line to turn around. So I distinguish between having depth which is layers of attackers running onto the ball and creating depth which is taking the ball up at speed; punching holes in the defensive line; forcing the defensive line to break up and re-position.

The Sharks and WP play very similar rugby with an emphasis on keeping the ball and generating quick ball. The Sharks seems for me better at this type of game mostly because they create more and better depth on attack.

Both teams still don’t demonstrate the same level of penetration or depth creation on attack than the All Blacks; this (depth before recycle) is the cornerstone of the AB’s success/game plan. However, the Sharks are able to create a little more penetration with the ball carrier and this is mostly due to McLeod (No9) with his snipping runs around the fringes and Lambie lying flatter and having angled runners playing off him as a pivot. De Waal is lying to deep and Januarie and Duvenage angle sideways when they get the ball rarely taking the ball foreward at speed to create depth or to force the defensive line to fall back and re-align.

If you have two lines (one carrying the ball and the other defending) running into each other you need to penetrate or create depth (punch holes) to get the defenders to turn around. If you set the ball up with the defensive line still intact you have accomplished nothing; you need to get the defenders to turn around two or three times in a row, at speed, before you send it wide. This is how you create the gaps. Province against the Cheetahs was just shifting the ball sideways with very little variation (angled runners) and with no real penetration. De Waal was lying to deep to act as a pivot and province were therefore relying on Habana and Aplon to create line breaks every now and again coming in at speed from the back.

The Sharks play with a lot more variation on attack and do it flat on the defensive line. They keep the defence guessing with layers of angled runners coming off McLeod and then off Lambie or off a forward standing wide and receiving a flat pass. They also have runners coming in against the traffic and Keegan Daniels have scored a couple of tries this way this season and he used this manoeuvre very effectively against the bulls to force the defensive line to break-up and re-align (creating depth on attack). Another thing the Sharks does is they will play the ball flat then pass it back to a player standing deep who will then flat pass to a player standing wide who will then immediately pop it up for a fast angled runner coming in very close on the shoulder of the last receiver. They pull opposition players this way out of their defensive lines and in doing so are able to bridge the defensive line.

If you go and look at the Sharks first try against the bulls (Keegan Daniel’s try) you will notice they kept the ball going for quite a while and in that time span they used 10-15 variations when moving the ball down the line. Not only does this the variations pull the defenders out of their defensive channels but it also allow the sharks to punch holes and force the opponents to turn round and re-group. It is when they recycle these depth-balls that McLeod snipe around the fringes or that the gaps open up wider. On one snipe McLeod angled sideways -instead of straight as usual-  drawing the defender on him and back passed to Daniels who ran through the gap -so created- to go and score.

The team that can create depth on attack is going to win and the Sharks seem to me to be just a little better organised and structured when they carry the ball. Province seems to be so focussed on recycling that they forget that the first principle is to create depth.

The Sharks tight five also appear to me better organised and more involved as blow-over cavalry than what is the case with WP.

The Sharks locks had a good game against top SA locking partners Matfield and Botha and with WP still missing Bekker I think the Sharks might have some advantage in the lineouts.

Lastly, looking at the ball carrying ability of the backrow the Sharks loose trio seemed to me to be more involved, better supported and making better decisions with the ball in hand than the WP loosies.

So in summary I think this match is going to be won by the team that not only are best able to keep possession but who -more importantly- can use their ball better in terms of creating depth on attack.

Even though it pains me to say this as a WP supporter my observation after watching the semi-finals a couple of times is that the Sharks are the superior team in this regard (creating depth on attack) and I predict them to win because of this very reason.

There have been many finals over the years but this one has the potential to be one of the most important ones as it could potentially direct coaching strategies for next year’s S15 as well as for the world cup.

Last year saw us at the top of the world; winning the tri-nations comprehensively.

A rule change, however, saw our wheels came off, this year; being totally outplayed by NZ and also humbled by the Aussies.

The bulls kick and chase, structured set piece and battering ram pods which worked so well during the S14 failed miserably during the tri-nations. This left me with a number of questions, namely:

• Did they fail because we had the wrong players on the paddock?
• How important was FdP with regard to the bulls success this year and the boks success in 2009?
• Is it the game plan that didn’t work or lack of proper coaching that hamstringed the boks this year?

The interesting thing for me during the S14 was the fact that the Stormers played a totally different game plan than the Bulls.

They were harder to read and to be honest I still don’t have clarity in my own mind exactly how they played the game. They certainly had a more complex game plan which took them longer to put together. In the early part of the season they relied mostly on the back three to produce tries with Joe Pietersen and Naqvaluki being instrumental on the blindside.

Later in the season they created magic with starter moves from set piece (mainly the scrums) and scored some brilliant tries notably by De Jongh and Jaque Fourie. The most impressive performance for me was the way they won in Auckland after the bulls were beaten the previous weekend with what was certainly the style that the All Blacks adopted for the tri-nations. In hindsight I now have a feeling that Henry was instrumental in that Blues performance against the Bulls and that he in essence provided the guidelines in how to approach/play the Bulls. I have a feeling that Henry as previous Blues and current All Black coach had the necessary access and status to convince the blues on how to approach the Bulls game. This gave Henry the opportunity to try out his vision/ideas with the Blues. This was an important test run for him as he knew the Bulls game plan was in essence the Springboks game plan.

No what is incredibly significant, for me, is the fact that that the Blues approach (read early version of how the All Blacks were going to play in the 2010 tri-nations) did not work the next Saturday against the more complex Stormers game plan. It is no co-incidence that Henry said after the Blues/Stormers match that the Stormers were playing the best rugby in the competition. I think he and his cronies must have been really concerned after the trashing the Blues received from the Stormers but he must have been enormously relieved when he saw the make-up of the Boks side for that first tri-nations test. He did his homework; he tested his ideas with the blues; he knew exactly how to counter the bulls/boks game plan; and it worked.

The problem with the Bulls game plan is that it relies too much on a few key players and on the opponents crumbling under pressure. The Blue Bulls just couldn’t get going without those key players in the Currie Cup and it was only after their Springboks returned that they got their campaign back on track.

The Sharks adopted the kiwi tri-nations style and again demonstrated the superiority of that approach against the set piece dominance and pressure approach of the Bulls in the semi-final of this years CC.

