The hot topic this week seems to be the Bulls or more specifically the Bulls’ dramatic slump in form after their shock loss against the Western Force.  Somehow this loss goes down a lot more dramatically than in 2008 (I think it was when they also lost in Perth against the Western Force). 

The Bulls always seems to struggle against the Force but of course this year they’ve won only 2 games out of 9 and that makes the loss against the Force a lot worse. 

The article stampede over the Bulls started with an article by that “Sooibrand specialist” J.J. Harmse entitled “Annus horribilis for Bulls” in which he states:

It is official. The Bulls are definitely experiencing a crisis.

Amazingly enough he then does not explain why he reckons it’s a crises (see later Frans Ludeke’s definition of a crises) but goes on and on about the bulls losing matches and that it is depressing for the fans. Here are a few quotes:

Their 26-21 defeat against the Western Force makes for depressing reading.

Missed opportunities, pathetic option taking by senior players and the growing reality of knowing that your best is simply not good enough anymore are now the harsh reality for this current crop of Bulls.

Even manager Wynie Strydom’s usually humorous voice-mail messages are not even funny anymore.

Their fans must surely now start contemplating cancelling their family reunion’s out of sheer shame for explaining what has happened to their beloved once-mighty team.

How many more games will be lost because of balls lost in contact, simple handling errors and just a sheer lack of desire on defence?

And, surely the kick-and-chase tactic in the hope that Bjorn Basson might catch the ball is not the only option?

This article was soon followed with one by Brendon Nel “Crisis? What crisis? – Ludeke” in which Ludeke respond on the alleged crises advocated by Harmse. 

Nel writes: Bulls coach Frans Ludeke has denied there is a crisis in his team at the moment, even though their Super Rugby hopes seem to be slipping away weekly.

At the team’s first twilight practice late Monday evening, Ludeke fronted up on some of the issues facing the team, but denied there was any crisis brewing in the three-time champions’ camp.

“No not at all, there is no crisis,” Ludeke said, “I think a crisis is when you can’t do anything anymore. I also think a crisis is when you don’t have answers for the questions.

“When you don’t understand what is going on, then you feel like you’re losing control. Everybody can see what is costing us at the moment, we just need to climb into those areas. We’re still positive, very positive.”

While much criticism has been levelled at the senior players, and the way some of the top Springboks have been playing – with some even saying players are beyond their sell-by date, Ludeke remains positive, refuting allegations that senior players are not concerned about their own play.

“The guys realise it. In our inner circles there is enough straight talk, and nobody is hiding, that I can promise you. “Everyone is doing their best to turn the situation into a positive. Every weekend we have had the buy-in from the players. Every week we try and get the result, and control what we can control, but at the moment the cookie isn’t crumbling right for us. But we know we can still do something and we remain positive.”

Note he says a crisis is when you can’t do anything about the situation or when you have no answers for the problem(s). Good answer I thought, initially, but then I read the lasts two articles entitled “Ludeke: I don’t want to change” and “Bulls back their game plan”. 

Surely, if it’s not the game plan then it’s the players or visa versa. If they can’t see that their game plan and team selections are the problem then per implication they don’t know what the problem is, which, according to Ludeke’s own definition would mean there is a crisis. 

In the first of the last two articles “Ludeke: I don’t want to change” written by everyone’s favourite author JJ Harmse it is all about the coach not wanting to make changes to the team. This is an attitude that stinks for a number of reasons. What happened to managing the Springboks in his team with the eye on the WC? In fact FL goes on and explains how he is going to play players with injuries.  See the following remarks:

“Nothing changes, but Francois Hougaard and Dewald Potgieter’s ankle injuries may well mean that neither of them are able to play against the Chiefs,” said Ludeke.

“We’ll give them until after (Wednesday’s) training session to see how they have recovered. I will pick them if they are ready.”

There could be eyebrows raised at the coach’s decision not to want to change a team that has lost three consecutive games, but it also gives meaning to Ludeke’s argument that the turning point of the season is here.

Much has been expected of Kruger, especially as it was thought beforehand that Victor Matfield would get more rest.

The Bulls captain has played every minute of every game and Kruger not a single minute – something that does not make sense from a national or Bulls perspective.

This would mean he thinks he is playing the right players so then the problem has to be the game plan. In the last article “Bulls back their game plan” he also denies that the game plan is to be blamed. Brenden Nel writes:

Bulls coach Frans Ludeke has defied critics who say his team are playing an outdated game plan – saying his side still believe their philosophy on how to play is the correct one.

Ludeke continues to maintain that the game plan is sound, and that the best players are playing in the team at the moment.

“I think what we planned at the beginning of the year, the way we play, we still believe in that,” Ludeke said. “We make mistakes, and it costs us, but we haven’t stopped believing in our game plan. There is nothing wrong with the way we are playing, we get into the right areas enough and we have enough opportunities.

“If you look at our games against the Reds, the Crusaders and the others, there were enough opportunities. The philosophy of how we play is not wrong. It is the execution that is the problem.

“Every guy has the right to his opinion, and we respect that. But if we analyse it, our plan is solid, we just don’t execute it.”

So, according the Ludeke the Springboks didn’t lose last year because of an outdated game plan or is he only talking about the Bulls? If so how is that different from what happened with the Springboks in 2010?