The Stormers massive failure against the Bulls in the S14 final and subsequent lost of Peter Grant saw them making some alterations to their game plan. They still have the S14 complexity in their approach but with Willem de Waal on flyhalf have brought territorial dominance back into the mix. Their set piece, especially scrums, also seems to have improved since the S14 final. They certainly kick a bit more and the backline seems to line-up a little deeper but they still play the ‘hang-on-to-the-possession’ game especially when in the opponent’s half of the field. In a sense they have brought something of the bulls into their game (kicking for territory and using the pods) but have maintained their more flowing, play it wider and hang on to possession format which worked so well against the kiwi teams in the S14.

However, since the S14 the Kiwi’s have refined and sped-up their game and the Sharks with their kiwi coach have adopted that refined approach of attack in depth and blow-over at speed as well as constantly mixing it up in the backline with angled runners. Secure handling and precision at the breakdowns was also key to their victory against the Bulls.

With the new interpretation of the laws, the team that keeps possession will have a chance of forcing penalties and scoring points,” said WP coach Allister Coetzee.

“You will be punished if you give away possession unnecessarily. The All Blacks’ style of play is based on keeping possession through phases.

“It’s important to make the right decisions in the right areas of the field. There is also a time and place for grubbers and aerial kicks. There is more than one way to play the game.”

Clearly Allister and his team think beyond ‘rush, bash and flush’ at the breakdowns. The Kiwi like to throw the words one-dimentional at South African rugby but I find the rush-up and blow-over also very one-dimentional. Why have ball players in your team if you are going to rush-up and blow-over until the gaps open up? If that is all you are going to do pick 100 kg buffulo’s in all the positions with some speed in the back three and rush-up and blow-over 80 minutes non stop.  

The question for me is can the WP/Stormers game plan work against this refined, precision and faster pace rush-up and blow-over kiwi style?

If it works (the stormers game plan) then that will provide clear guidelines on how to adjust our game to counter the Kiwi blow-over style. Western Province plays for me a more traditional South African style. I don’t think we should try and beat the All Blacks with their own game. We need to do something different and play a style that suite the physique and cultural heritage of our players. Traditional Western Province rugby with some modern applications at the breakdowns is what Province are doing at the moment and maybe that is the way to go; this weekend I believe will tell. True the Sharks is not the All Blacks but beating the Sharks with their kiwi coach and kiwi style is the first step towards developing/maintaining our own style.

I have nothing against the Sharks and do find hope in the fact that they can mimick the AB style. It shows that South African teams can at least play that type of game.  If we want to beat the All Blacks we need to move beyond duplicating. 

I am hoping to see ’moving beyond duplicaton of the All Blacks’ on the weekend.

This match, for me, is therefore more than a final. It is about strategems. It’s about innovation.

It is about converting to kiwi rugby or advancing our cultural rugby heritage.

It is whether we can move beyond copy capping; beyond duplication towards integration of new and old.

Whether we can create something new that is uniquely South African and don’t throw the Sharks away as the team who are on the forefront of innovating a new SA style. A team who is integrating South African forward physicality with the new style of rush, bash and flush.

To be honest I am not entirly sure what we are going to get but it’s going to be different; it’s going to uncompromising, physical and hard as well as exciting and hopefully out of all this we are going to see the dawn of an uniquely new South African style.

Western Province (WP) –as the oldest and biggest province in the early years- dominated the CC competition during the founding years.

The Currie Cup made its appearance in 1891 after it was awarded to Griqualand-West (GLW) by W.E Maclagan the captain of a British team touring South Africa for best performance by a South African team against them.

The Griqualand-West rugby union gave the cup to the South African rugby union with the understanding that it will used as trophy for a provincial rugby competition. This resulted in the first Currie Cup tournament being played in 1892. Teams were invited to play in the tournament which was held at one place. The final of the first tournament was contested between Western Province (WP) and Griqualand-West. Province won.

The next tournament was in 1894 housed at Nuweland in Cape Town with the same two teams reaching the final. The GLW team won all their matches on route to the final while WP drew a match against Transvaal making GWL the favorites. Thanks to an excellent forward pack the GLW team dominated play in the first half and scored one try under the posts and another one next to the post. Unable to convert these tries GLW were leading 6-0 at half time. No matter what they tried WP could not breach the GLW defense or succeed with a penalty in the second half. In desperation Heatlie the WP captain handed the ball to one of the wingers Tom Hepburn with instruction to kick for poles when awarded a penalty with only 10 minutes left on the clock. Hepburn succeeded with this impossible kick right from the touchline taking the score to 6-3.

Pinned down in their 25 in the last 8 minutes WP had no change of scoring with GLW controlling the ball and constantly on the attack. Biddy Anderson one of WP centers then kicked the ball into the pavilion with the aim of creating time to talk to his captain. In those days the ball had to be found before the game could proceed and Anderson explained to Heatlie that he needs to come and help with defense in the back line in order to create a man over so that they could try for an interception. Heatlie wasn’t keen on this idea with the Province forwards getting murdered upfront as it was but Anderson persisted. The third time GLW played the ball down their backline Percy Jones intercepted and ran 75 meters for the winning try under the post.

In the launching years the Cup was not contested on a yearly basis and in the 47 years from 1892 to 1939 there were 20 finals of which WP won 16.

Tabel 1: Currie Cup winners from 1892 to 1939

Griqualand-West won the Cup in 1899 and again in 1911 with Province winning all the other tournaments. In 1922 Transvaal took the Cup to Johannesburg for the first time in history.

Transvaal played in 1895 for the first time in a Currie Cup final but lost against WP. They reached the final again in 1897 losing once again against WP but won it 1922, 1939, 1950 and 1952. In the 1952 final Transvaal played against Boland and won with a Natie Rens dropgoal in the last minute.

Natie Rens who broke the hearts of the Boland players and supporters by slotting a dropgoal in the last minute of the 1952 final.

It didn’t take WP long to get the Cup back in Cape Town after they lost it to Transvaal in 1922 and in 1925 another decade of WP dominance started when Province win the Cup yet again with players like Phil Mostert, Gerry Brand, Jackie Tindall, Pierre de Villiers, George Daniel and the legendary Bennie Osler on flyhalf. Osler dominated in particular the 1927 season when he scored 81 points in 9 matches. The WP victories over Transvaal and Natal, in that year, were in essence accomplished because of the geniality and kicking ability of Osler.

Bennie Osler who dominated provincial rugby in SA from 1925 to 1936. 

Border shared the Cup with WP in 1932 and 1934.

Transvaal won the last tournament before the Second World War in 1939.

After Second World War a new giant in SA provincial rugby namely Northern Transvaal appeared on the scène and they won the first Currie Cup competition after World War II in 1946 in a classic encounter against Western Province at Loftus Versfeld. In the first minute Con de Kock the WP No15 succeeded with a 75 meter penalty and after Bubbles Koch (lock) and Jack Vos (hooker) scored tries as well for province it looked like the Cup would once again go to the Cape.

Bubbles Koch scoring a spectacular try in the 1946 final. 

Patient like a predator and tactically astute like Napoleon, the future general of South African rugby, Hanie Brewis, were reading the match as it progressed, identifying weaknesses and scoring opportunities. Late in the second half he took control. Starting with two brilliant dropgoals -one with the left and one with the right foot- he had Northern Transvaal right back in the game; the score suddenly 8-9. The referee confirmed it to be the last move of the game when Brewis put into action his last desperate stratagem. Signaling to Johnny Lourens on the wing to chase hard he hoisted a long kick downfield on receiving the ball in the hope that his wing would get there first. Con de Kock the WP fullback was first at the ball but instead of catching it he tried to toe it over the touchline. A disastrous decision as the bounce of the ball fooled him and he missed it completely with his kick; the next moment Lourens scored the winning try.

Hansie Brewis who appeared on the scene in spectacular fashion during the 1946 Currie Cup final.

Province was back in 1947 winning 16-12 against Transvaal in a final that is considered by old-timers as the best Currie Cup final of all time. The highlight of this match a try by Otto van Niekerk in ‘Otto’s corner’ – the right hand corner in front of the main pavilion.

Otto van Niekerk on his way to ‘Otto’s corner’ in the 1947 Currie Cup final against Transvaal.

Province was back in the final in 1950 but lost against Transvaal signifying that the power in SA rugby has shifted to the North. In the next 6 years (1950 to 1956) WP won the Cup only once namely in 1954 but in extreme controversial circumstances. The referee Ralph Burmeister denied NTVL a try by François Roux after a break by Tom van Vollenhoven. Roux still maintains that Chum Ochse did not tackle him before the try line and that he didn’t lose the ball an opinion shared by the majority of the spectators. This try and subsequent easy conversion would have given a victory of 13-11 to Transvaal instead of losing 8-11.

During the next decade no finals were played; the team topping the log receiving the Currie Cup with Western Province receiving the Cup in the years 1957 to 1959 as well as in 1964 and 1966. It was during these years that Jannie Engelbrecht scored his two tries against NTVL with a broken collar bone.

Jannie Engelbrecht running in for one with his two tries with a broken collar bone against NTVL.

In the next decade 1968 to 1978 WP didn’t won the cup once but did play in two finals namely in the legendary Frik du Preez final in 1969 and against Free state in 1976. Frik lost his place in the Springbok team earlier that year (1969) and in the final he conquered WP almost man alone with a try, two gigantic line kicks, a drop goal and a penalty.

Frik du Preez who won the 1969 Currie Cup for NTVL by scoring a try, succeeding with a drop kick and a penalty. He also slotted two fantastic line kicks.

The 1976 final is in my book probably the worst final I’ve had the privilege of witnessing Western Province play. Province was annihilated by the Free State who won the Cup for the first time in their history.

Theuns Stofberg and Morné du Plessis during the 1976 final. The interesting thing about Theuns Stofberg is that he won the Currie Cup in a Free State, Northern Transvaal and Western Province jersey.

Western Province’s only taste of the Currie Cup during the entire decade of the seventies came in 1979 when they drew the final with NTVL 15-15; a match in which they couldn’t score any points in the second half. Naas Botha kicked two brilliant dropgoals in the 5^th and 37^th minutes of the second half. It was after this match that Morné du Plessis made his famous remark that sharing the Cup is like kissing your sister.

Western Province had a golden era during the eighties and won the Cup from 1982 to 1986 five times in a row. This was the time of the Du Plessis brothers, Hennie Bekker, De Villiers Visser, Rob Louw, Hempies du Toit, Divan Serfontein, Theuns Stofberg, Nick Mallet and so forth. My personal favorite was the 1982 final; the only time that all three the du Plessis bothers namely Willie, Carel and Michael played together in a final with both Carel and Michael scoring tries.

Michael du Plessis scoring in the 1982 Currie Cup final.    

In the decade 1987 to 1997 Province played in three finals winning only in 1997. In 1988 they lost with a single point against NTVL and in 1989 (exactly 10 years since their previous draw with NTVL in 1979) they shared the cup again with NTVL.

Western Province’s last two Currie Cup wins were in 2000 and 2001.

For a complete list of Currie Cup winners and who they played against as well as who were the referee’s and what were the scores click on this link.

This will be Natal or the Sharks 13^th Currie Cup final since 1889. To be more accurate, since 1890, when the Natal Rugby Union was founded.

They have a 41.67% success rate having won 5 of 12 finals.

Natal made their first Currie Cup final appearance in the 1956 season playing against Northern Transvaal and went down by just a single point. Northern Transvaal winning the match nine points to eight.

Their next final came in somewhat unusual circumstances in 1984. 

In 1979 the 12 Currie Cup teams were divided into two sections. Section A was made up of strong teams, Section B of weaker teams but the best of the weaker teams played semifinals against the best of the Section A teams, with a remarkable result in 1984. In that year the Free State had already received their allocation of tickets for the final and had to rush them to Durban on the Monday after Wynand Claassen’s B-Section Natal side had beaten them.

So 1984 the unthinkable happened when Natal as winners of the B-section reached the final by winning their semi-final match against Free State. They played in the final against Western Province who won their semi-final against Eastern Transvaal with something like 50 points. Natal had players like Wynand Claassen and Gawie Visagie in their team and the media talked the Natal team up but nobody really thought they could win the final. They went into the game with real attitude and made a good game of it leading in the early part of the match. In the end Western Province won quite comfortably (19-9) ruining what could have been a fairly tale ending for the Banana boys.