One definition of madness I’ve seen is something like: Madness is when you keep on doing the same thing in spite of evidence that it doesn’t work.

Is this a form of denial or just plain inability to play differently? What Ludeke don’t seem to realise is that it is not what he resist or deny that is causing the current losing streak it is the resistance itself. The fact that he can’t see that the new rule interpretation has enforced a new style of playing.

An evolution has taken place and to evolve doesn’t mean you just adjust some of the things you’ve done before. An evolution means that the organism or society has completely changed; it has restructured itself in such a way that the new way of being is totally non-linear with what went before. Evolution means a death and rebirth; a leap into a new order.

Backline play and play at the breakdown has changed. Explosiveness into contact with the aim to blow the opponent of the ball and speed onto the ball with angled and dummy runners attacking space is the new game. Off-loads and pop-up passes is in while barging through defenders are out.

Other than that the aim is to spoil at the scrum, lineout and ruck to slow down the opponent’s ball because the new game is about speed. It’s about creating fast phase ball; about avoiding contact by moving the ball away of the heavy cavalry and attacking space on the fringes. How did the highlanders beat the Crusaders? The won by slowing down the Crusaders phase ball and by blowing over at the tackle contest on the fringes. To do that you need the right players on the park namely players that can stay with the pace of the game.  

The following statements by Ludeke -in the last article- are therefore worrying and indicative of a coach in denial and unwilling to evolve with the game.

Ludeke is backing his charges to come right and show their class.

“The same goes for the players – I believe the best players are there. We have rotated throughout the tour, and we will continue to use the squad system.

“The mistakes are what are costing us, the turnover battle was one we always won in the past, and that was one of the reasons we always did well.

“At the moment there are a lot of mistakes and we do look at it every week, but it must be a mental thing. You have to get closure to move towards the next game with confidence. I still believe it will come together. “We still believe we can make it, you just need to make adjustments and not look further than the weekend. That’s the way it works in our camp.

“We are constantly looking for solutions, and that is one of the things we do, not to look further than the weekend. We can’t worry about permutations, they not even on the table at the moment.”

So he admits the Bulls was so far unable to win turnover ball but seems unable to see that the “fetcher” phenemonon has changed. Turnover are no longer the result of one scavenger/fetcher but from numbers that blow-over with explosiveness at the breakdown.  The reason why the bulls lose the ball in contact is because they are not attacking space but are still trying to batterram through the defence.

After having said all that I do have a certain amount of sympathy for FL. I believe the game has changed but would not say is has been a total down right evolution.  The bulls No 10 and 12 need to start playing flatter on the advantage line with the rest of the backline aligning deeper so they can move the ball away from contact at speed; use the pods more sparinglingly namely closer to the goal line; start to attack space; get more numbers to the breakdown; design a defensive pattern that would allow some of the big guys on the fringes to help with blow-over; kick less and hold on to the ball longer.

How do you dump experience and class like Matfield and Bakkies. I would not if I was the coach. Matfield is still better than 99% of all the locks in world rugby.

Personally, I think there is a problem with the Bulls loose trio not functioning as a unit; with Morné Steyn lining-up to deep and not asking questions of the defensive line which limits FdP’s effectiveness as playmaker. Lastly there is a problem with the tight forwards being to big and unable to stay with the ball/faster pace of the modern game.

The problem with the tight forwards not being able stay with the ball can be sorted by kicking less and keeping the ball in hand. The problem with losing ball in contact can be sorted by attacking space and barging less.

I have hope that FL and Slapchips will find a solution and hope for the sake of SA rugby that they does get it right soon. The fact that the Bulls are struggling might be a blessing in disguise. It forces them to look for solutions; to be creative; to grow and adjust and all that will be to the advantage of the Springboks.

One blogger wrote: “My belief is that it is the coach. FL was crap at the Lions. He went into hiding for a few years and then came back into coaching as the Bulls wundercoach. He inherited an excellent system, with excellent players and to be very honest achieved a hell of a lot with them.”

“However as the game has evolved he hasn’t tweaked the system, players or game plan to move with the times. The Bulls have [almost] the exact same system, players and game plan as what they had under HM. The game has developed, FL can’t develop along with it. Bakkies, Matfield, Spies, Stegman, FDP, Meisiekind have all been poor this year, yet what has FL done to make them up their game? Nothing. He picks them week after week [ granted he dropped FDP and Stegman for a game]and hopes that by some miracle that they will produce.”

“The coach is way out of his depth, that is the problem at the Bulls.”

Interesting article in the New Zealand Herald this morning stating that New Zealand Maori rugby side is in line to play a historic series in South Africa later this year.

According to the article Rugby News reports that the Maori will play two matches against a “shadow” Springbok side after the World Cup. The article then further states:

The matches will be part of the benefit for Bakkies Botha and Victor Matfield, who will represent the Springboks for the last time.

One of the fixtures is expected to be played in Soweto while the other will take place in either Cape Town or Pretoria.

The South African Rugby Union paved the way for the fixtures last year after apologising to New Zealand Maori for the disservice done to them in the past.

Talks took place between the two nations about the Maori playing the Springboks in Soweto in 2009, as a build-up to 2010′s British and Irish Lions tour of the Republic.

Plans were shelved because SARU said the Maori were selected on racial lines.