Gawie Visagie here playing for the Springboks during the 1981 Springbok tour to New Zealand. Visagie played for Natal in the 1984 Currie Cup final and slotted a dropgaol in the first 10 minutes of the game -if my memory serves me correct- to give Natal an early lead.

In the 1990’s the Natal rugby union started spending some money on players and with coach Ian McIntosh they adopted a new style mimicking, I thought at the time, the All Black stamkar-rugby namely driving up in channels 1 and 2 with the big forwards repeatedly for 80 minutes game after game.

Natal didn’t have a particularly good season in 1990 but they did end-up against Northern Transvaal, in a now legendary final in Pretoria. Natal won the contest, claiming their first ever Currie Cup, with the final score being 18 points to 12. The turning point came right at the end of the match with Tony Watson’s famous ’9 point try’. With the score at 12-9, Right Winger Tony Watson slipped a Theo van Rensburg tackle and ran something like 60 meters to touch down for a try to make it 13-12 in Natal’s favour, but he was fouled upon scoring. Stransky converted to give Natal a 3-point lead, and his successful subsequent penalty gave Natal the six point lead which they held until the final whistle. The victorious side was captained by scrumhalf Craig Jamieson, who led the team on a ticker-tape parade through central Durban later in the week. The victory was especially poignant for being both Natal’s first, and for occurring in the Union’s Centenary year.

Tony Watson who slipped a Theo van Rensburg tackle in the final minutes of the 1990 final to score the winning try.

This 100 year victory prompted Naas Botha to make a memorable scornful of sour remark to the extend that it will probably take Natal another 100 years before they win the Currie Cup again. Naas was wrong in his predictions with about 98 years because two years later in 1992 they won the Currie Cup for the second time playing against Transvaal in the final.

Natal then went forth and won the cup two more times in the 1990’s namely in 1995 playing against Western Province and in 1996 playing again against Transvaal. Their last won was in 2008 playing against the Blue Bulls (Northern Transvaal).

So in total Natal/sharks have won the cup in 1990, 1992, 1995, 1996 and 2008. They finished as runners up in 1956 (losing against NTVL); 1984 (losing against WP); 1993 (losing against TVL); 1999 (losing against TVL); 2000 (losing against WP); 2001 (losing against WP) and 2003 (losing against the Blue Bulls).

Natal and Western Province have played three times against each other in the Currie Cup final namely in 1984, 1995 and 2001. Western Province won in 1984 and 2001.

My gut feeling is that they have played their final last week against the Blue Bulls and that Province is going to take this one. To be honest, even though I am traditionally -from way back since I started watching rugby- a WP fan I do have a soft spot for the “Banana boys” and wouldn’t mind if the “last outpost” came out victorious this year.

14 July 1976 – Boland Invitation XV 6 / All Blacks 42

Wellington. Wet, drizzling with the field somewhat sandy but firm underfoot. Crowd 16 000.

The referee: Justus Moolman (Eastern Province).

The Boland team was: 15: Radie Doubell; 14: Deon van Blommenstein; 11: Carel Ferreira; 13: Wessel Koch; 12: Jan Potgieter; 10: Tonie van Zyl; 9: Phillip Taylor; 8: Dawid Smith; 7: Deon du Toit; 6: Kobus Meintjies (Captain); 5: Mac Jordaan; 4: Kassie Karstens; 3: Tank Loubsher; 2: Chris Theron 1: Bees de Jongh. These are the names and numbers provided on the official All Black website (click on link below). In McLean’s book the flankers and props were in different sequence so it is possible that Meintjies was actually number 6 and Du Toit number 7 and the Loubsher was No 1 with de Jongh in 3. Chris Theron was replaced by Charles King in the 42^nd minute.

The All Black team for this match was: 15: Laurie Mains; 14: Neil Purvis; 11: Grant Batty; 13: Bruce Robertson; 12: Lyn Jaffray; 10: Doug Bruce; 9: Lyn Davis; 8: Andy Leslie (Captain); 7: Ken Stewart; 6: Ian Kirkpatrick; 5: Peter Whiting; 4: Frank Oliver; 3: Billy Bush; 2: Graeme Grossman; 1: Kerry Tanner.

Before the game incidents/issues/stuff

The main before the match issue was a report in the Transvaler that Lyn Davis would be send home –on his own request- if he didn’t last the match. The actual fact was that the article would have been spot on if published a fortnight ago but Lyn’s new treatment has done the trick.

The All Blacks were at this stage already struggling with a number of serious injuries. There were flurries in the morning before the match and especially after the match over Peter Whiting’s back. He was beaten more than once in the first 20 minutes for the ball by Mac Jordaan and in the 62^nd minute, he was crashed to the ground by a heavy shoulder-charge and lay still with silence settling in the crowd.

Whiting, who was genuinely hurt, took according to Terry McLean one look at the gathering ghouls of the press photography department, muttered something about the spectral feast and immediately returned to the play. At the very next lineout, with a fine leap, hê easily robbed Jordaan of the ball; there were several more before the end of play.

In one of his other chapters McLean elaborates on the injuries tribulations of the 1976 touring side. These injury problems were twofold namely players who were selected with injuries that came on tour and players that got injured during the tour and who were kept in the squad despite being more of a liability than an asset.

At least 17 players suffered ills or injuries which either cancelled them from games or affected their form. McLean is of the opinion that this had to do with the All Blacks –because of the warmer climate- not sticking to their normal routine of pre-match stretching. Apparently a physiotherapist by the name of Malcolm Hood introduced a set of pre-match stretches in 1974 into the All Black team that were very effective in preventing injuries. Today static stretches are no longer used as part of pre-match warm-up as it has been proven to impact negatively on power, speed, acceleration and general muscle control. Current practice is to use game specific types of movements which warm the muscle up through a more ballistic stretching process.

Most of these 17 players were able to overcome their injuries woe’s; Bruce Robertson and Kent Lambert in particular recovered very well from torn hamstring injuries. The injuries to Grant Batty, Peter Whiting, Alan Sutherland and Brad Johnstone and the illness of leading loosehead prop Kerry Tanner had serious impact on the team.