The NZRU also approached SARU last year about the possibility of a South Africa team playing the Maori during their centenary celebrations but were told it couldn’t happen for the same reason.

However on December 4 the SARU amended their rules, opening up the possibility of a game, or even a tour, in the near future.

“The [General] Council agreed to adopt the policy pertaining to the New Zealand Maori, which now paves the way for matches between South African teams and the Maoris [sic],” SARU said in a statement.

SARU president Oregan Hoskins added: “South Africa will play against any team which has the official blessing of its national governing body.”

The change came on the back of a surprise apology last year made to Maori players prevented from touring South Africa with the All Blacks in 1928, 1949 and 1960.

The Maori played the Springboks when they toured New Zealand in 1921, 1956, 1965 and 1981. A Maori team also played a pre-season tournament in South Africa in 1994.

Well I’m glad all that nit picking is sorted and that we can get on with it. I hope that this is a sign that the extreme post-apartheid sensitivity about racism is slowly starting to fade away in the South African society.

Rules -like all religions have experienced over the last few century- are a funny thing because life is not always black and white. This hair-splitting about racism and the Maori team not being allowed to play in South Africa reminds of the pedantry that went on few decades ago whether women should wear a hat to church or not.

Race, in general, is a vague concept and it seems to me that the term racism is used far too easily in South Africa to get rid of somebody; to win an argument; to explain or argue against selections whenever the plotter has no firm ground to base his/her arguments upon.

Note also the underlined sentences in the article above. Firstly, the amendment to the rules now allows the possibility of a Maori team touring to South Africa but secondly the amendment only pertain to the Maori or any team that has the blessing of its national governing body.

Does this mean that if Namibia constructs a Khoi (Boesman) or Herero rugby team and such a team has the blessing of the Namibia rugby board that they can tour South Africa?

Rational thinking would probably be at order when it pertains to these issues. One would for example not try and push the issue by constructing an all-white South African team and apply for SARU’s blessing to tour to another country.

Lastly, the Maori’s did play last year –as part of their centenary celebration- against an international team namely England and won the match. Considering the SA/Maori history and the whole issue about the 1956 Maori allegedly being told to hold back against the Springboks as well as the 1981 Colin Beck drop goal one can be sure the Maori will want to prove a point.

For New Zealand society it will be the Louis Luyt argument -that New Zealand didn’t win the WC in 1987 (the first WC tournament) because it was no real WC as South Africa didn’t participate- in reverse. In this case they could argue that the 1928, 1949 and 1960 tours were no real All Black tours because there were no Maori’s in the teams. The implication of that would then of course be that South Africa has only really won three series (1937, 1970 and 1976) with two draws (1921 and 1928) out of 12 against the All Blacks.

The words of Fergus Slattery echoed perhaps best the general feeling about South African rugby at the end of the 1976 tour. Commenting to Phillip Jones of the Sunday Times before he left South Africa Slattery said: “The first thing I would tell a young player is not to play like the Springboks. They are five years behind the times.”

Five years behind the times was probably a harsh statement considering that the Springboks scored some really good tries in the first test and that they did try and play a more open game in the second test. There were moments in the second and fourth tests when the Springboks really produced some excellent running rugby. The pressure of winning culminated -after the defeat in the second test – in a safety first approach and a heavy reliance on the exceptional kicking skills of Gerald Bosch.

I would bet my bottom dollar that any other nation, including Ireland and New Zealand, who had a player like Gerald Bosch  would have done the exact same thing in order to secure a series win. One only has to go back to the history books to see how New Zealand did it when they had players like Don Clarke and Grant Fox while Ireland did it when they had players like Tony Ward and Ollie Campbell.

No one can deny, however, that the rugby played in this series was a bit dull and ultimately disappointing from a spectator’s viewpoint. The magnitude of dubious referee decision also left the more knowledgable South African rugby fans with an unsatisfactory uneasiness about South African rugby, the tour, and the controversial manner in which the series win was accomplished. It was hard to celebrate a series win confounded with so many hard to defend incidents. Victory itself is simply not enough; the true South African rugby lover cares and worries as much about how the Springboks win.

In cold statistics the tour was a sweeping success but there was much to ponder about after a very unhappy bunch of Kiwi’s got on the plane and left for New Zealand. No matter how one tried to argue for poor sportsmanship -as reason for the Kiwis whining- in our hearts of hearts all South Africans knew the unhappiness resulted from the manner in which they lost and not because they lost. Ongoing racial issues in the beloved country, the on- and off-field fighting and aggression combined with the manner in which we won left most supporters with very few fond memories about the tour.

Certainly, the ’76 Springboks did not produce heroes like Mannetjies Roux, John Gainsford, Joggie Jansen, Ian McCallum, Frik du Preez, Gert Muller, Syd Nomis, Piet Greyling, Jan Ellis, Johan Claassen and Keith Oxlee as was the case during the tours of 1960 and 1970. Morné du Plessis and probably Moaner van Heerden and to some extend Boland Coetzee were perhaps the only Springboks who stepped out of the tour with an enhanced reputation the rest were pretty ordinary.

In the final analysis Morné du Plerssis had a greater impact on the series than Gerald Bosch. Du Plessis was, in retropective, the difference between the two teams. Not only was du Plessis the Captain-coach but he made some courageous decisions during the series that panned out to be crucial. Du Plessis, having given away an intercept try because of a foolish pass in the first test, had the presence of mind to keep his head clear, and not succumb to the emotional pressure. He had the courage, nerve, and judgment to instruct a change of tactics.

The Springboks were struggling in the lineout and not dominating in the scrums -like they thought they would- and Bosch was off his game -playing with flu- so Du Plessis made a clever but very courageous decision to start running the ball.

Due to that change of tactics, the brilliance of Germishuys was utilised by means of a skillful backline manoeuvre and the weakness of NZ first five eighth, Duncan Robertson playing out of position at fullback, was exploited (See the Germishuys try here).

The Springboks 2nd try in the first test (Krantz’s try – see the try here) was also a result of that change of tactics. In many ways it was an even better try than the Germishuys try. The Springboks took the ball right, left and right again stringing phases after phase with some good rucking and driving. An excellent contructed try by all accounts.

The obsession with “not losing” produced a huge, cumbersome lock on the flank for the last test and persistence with Bosch on flyhalf, whose goal kicking in the series was not at all on par with his normal high standards. Gavin Cowley, by far the most polished No10 in the country for the previous three seasons, and who could have ignited and lifted the likes of Oosthuizen, Whipp, Germishuys and Pope to stardom, were ignored in spite of the fact that Cowley proved himself a more than adequate goal kicker.

It is easy to sit on the sideline and critize but du Plessis and the Springbok selectors had to make some serious decisions after the attempt to run at the All Blacks backfired on them in the second test. It would have been criminal to lose a test series trying to run the ball against the best oppostion in world rugby while you had the freakisly talented Gerald Bosch at your dispossal. They opted for size in the pack and with sticking with a well proven recepy and it produced the desired results with some help from the referee one have to add.

Imgine the outrage if they went the other way and failed. You just can’t please all the people all the time; sometimes you have to trust your gut and go with that which is exactly what du Plessis and the selectord did in this series. The decisive moment or turning point in this series came for some scribes when the Springboks selectors finaly got it right and selected iron man Johan Strauss and Kevin de Klerk in the pack for the third test. In spite of that the Springboks were trailing at half time -of that third test- but produced a spirited second half performance to win after a inspiring half-time talk by du Plessis.

The following few paragraphs by Terry McLean is possibly a good way to end my story about the ’76 tour:

John Stewart’s animadversions upon South Africa and South African Rugby, delivered when the All Blacks returned to Auckland 92 says after they had left it, caused offense to the New Zealanders’ host.

Experience in sporting life teaches one lesson: when you have been beaten, bite the bullet. After Dr Danie Craven returned to Stellenbosch from managing the 1956 Springboks in New Zealand, an experience infinitely more searing than the 1976 All Blacks could remotely imagine, perhaps the wisest man world Rugby has ever known, Mr A.F. Markotter, a great coach and an inspired judge of men and their abilities, greeted him from the car. They shook hands. “Well Craven,” said “Uncle Mark”, “what are you going to say about this lot?” He put his car in gear and drove away. “It hit me,” Dr Craven has said over the years, “that there was only one thing I could say. Nothing.” By and large, he has. New Zealand can thank him for this. That was the year New Zealanders went to bed praying that their men could beat those bastards of Boers, one match after the other. In terms of nationalist fervor mounting to hatred, it was the worst tour Rugby has ever known.

There is a fine line between love and hate; between passion and obsession. Next week I’ll start with the tour of 1956 when the fine line got very murky indeed.

Oubaas Markotter widely regarded as the “father” of South African rugby and whom Terry McLean described as probably the wisest man Rugby has ever known. 

Chris Rattue in the New Zealand Herald came up with this team.

Here’s a composite All Black team from the Graham Henry era that would be dead certs to lose the World Cup (not that it is New Zealand’s to lose).

15.) SOSENE ANESI

A one-test non-wonder fullback from 2005. Replaced Daniel Carter in his only test appearance – true story. Flashy, but not flash overall. Injury hasn’t helped but goodness knows why the Waratahs signed him when they have enough flakes of their own.

14.) BEN SMITH

The renaissance man according to southerners. Have to take their word for it, since my devotion to Super rugby doesn’t often extend to watching the Highlanders. Looked fairly ordinary in his All Black stint compared with the Sivivatus of this world. As for being Ben Smith – All Black wings need handles like Josevata, Hosea, Rico, Rene, Rudi, Cory, Sitiveni, Zac, Israel, Jonah.

Call it the Engelbert Humperdinck effect. Do you think Sonny Bill Williams would be Sonny Bill Williams if he wasn’t Sonny Bill Williams? Come on. Try Benny Boy Smith-Wesson and just watch your career take off.

13.) ANTHONY TUITAVAKE

Part of a near All Black disaster at Munster in his one All Black centre appearance. Little Toot played for North Harbour, which says a lot, and had a loyal army of supporters. Great to watch and would tear Uruguay and co to bits but you winced at the prospect of him running into the Stirling Mortlocks of the rugby world and there were always better wing prospects about.