Bruce Robertson here in picture with the ball with the Boland centre Jan Potgieter charging in for a tackle. Robertson recovered from a hamstring injury to finish his tour as one of the outstanding players in the AB squad. McLean writes of Robertson that in his last five or six games it could fairly be said that he was the finest back in South Africa. Pretty big call considering the likes of Johan Oosthuizen, Peter Whipp and Gerrie Germishuys who were also playing in South Africa in this series.

Here are some selected paragraphs from McLean’s book regarding the injury woe’s of the 1976 All Black squad:

Kerry Tanner: was bundled into hospital in Pretoria early in August suffering from, so was believed influenza. He sweated through one night which he called the longest of his life and within a few days lost about 9kg in weight. He was hospitalized again in Johannesburg a little later, and because he was released therefrom by the South African Rugby Board’s liaison officer Choet Visser, without previous consultation with Noel Stanley, a breach occurred between the two men which was not repaired in the remainder of the tour. By good luck, in Johannesburg, he was at last taken care of by a specialist who suspected that more than old-fashioned ‘flu was the cause of Kerry’s sufferings.

Using the right medicine, Tanner began to rapidly improve; and, not without cause, he was not a little disenchanted that, ostensibly because of his loss of weight, he was neglected in the second half of the tour and failed to make the team for the fourth test.

Grant Batty: I would roundly say that Batty should not have been on tour – for medical reasons write McLean. He continues:

Robbie Snowdowne a specialist in orthopaedics inspected Batty knee after he re-injured it in the first test. He came up with a plastic “gate” which, with secure tieing, would not too greatly impair Batty’s speed and which would give him confidence. Later, a second model was produced. Within limits, Dr. Snowdowne’s inventions were extraordinary helpful. Batty played on throughout the tour, continually exhibiting his extraordinary daring and bravery and showing that, despite the injury, he was still far above the standard of the second-stringers, Terry Mitchell and Neil Purvis.

Brad Johnstone:

He tore a hamstring muscle while playing for Auckland against Sydney in April before the tour started. He was never free of the problem and played for much of the tour with it. In the test at Bloemfontein, he suffered a rupture of the rib cage. Rather than hearten the Springboks, because Tanner, the other specialist on the loosehead, was considered unfit to play, Johnstone bravely concealed the injury.

The rupture become troublesome. A medical board was called for. This certified that he should not being to train within 3 weeks, and that it should be six weeks before he plays again. He therefore returned home and, within days, captained the Auckland provincial tea. He played out the season untroubled.

Alan Sutherland was dreadfully unlucky according to McLean.

He began his tour as a prospective rebel. He had said severe words to John Stewart (the coach of the 1976 team) when he was omitted from the tour to Australia in 1974 and opinions he had expressed of Leslie as a player and captain had not been complimentary.

Sutherland was made captain of the team that played Western Transvaal in the fixture which succeeded the defeat in the first test. In terms of overall authority, this was the best display of the All Blacks during the tour. But, during it, Sutherland twisted his knee. A cartilage in his left knee snapped. He could not stand up unaided. Behind the scenes there were moves to have him declared unfit. Once more there was a division among the team’s medical advisors. Sutherland stayed.

Pugnacious his attitude in every match he played thereafter as he hated defeat and tried to overcome his injury-induced limitations with aggression.

Alan Sutherland here playing for Rhodesia. After the 1976 tour he stayed behind and played and captained the Rhodesia side during the 1977 Currie Cup series.  

Peter Whiting’s was a heroic expedition. For at least five years before the tour, he had suffered in his Rugby from a malformation of the spine. A leading Irish medical specialist after seeing x-ray plates of Whiting’s back said the man could never play rugby again. “He’s a nut,” said Whiting, pungently.

His back was playing up badly in the months before the tour. In the first fortnight in South Africa, he was in agony. He could not sleep, he could not jump, his scrummaging was ludicrous. By luck, he was put onto a specialist in Cape Town, Dr. Jan van der Merwe, who was esteemed as one of the outstanding orthopaedic specialists of the country. An injection precisely into the trouble-spot, aided by various potions, provided extraordinary relief. Whithing kept going but being venerable had to pace himself and only on the really big games did he pour his heart out.

Peter Whiting and Moaner van Heerden jumping for the ball during a kick-off in the first test. Van Heerden and Whiting was involved in an ugly incident –about which I write later- in the third test. 

Run of play

About the match

In terms of place kicking this match was the All Blacks best performance so far on tour. Laurie Mains missed only three of 10 kicks at goal with on e of the missed kicks –conversion of Bush’s try- hitting the upright.

A fine mist settled at times during the match over the ground, turning the ball slippery and the footing tricky. In these impossible conditions Bruce Robertson fired an impossible long pass at Mains, who could not reach the ball. Deon van Blommenstein found the ball bouncing directly in his running path and scampered 50 meters over open ground to score under the posts.

That was however the end of the round for Boland and although Boland never throw in the towel the All Blacks were too accomplished up front and too fast and organized in the back. The Boland halfbacks Phillip Taylor and Tonie van Zyl were dexterous and quite brilliant at breaking from tackles, according to McLean.

Lyn Davis and Phillip Taylor involved in a tussle for the ball during the Boland match. Davis was one of the players who almost went home because of a persistent back injury. 

Kobus Meintjies impressed as a fine foraging flanker. Jordaan did well in the lineouts and Charles King –who replaced Deon du Toit as loosehead- commanded some special attention from Tanner. Mclean writes:

The two (Tanner and King) had some disagreement about the way King bound. Tanner spoke to him in a kindly, even fatherly way. There was no response. Boom! “Tanner was quite right,” said Justus Moolman. “The man was told. He didn’t agree. He got a lesson.”

McLean has this on individual performances of the All Blacks:

Jaffray was sharp in seeing the chances, and Leslie played one of his finest games in the Silver Fern, covering like a greyhound and leading all sorts of rushes. He could have had the last try; but it was important to him, one surmised, that “Bats” should be restored to full confidence. So the pass was slipped to him and the crowd, as it did at every sight of the “Ginger Man”, roared yet again.

After the game reactions/occurrences

McLean concludes his section on this match with this paragraph:

Afrikaner writers later accused Moolman of favouring the All Blacks because he penalized them so seldom. “Bless me,” said Justus, “what would be the point? I am not even on the test panel. I have been refereeing for 14 years and keep on because I like to be in the game. Why would I want to favour any team? I will say this – the All Blacks were marvelous to have on the field. Their manners, their approach, were perfect.”