12.) MA’A NONU

Struggling to get near the form he displays on the tricky-dicky TV advert. Many of us are big fans of his game but not his rugby brain. Nonu is the bloke most likely to give away the losing World Cup final penalty in front of the sticks in the last second while looking confused. Of course, he might also have won the game for the All Blacks by then, or maybe not. Doesn’t really deserve to be in this lineup, but he is topical and I needed a big-name signing.

11.) LELIA MASAGA

Faster than a speeding bullet … but not exactly a gun. Still has fans waiting for the second coming. Once ran into a lamppost and broke his collarbone – which sneaks him in here just ahead of Scott “Bubbles” Hamilton.

10.) STEPHEN DONALD

A mandatory choice. This team would have no credibility without the Waiuku Wonder. Donald proves that society can’t function without someone to pick on all the time. If he had never made the All Blacks, he might have been regarded as unlucky. The Give Deon Muir a Shot Committee would have held rallies in the Hamilton Town Square, or at least met at the Chartwell Cobb and Co to bemoan Donald’s fate. Interesting to ponder what it is like to dream of becoming an All Black only to be given a right good kicking once you get there … Philpott’s auction ruction has provided one answer to that.

9.) KEVIN SENIO

Huh? Did he win a reality TV series or something?

8.) SIONE LAUAKI (C)

The sky was the limit for this enormous unit, but unfortunately his head was in the clouds.

7.) STEVEN BATES

Bates replaced Richie McCaw in his only test, in Rome. Not the greatest career move.

6.) ANGUS MACDONALD

All Black No 1061. Played against Scotland and never played again. Could be the first time the Scots have ended an opponent’s rugby career.

5.) KEVIN O’NEILL

You think I’m making this up. Check the Rugby Almanack.

4.) ROSS FILIPO

Definitely better than O’Neill.

3.) JOHN SCHWALGER

Graham Henry should be sent a “please explain” note for picking Schwalger. Has anyone come close to working this out. Mind you, Schwalger isn’t the only member of the dodgy All Black prop department. In hindsight, Campbell Johnstone and co look even worse, now that Owen “Real Deal” Franks has turned up. The selectors were bound to get one right some day.

2.) ALED DE MALMANCHE

Oops, another Chief. His lineout throwing is an exceedingly long work in progress.

1.) NEEMIA TIALATA

Could be world class. Should be. There have been worse All Black props in the Henry reign but none who fall so short of potential. Can be a very scary monster, especially on Twitter.

Compare this with PdV worst choices and it’s clear that PdV is actually quite good with his selections.

15.       Ruan Pienaar

Ruan is a good player but fullback is not his best position.

14.       Tonderai Chavhanga

Fast but with lots of other weaknesses.

13.       Gcobani Bobo

Never impressed me. Not sure how he got a test cap.

12.       Adriaan Strauss

Granted he was a stand in due to injury

11.       Jongi Nokwe

Not a too bad choice altogether. Never really lived up to his promise.

10.       Francios Steyn

Granted he only tried Steyn in this position due to Steyn’s obsession to play flyhalf.

9.         Bolla Conradie

Yeah that’s right Bolla is a Springbok.

8.        Joe van Niekerk

Joe was good once but when PdV picked him he was way past his sell date.

7.         Ryan Kankowski

Not a bad player but probably the worst No7 ever picked by PdV.   But hey I would have tried Rayn at 7 as well. He’s got the speed and flair to do something spectacular in that position.

6.         Luke Watson

Luke has his fans and is probably not a bad player. I couldn’t find a worst choice on No6 in PdV tenure.

5.         Johann Muller

Reasonable but of worst of all the No5’ picked by PdV.

4.         Never a bad choice.

3.         John Smit

Not a prop.

2.         Schalk Brits

Like Luke he has his fans most of them living in Cape Town or are expats living in Aussie originally from the Cape.

1.        Deon Carstens

Least impressive of all the props picked by PdV. Not sure if he actually played 1 or 3.

Generally speaking not a terrible team. Not sure if it’s a better team than Henry’s worst. Fact is most of them played next to good selections and against weak opposition. If they ever play together as a team for the Springboks in named positions I’ll probably stop watching rugby all together.

Martial arts have quite a number of fascinating or secret fighting strategies which are made known to the experienced or deserved practitioner.

I’ve highlighted and underlined the word experienced for a reason. The reason being, that these strategies are too advance/complex and neurologically challenging for the novice who have not yet developed sound fundamentals or basic skills. (This is why I have a problem with throwing experienced campaigners out the backdoor and replacing them with early season bolters. Experienced players can be re-conditioned and speed, explosiveness and mobility can be restored with good management and an appropriate training program. My feeling is, assesses the experienced players in terms of injuries and niggles, workload and hunger to play and put him on a recovery program before dumping him on the has-been-heap.)

Back to the story line. From the stage of the novice, the practitioner gradually accumulates experience and eventually develops sound basic fundamental skills. He then returns to the level of the novice namely learning to apply those basic skills in a different context. At the start of training the novice knows not how to strike, block or move. When he’s attacked he responds instinctively but has no strategy and no technique. As he learns to block, punch, kick and move his mind gets captivated by it and though he now has technique he has poor reaction, poor strategy and poor timing; he becomes rigid almost always in two minds what to do. As months and years of training pile up, technique, strategy and posture begins to flow and he develops timing. The mind starts to detach form the training postures as it is now so integrated that he doesn’t have to think about it anymore. It is at this stage that he becomes ready for advanced training –back to the stage of the novice but a novice now with sound fundamentals – which moves him into flow and superior rhythm and timing on attack and defence.