Well it seems Justus was about the only referee the All Blacks was happy with, wonder why?

In an article by Michael Brown regarding Maori being unfairly treated by not being allowed to tour to South Africa he has the following on Billy Bush.

Billy Bush is adamant he was unfairly targeted in a decision that cost the All Blacks victory against South Africa in 1976 – because he was Maori.

It was in the last minute of the fourth and final test at the end of the long tour of the Republic when South African referee Gert Bezuidenhout blasted on his whistle and awarded a penalty for the home side for an infringement in the lineout. Bezuidenhout identified Bush as the culprit.

The big prop was incredulous but his protestations mattered little as Gerald Bosch kicked the penalty to hand South Africa a 15-14 victory and a 3-1 series win.

He feels now he was pinpointed because he had been deliberately provocative throughout the tour, trying to get up the nose of the establishment who clearly resented the presence of a brown player in apartheid South Africa.

“The refs cheated,” Bush says. “We should have drawn the series, for sure.

“They couldn’t get me on the paddock – I got roughed up a little bit but it didn’t hurt – but that last penalty went against me for obstruction in the lineout.

I was nowhere near the ball.

“I was bitter about being blamed for the last penalty. They very definitely got me in the end because they targeted me in particular. When you look back at the game, I never did anything. I am still brassed off about it.”

Fact is Billy Bush went through that whole tour acting off as the tough man in the AB team. He was definitely out to irk, irritate and offend the South Africans.

A little further in the article Brown writes:

Throughout the tour, Bush was provocative. He invited black girls to official functions to aggravate Afrikaners saying they were “Maori girls from Rotorua”. He repeatedly made his way into the hotel kitchens to meet the black workers, ventured to East London to mingle with blacks despite knowing it was frowned on, and went to white areas at night to defy the curfew which forbade non-whites in the city at night.

“I went out of my way to be deliberately provocative,” Bush says. “I was darker than the other players and always had it in the back of my mind that it was not their favourite colour in South Africa. There were many incidents on and off the field.

“The South Africans were out to get me in every game. But I hated them, too. The game in Upington [when the All Blacks beat North-West Cape Invitation XV 34-17] was the worst for thuggery. But I wasn’t prepared to stand back. A lot of it was self- defence. She was pretty rough at times. They were blatantly out to get me.”

In the end Bush got what he was asking for and now he’s still unhappy about the treatment he received. The treatment he got had nothing to do with skin colour or him being a Maori but everything with his behaviour on tour.

Bryan Williams was also on that controversial tour and had the following to say about Billy Bush and him being targeted:

“I wasn’t aware at the time that Billy was targeted but generally the decisions went against us because apartheid was at its height back then and the Afrikaner nation had to be seen to be superior.”

I will agree with the first part but the second part is just plain rubbish. The Afrikaner had no need to be superior to the Kiwi’s because there was Maori in the team.

Absolute bullshit.

I am an Afrikaner too and lived and breathed rugby; reading about and listening to every match. I wasn’t even aware that Bush was a Maori neither did it bother me or matter that Williams was a Samoan.

Williams was one of my All Black hero’s and so was he for most other white/afrikaners rugby supporters at the time. We saw him as an All Black from New Zealand and that was the case with Billy Bush as well. The rest was irrelevant. Bush got a hard time because he provoked it.

Williams goes on and make the following statement about referees:

“The referee who awarded that penalty [against Bush] came and saw us off from the airport the following day,” Williams remembers. “We had him on about not only that decision but a lot of them he made throughout the tour.

“He said to us, ‘listen boys, you can go to your home, I have to live here’.

Now this is not the first time that I hear or read this and clearly they believe that Bezuidenhout admitted with those words that he cheated; admits that he cheated because he was instructed to or because the Afrikaners could not lose to a side that contained Maori.

Now I want to provide a little of a different perspective on that statement. I don’t believe it was an admittance of guilt at all. It was a tongue in cheek remark. Also, it was more a case of, I had enough of this, these guys are leaving, I’ll just say something to pacify them and get them of my case. If you torture somebody long enough he will admit. The media and All Blacks have been going on about referee cheating since the second match of the tour. Leslie spoke about it and the need for independent referees in the post-fourth-test-match-function and I believe Bezuidenhout just reached a point where he has been bullied and scrutinized and critiqued to such an extend that he stopped to even try and defend his actions and rather opted for some sort of joke or tongue in cheek remark.

The fact that they hammer so on this remark and can’t see it for what it was just shows how desperate this 1976 team were to provide some explanation for their poor performances. As a team they underperformed because of many reasons including injuries, poor team selections, lack of depth in key positions, poor management and coaching as well as interpersonal clashes between team members and lack of leadership and discipline. The refereeing wasn’t perfect but as a team they didn’t deserve to draw the series. The bottom line was they were just not good enough.

Coming back to the Maori issue. Most South Africans had no idea how many Maori were on tour.

There were five Maori in that touring side: Bush, Sid Going, Kent Lambert, Bill Osborne and Tane Norton.

I’ve been living in New Zealand for eight years now and I can tell from personal experience that it is pretty hard to distinguish Maori from Europeans. In fact I was surprised to learn that Sid Going and Tane Norton as well as Kent Lambert were Maori.

Did it change my opinion of them after reading that recently?

Not at all.

Would it have made a difference how I viewed them in 1976?

Not at all.

I want to state it here that the Afrikaner Maori issue never existed. It was all in the minds of the Maori but we as South Africans in 1976 wasn’t even aware that such an issue existed.

Brown goes on in his article and explains how Bush was pressurised by Maori anti-tour activist to not go on tour. He writes:

They were central characters throughout, even before the tour left these shores, and Bush said he came under pressure from activists like Trevor Richards and John Minto to pull out of the tour.

“It affected me hugely,” Bush says. “Richards and Minto were on my case about going to South Africa. But I had busted my guts to train. I had run around the hills [of Christchurch] in cold southerlies. My aim was to go around the world with the All Blacks because I wouldn’t do it otherwise.

“I wasn’t aware of what was going on in South Africa at the time but people tried to stop me from going. I worked at the freezing works in Belfast and the union kicked me out. I said I didn’t care because I wanted to find out what it was like myself. I believe I contributed to the tearing down of apartheid in South Africa by being Maori and not signing on as an honorary white.”

Even as the All Blacks left country, they had to be driven over the tarmac to the plane at Auckland airport for their own safety. They then weren’t allowed to land in Australia, meaning they travelled via the US, Athens, Lisbon and Abuja.

Clearly, Bush felt pressurized; almost obliged to make some sort of statement that would show that he was against Apartheid; that he was taking on the enemy. He was trying to impress those activist back home with his actions. He was playing for the pavilion and everybody knew it and roughed him up because of it.

There was no racial issue to it, as far as I can remember. Why would he be targetted while photo’s of Going and Williams will apear in every article about the tour. You could order enlarged pictures of Bryan Williams such was the extend of his support. No such deals existed for any of the Springbok rugby players. I know because I was sampling rugby pictures at the time and ordered one of Bryan Williams and would have ordered similar poster pictures of Springboks if available; none were.

Brown goes on and writes:

It was during that journey that All Blacks coach JJ Stewart brought up the issue of the haka. He said to Bush the South Africans didn’t want them to do it. Bush said: “We’re doing the haka or going home.”

They did the haka.

Now I don’t know about this; South Africans not wanting them to do the Haka and Bush being the HERO who stepped-up and decided THEY WILL DO THE HAKA.

Yeah right. Talk about being THE MAN and hero worship.

Damn I was there I sampled every article and listened to everything on the tour but somehow missed all this about South Africans not wanting to see the Haka and Bush being THE MAN.

I scrutinised McLean’s book “Goodbye to glory” about the 1976 tour and will keep on doing so as I proceed with my description of the 1976 tour but so far I’ve not seen anything about this in his book.

Here is Sid Going’s recall of the 1970 and 1976 tours:

“For me, it had nothing to do with that political rubbish,” Going says. “We were just glad to be playing. It was a wonderful tour. The hospitality was absolutely fantastic. Me and Bryan Williams were treated better then most, probably, because we were there and everyone in the back of the grandstand, every coloured person, took to us.”

No mister Going every rugby lover in South Africa white, coloured, Indian or black took to you and Bryan because you were a delight to watch.

For us it didn’t and still doesn’t matter that you were Maori. We were just glad to have you. That applies to every single member of that All Black squad including Billy Bush.

I wrote about the importance of the breakdowns before and this weekend it was dominance and control at the breakdowns, yet again, that determined the outcome of at least one of the semi-finals, if not both.

Blue Bulls’ coach Frans Ludeke admitted that his men were not accurate enough at the breakdowns against a side that took special care of retaining possession.

“They were accurate at the breakdown points and held onto the ball for long phases and that is how they really won the game,” he said.

“We did everything we could and we had a solid plan on the table, but at the end of the day it is the way they kept the ball and attacked from deep.

“It wasn’t a surprise for us, but their execution was very good.”

“They really kept onto the ball. They looked after it and it was tough to get it from them. They didn’t make mistakes, so well done to them”, said Victor Matfield after the match.

John Plumtree mentioned the Sharks strategy at the lineouts.

“We were worried about the Bulls’ big, driving lineout and giving them those opportunities in the last few minutes wasn’t good for anyone’s heart,” said Plumtree.

“We put a big emphasis on that [countering the Bulls' drive] during the week.”

Countering the bulls lineout also came down to front up physically and by avoiding lineouts and that can only be done if you keep the possession and you can only keep possession if you dominate and are precise at the breakdowns.

One has to wonder how long Bulls and Springbok rugby are going to think that having a strong lineout is enough to win matches.

In a season when the Springboks fell behind their two Tri-Nations rivals, New Zealand and Australia, because of their inability to play the quick paced game the way the Durbanites played the game on the weekend is a timely sign of hope; a timely message to those tasked with driving the national strategy.

Sharks coach John Plumtree was in no two minds in his belief that if the Boks are to stand a chance at next year’s World Cup urgent action need to be taken with regard to developing precision at the breakdown and the faster pace blow-over running game in South Africa. The way the Sharks played this game after a disappointing performance against Western Province last week emphasize that with good coaching South African sides can be precise at the breakdowns and can play the expansive game.

The bulls is in many ways probably the ultimate test –because of the ability to force mistakes through pressure and with their structure at set piece and ability to maul from the lineout. The ultimate test to determine if a team can play with precision at the breakdowns. The fact the Sharks did it so well against this Bulls outfit who won the S14 with their pressure and set piece structured game plan is in my mind a massive sign of hope for SA rugby.

The Sharks were employing what can be regard as a Kiwi style against a team that included the primary figures of South African primary style of rugby. In many ways it was a test of a new game/approach against the old – and that being so, the new game came up trumps by some distance.

Ball retention was the key to the Sharks’ possession orientated approach, and it is hard to recall when last, if ever, a South African team was so able in holding onto the ball, and so skilful in both handling the ball and in making the right decisions.

The Sharks provided in many ways an object lesson in textbook rugby and showing others how to deal with the Bulls. They also showed direction in terms how the Springbok game plan should evolve.

They didn’t neglect physicality in their attempt to play a more flowing game in fact standing up to the Bulls at the set-pieces and the collisions was key to their victory. It was not the Brumbie recycle ad infinito flaf of yesteryear.

Impressive -and in line with the way the All Blacks played this year- was the variation in the Sharks’ play.

The Sharks denied the Bulls two of their strengths by firstly avoiding lineouts, and secondly by countering the Bulls big hits on the defence. The did this in the way they carried the ball; the way they changed the angles; the constant presence of decoy runners; the way they attacked spaces rather than running straight at the man and lastly with precision control at the breakdowns.

They kept the ball secure with precision handling; by speeding the game up; by running onto the ball rather than receiving it standing still; by zealously supporting and protecting the ball-carrier. They avoided the arm wrestle at the breakdowns by the way they went in hard at the ankles of the big Bulls to knock them down rather than allow them to hold it up and set in motion a wrestle match.

The Sharks executed their game plan to perfection and in the end it was a victory for classy coaching. After the poor performance in their last match against Western Province the Sharks were a team transformed, and in that I find hope. Hope that the Springboks might be able to adjust and play the modern game.