In sport there are three types of openings and it requires a certain relaxed awareness and adaptability to seize upon these opening/opportunities as they arise during the sporting contest.

There are mental openings; set-up openings or opening that result from how the opponent set himself up (set piece, positioning in the backline, line-out); lastly there are openings that manifest during movement (attack or defence).

Regarding openings during movement; there is an opening at the start of any movement (just before the opponent throws a punch or kick); there is an opening during the attack itself and there is an opening at the moment the attack stops.

Experienced fighters can seize on these openings. For instance, just before the attacker launch himself his mind is occupied with what he is going to do; he is pre-occupied, he normally drops his guard and very vulnerable at that precise moment (remember the Owen Franks T-bone tackle on Flip van der Merwe – there is a good example of exactly this vulnerability at the start of an attack). During the attack there are transition moments (from one technique to the next) and skilful deflection of the first strike will always see the attacker of balance and vulnerable for a counter strike just before he throws his next punch or when he tries to re-group and/pulls out of the attack (the second try by the All Blacks in the second tri-nations test played in Wellington in 2010 is good example of this in rugby. The Springboks started a movement; the ball carrier got tackled before he could set-up play; the balls spilled lose; Weepu picked up, he runs through a Springbok defensive line in tatters; he passes to Mills who scores – see here).

Skilful fighters can also ride a series of punches and then launch a counter at the moment the attack stops. The attacker is vulnerable at the moment his attacks break down because he over extended himself, is off balance, or is mentally busy analysing what just happened (the cheetahs are particularly good at this. They often score by launching quick counter attacks the moment the opponents attack breaks down. Wales also use this method; they have a drifting defence and will drift/ride the attack until it breaks down and then in a blink of an eye the ball goes wide at speed. The French won a two test series against the All Blacks in 1996 in New Zealand with this method).

Rigid attachment to a pre-conceived strategy/game plan almost always sees these opening/opportunities go by the way side. No matter how one may master techniques in training, if the mind becomes attached you cannot see the opportunities that emerge during the contest. It is therefore important to move in training beyond practicing set moves and structured technique training. What is required is training sessions that enforce flow, improve timing and rhythm on attack and on defence. It is not something that can be explained; it is almost sensory in nature; it’s a feeling for timing, space, depth and rhythm that the player develops through prolonged exposure to the competitive environment. You cannot master it if you don’t have sound fundamental skills. This is hard to accomplish in individual sports and even harder in team sports and this is why developing combinations is so important in a team sport like rugby. It is the next level and is the reason why it takes most athletes 10 years of competing at the highest level to reach super star status.

Now let’s look at some other strategies and how it relates to mental openings, set-up openings and openings in movement with specific referring to to some of the S15 teams.

Dominating the floor

You can totally dominate a fight using body movement without throwing a punch or kick at all. It’s all about how you use your upper body for instance leaning forward presenting a target and then leaning backward the moment the opponent attacks. You can dominate by constantly breaking the square-off (more about this later) or by fighting close when the opponent is fight wide or visa versa.

Rugby teams try and dominate the floor by arriving first at the line-out/scrums and by taking up position on the mark. They try and dominate the floor with early hits in the scrum and in the line-out with opposing hooker, prop or No4 lock holding his hands in the air.

Winning the contest at the breakdown is another way to dominate the floor. This year the Highlanders are doing well because they dominate at scrum and line-outs and with numbers and explosive hits at the tackle area. The Crusaders –like the All Blacks- dominate with numbers, speed and explosiveness at the tackle area. They blow you off the ball when you attack. When they attack they blow over and then move the ball wide with speed and long passes away from the contact to the edges to prevent to opposition from taking the initiative. This way they dominate tempo and possession.

The Crusaders are also very aware of openings at the start of movements and will smother the pods the moment it starts to form. They are quick to start attacks when penalties are given and will target certain scrums and line-out at specific times. When they sense a mental relaxation or a pre-occupation with trying to initiate a set move of a line-out or scrum they will target that particular scrum by swinging it or by getting an early hit when the scrum forms or by a prop dropping a shoulder and taking the scrum down. They will also sometimes at critical moments rush-up in defence to smother a planned movement. This all contribute to winning the psychic energy battle and to frustrate and break the opponents rhythm. They like to call it “Make them work for everything; give them nothing for free”.

South African teams try and dominate with size and with the rush defence and at set piece but are less skilled in all the other finer arts of dominating the floor as mentioned above.

Counter punching

Counter punching is a learned skill. The block and counter attack becomes one movement. There is no delay between the block/deflection and the counter strike. It takes hours of practice, precise timing and a certain amount of courage in execution which for the outsider almost looks like reckless kamazi behaviour. Timing, anticipation and technique have to be precise but the key ingredient is the explosiveness of execution. There can be no hesitation and you have to do it at the precise moment the attacker starts his strike (punch or kick).

The Crusaders and in particular the Frank brothers specialise in this; they are extraordinary in timing, anticipation and explosive execution. They don’t tackle and then counter ruck. The tackle and blow-over counter-ruck is one movement; they deflect you down and ruck over you in one movement of total commitment. What makes it so effective with Crusaders is that the next player will clear the ball away so fast that the ball goes through three set of hands while the opponent are still trying to push the Franks brothers of the ball.