We know we can play the structured game but the big question, for me, has always been can we take it to the next level namely play a top class structured game AND the new style flowing game. It is in the performances of both teams on the weekend that I find hope. I’ve got hope that we can adjust and integrate the old and new style which will make us very hard to beat.

The big question is can our coaching staff deliver?

The hand-off is not something that you really see in South African rugby. At least to the extent that you see it here in New Zealand. No Springbok rugby player –as an example of an exponent of the hand-off- spring to mind when you think of the hand-off.

My fascination with the hand-off started after an incident involving my son during a rugby match. The little guy had a clean break away during one of his matches and was burning on all silinders down the left hand side line. He had one opponent to beat who was coming in from his right on an angle slightly from the front. The meeting or collision point about 10 meters from the goal line and I was watching with interest wondering how my 10 year old is going to handle the situation. Being a No8 he handled the situation totally different that I would have as an ex-inside centre. I was an on-the-toes type of player and stepping was my thing; my approach would have been to go in the defender then out to draw or extend him to the outside and then step off my left to pass on his inside.

My boy runs with long strides and stepping from the toes is not a natural thing for him. As a number 8 it has been ingrained in him to run straight at the defender and set the ball-up by going to ground or to hit the defender and swivel out of the tackle. I could literally see his mind ticking over as he got himself ready for the collision but it all happened just to quickly and he got caught between his two ingrained options (go to ground set it up or swivel) and did neither of the two ending up being tackled 10 meters from the goal line.

On the way home we talked about this incident and what he could have done. His response on my question, why didn’t you use the hand-off, was what do you mean? It was at that moment while contemplating the best answer that I become aware of the various variations/possibilities that exist with the hand-off.

So the next Saturday morning -before the match- we started doing some drills and explored the hand-off; having a great amount of fun and I am happy to report with some excellent results on the field. Here are some hand-off variations we explored and practiced as part of our Saturday pre-match training repertoire.

Riding on the defenders shoulder

This is mostly used by wingers when the defender goes in for a tackle at hip height. The attacker does an inside-outside as the defender come in on a 45 degree angle from the front. Timing is crucial. You in-and-out and then put your hand on the defenders shoulder and ride the tackle by straightening your arm.

This was the first one we started practicing and the hardest part was to get the timing for the inside-outside exactly right. If you start to soon with the inside swerve it becomes a front-on tackle and then it is very hard to ride on the shoulder. If you swerve too late it becomes a side-step to the inside.

If you get the timing right the push-off on the defender is almost like surfing on a wave. It is exhilarating and the little guy just loved it once he got it. The stronger and faster your opponent the more exhilarating the push-off so practicing on me gave him a real blast-off which he thoroughly enjoyed. We had to practice it on both sides of the field (left and right) because he was not playing on the wing where you will normally do it only to one side depending which side you play. It is definitely the hardest of the hand-off techniques to master but once you get it right the other versions is a lot easier to do.

About two Saturdays after starting with the drills McLook junior had an opportunity to use it. He took the ball from a ruck and went blindside, swiveled out of the first tackle and was away with only the fullback to beat. I was waiting for it; he knew exactly what to do but it was on the left hand side line which made it harder as you have to inside off the left foot. He started the inside swerve too late and had his left foot still in front -still going 45 degree to the inside of the opponent- when the tackle came in but he innovated and produced a version I haven’t thought about. He two-stepped of his back foot (right foot) pulling the tackler -coming in at hip height- past him with his left hand. I was impressed as he had to transfer the ball (his original plan was to push off with his right hand) from left to his right hand at the moment or just before he did the two-step. It worked because he went into it with a positive frame of mind and because the defender was hesitant (not being a particular good tackler).

I can’t really think of any wingers or outside centers in South Africa that use this riding-on-the-defenders-shoulder-hand-off-technique.

The chest punch

Notice in the picture above how the Samoan -doing the hand-off- is staring into the eyes of the defender. This is one of the teaching tips, I hear on good authority, when you teach someone the hand-off. It is all in the eyes. The eyes will tell you exactly what the defender is going to do and watching his eyes gives you the edge, to pull it off.

This is used when the tackler comes in high trying to smother you. It is a fast open hand palm “punch” right on the sternum (chest) of the tackler. Daniel Carter uses it a lot. You can use it on any place on the field. It leaves the opponent grasping air as you would push yourself away from the defender and stop him in his tracks. Click here to see Dan Carter using this hand-off. The best examples can be found towards the end of the clip.

It is normally done fast to prevent the tackler from getting hold of your arm and hanging on. Watch this powerful Sonny Bill Williams hand-off against Soutland.

The graph and push

The graph and push is the slower version of the chest punch and is normally used by bigger players on smaller players. You graph the tackler’s jersey and hold him of and push the moment he tries to dive forward. I saw a Samoan player using this with a double push. Check out the hand-off in this sevens match between Samoa and Malaysia. Check-out the fourth try where the Samoan hand-off the same oponent three times in a row.

The karate chop

Most effective when used on a tackler coming from the side (slightly from behind) and reaching to grasp your pants or jersey at hip height. You just chop his hand down at the moment he tries to grasp. Frank Bunce used this while two-stepping off his back foot either to the defenders inside or outside.

The Shoulder push down with a two-step

This is a version used by Sonny Bill Williams and most effective when the defender comes in low and from the front. It helps if the ball carrier is taller than the defender. SBW would push down on the defenders shoulder while two-stepping and carrying the ball in his outside hand. He runs straight up to the defender with the ball in one hand moving the ball around waiting for the tackler to commit and then push down on his arm/shoulder to either step out of the tackle or to off-load.

Watch this SBW try for an example of two types of hand-offs in one move. The second hand-off is the one I am describing here.

The straight arm frontal push

Used when the defender comes in crouching low for a frontal tackle. South African players –mostly the forwards- use this quite a lot to push the defender backward while running into him. You see it quite a lot when the pods goes into contact.

Apart from the last version it is actually surprising to see how few of the South African players use the hand-off. It wasn’t something that was practiced while I was playing and I wonder if it is at all practiced today.

I have difficulty remembering any South African player using the hand-off during the S14 and the tri-nations this year or over the last 5 years for that matter.