Deception/feinting attack

This method is used against counter punchers or people that rush at you. You draw them into countering and then you counter on their counter. You feint an attack; waiting for the opponent to come at you and then you deflect his strike or move offline and scores.

This is what Quade Cooper does; he’ll drift, hop, skip and step – upward, side wards even backwards- in attempt to draw the defenders out of the defensive line. If he can’t step past you after having drawn you into the tackle he’ll grubber the ball through the gap or off-load/flip the ball to a team mate which then runs through the gap.

In karate if you want to attack the head you’ll feint low to elicit downward block from the defender so that his head is unprotected or visa versa. Head movements, hip movement, hand and foot jerks can all be used as feints and Cooper utilizes all these techniques to draw the defenders in one direction.

The bulls last year have used a pod standing wide to feint a point of attack with Danie Rossouw then coming through on an angled run running into the space between the ruck/maul and the pod (wonder why they haven’t tried it this year). Wynand Olivier scored a few tries last year coming through on the inside of Morné Steyn drifting sideways.

Sonny Bill Williams scored a try against the Bulls this year with him and Berquist both drifting in unison in opposite directions before changing direction into the gap thus created (I wrote about this in my previous post with a link to the video). Dummy runners, flat and deep alignment of no12 and 13 are all ways to feint something while doing the opposite. The kiwi and Aussie team are good at this a result, I believe, of exposure to league rugby.

Anticipation

Anticipation is something the seriously good competitor develops. He can sense what you are going to do and strike at the instant before you move. Owen Franks’ T-bone tackle on Flip v/d Merwe is an example of anticipation. It was at the beginning of the move and the bulls were predictable because they were so pre-occupied with their own attack that you could see from a mile away what they are going to do.

Good defenders and attackers have outstanding anticipation skills. They are so tuned in that they beat you with ease because they move in on your attack before you even start to move.

Good off-loads require a certain level of anticipation. Anticipation is a learned skill and can only develop with the right type of training. If you don’t practice it you’ll never learn it. You have to do specific drills to develop this skill and you have to work with a training partner you cannot develop it training in isolation all on your own.

Constantly breaking the rhythm or square-up

This a technique you use when you face an opponent with great striking power of set piece like lineout and scrum. You would then constantly try and break their rhythm; swing the scrum or use short line outs and quick throw in. This is what the Aussie and NZ team use against us. The question for our teams is how do we break their rhythm? What is their rhythm is probably the first issue that needs to be addressed and then one can consider ways to offset their game by not allowing them to get flow.

In Karate is you are facing/combating a tall opponent with fast hands and feet who wants to square you up so he can strike at you the first thing you do is to never allow him to square you up. The moment he square you up you break the square-up by moving backwards or by circling away; this frustrates him. After a while he loses patience and starts rushing into attack at an inappropriate time; this open up defences because he is throwing punches and kicks when he is too far away or while you are moving.

He either starts telegraphing or throws infective punches and kicks resulting in him struggling to maintain proper form and balance in recovery making him vulnerable for a counter attack.

The kiwi teams seem to use this a lot while I can’t really recall the South African teams doing this sort of thing namely using strategies to frustrate the opponents and to prevent them from developing flow on attack. Our (the SA teams) approach still seems to be to try and slow the game down by dominating set piece and kick for the corners.

I think SA rugby has caught up to international rugby –after the isolation years- in many regards but we seems slow to adjust to rule changes and are still very naive in our approach. We are too predictable and not cunning enough; still not thinking outside the box. There are many ways to outfox opponents and it’s not always the strongest and fastest athlete who wins it is the athlete who is able to outsmart the opponent who is often victorious. My feeling is we are a bit old fashion in this regard we want to win with brute, strength and power and see being cunning as strategies for inferior athletes.

I think most South Africans (except maybe Stormers supporters) are somewhat disappointed with the way our Super Rugby teams are going this year. New Zealanders (Crusaders fans excluded) are also not particularly over the moon with how their teams are performing. The Chiefs is almost bottom of the log. The Blues is somewhat better than previous seasons but far from consistent. The Canes is sort of all over the place. The Highlanders is the surprise package for the Kiwi’s but just a few injuries short off coming apart. They lack depth in the squad and everyone in Kiwiland is holding their thumbs but not expecting them to go all the way. 

The Stormers has an impressive win/lose record so far but is not really all that impressive in terms of ability to score tries and string phases together and the general perception is one of well they look OK but I’m not really convinced. The backline play is sort of average and they don’t really show lots of flow.

The Aussie sides are also far from consistent with the Reds by far the best performing team in that group.

So what to make of it all? Are all the teams just poor this year or are the differences between the teams so small that none (except for the Crusaders) are really running away with the competition?

Personally I have difficulty sometimes (mostly because games are played late at night in New Zealand) to stay awake. I also have no difficulty walking away from the matches without even a second thought on what actually happened. I also note at blogland, all over, an intriguing lack of comments about the rugby as compared to previous years.

Maybe everyone (players and spectators) are just saving themselves for the high excitement that is due with the Rugby World Cup and regard Super Rugby this year as of almost zero importance. I personally don’t care who wins the Series this year. In fact I would be more than happy if the SA teams don’t do too well because that might contribute to the Springboks being a little more focussed and aware that SA rugby is behind the ball game.

What I take out of Super Rugby this year – and from this weekend’s game between the Bulls and Reds as a classic example – is that the game has changed since last year’s Tri-Nations. The game is faster and with the new breakdown rule interpretation, a set piece centred game plan is just not enough to win matches against good teams. You can’t slow the game down unless you hang on to the ball and it is hard to hang on to the ball if you keep on trying to smash it up against the big guys.

Off-loads and pop-up passes from the ground is the new thing, as a result of the defender having to roll away. Attacking in depth is also the newly accepted style becuase it allows the supporting runners to receive the pop-up passes. With the ball carriers attacking space, it is almost impossible to win matches by defending for 50-60 minutes of the time. Angled running in the backline also took on a new dimension. The ball carrier and supporting runners work in unison; both first drawing the defenders away from each other by angling their respective runs in the opposite direction and then stepping towards each other into the opening thus created. The ball carrier gets himself between the defender and the ball and flip the pass to the receiver coming in at speed. Sonny Bill Williams’ try against the Bulls is a classic example of this new type of backline play. See on this link how the Crusaders flyhalf, Berquist, hinted at going in before going out (there was also a dummy runner for him and for Sonny Bill to confuse the defence) and passing. See how Sonny Bill goes outwards at first and then inwards, coming through past the inside of Wynand Olivier.

There is also a move away from flat aligning backlines.

• The flyhalf is still aligning flat, with a dummy runner backing him up, which forces the opponents to keep an eye on him (the flat aligning flyhalf also allows his halfback / scrumhalf to snipe around the fringes because the loossies have to watch the flyhalf so closely).
• Number 12 aligns behind a dummy runner slightly deeper but can come in flat to keep the opponents guessing.
• The rest of the backline is aligned much deeper and attack with speed from deep.

This creates space and speed on attack. It also allows the attacking team to take the ball – with long passes – away from rush-up defenders. Only rarely do you see teams like the Reds and the Crusaders bash the ball up against the big defenders in the middle of the park. They take the ball away from contact and run onto it at speed.

The game has changed and the two teams doing best in Super Rugby this year (Reds and Crusaders) are the two teams who have adjusted best to these new styles and who has players who can play this modern type of game.

Following them we have a group of teams who sit in the middle because they have adjusted how they play (Sharks, Stormers, Blues, Highlanders) but lack real talent or depth in the squad for the new type of game – in certain positions – or have not totally embraced the new style. It is interesting that complaints about obstruction at the breakdown – as was the case aginst the All Blacks last year - have been raised about Reds after this weekend’s game against the Bulls. The new game require explosive blow-over technique at the tackle area and the Reds and Crusaders are particularly good at this.

Lastly, we have teams struggling (like the Bulls, Waratahs, Brumbies, Hurricanes) because they still play last year’s game, have coaching problems or just don’t have enough talented players in key positions to play the new game. The Brumbies is interesting because the’ve always played a string-phase game but relied on the talents of George Smith to protect and recycle the ball. They’ve lost Smith and with the tackler now needing to release the ball carrier they seem to struggle to adjust as they have never been a numbers to the breakdown team. The Waratahs has sort of similar issues as their “fetcher” was Phil Waugh and he is not only getting a bit heavy but seems to be not in the game anymore. It is the props and centers who do the clearing out at the tackle area in the modern game and the Crusaders with their big centers and low-center-of-gravity but extremely mobile props certainly have the best players in Super Rugby for this type of style in the required positions to clean-out and blow over.

Lastly, I think Fourie du Preez will be a lot more influential in the modern game if he has a flat lying flyhalf which require the attention of the opponent’s loose trio.

Well that’s sort of my observations at this stage. 

They made complaining an art form. Almost all reports of the 1976 tour -especially the fourth test- starts and ends with a grumble about the refs. The whining began round about the third match, picked-up in intensity after losing against WP and spiraled out of control after the loss against Northern Transvaal and then reached heights of stratospheric proportions after the fourth test defeat.

No one showed-up at Jan Smuts to wave the All Blacks farewell; no doubt fed-up with all the bitching, complaining and the super superior know-it-all-attitude of this Kiwi tour group regarding South African rugby, refereeing and how the country should be run. Maybe I am over re-acting a bit here but it is hard to fathom how the South African public, media and rugby board could have maintained high levels of positivity regarding this All Black team when one reads how they reacted after the fourth test defeat.

One get the impression that this ’76 team –if not the team then at least the kiwi media- was so busy analyzing South African politics, people, referees, and rugby that they forgot to pay attention to their own game. Very little mention, if any, is made of the fact that this team lost 6 out of 24 games; that they couldn’t kick a penalty even if their lives depend on it; that they totally relied on individual brilliance to score tries, and that they lacked depth in a number of key positions.

This team lost the fourth test and the series because they struggled to construct tries. They scored two tries in the fourth test thanks to the individual opportunistic brilliance of Sid Going and came close on two occasions thanks to the opportunistic individual brilliance of Bruce Robertson. In the second test Joe Morgan received a lucky packet try through some awful Springbok midfield defense. In the first test Jaffray scored after opportunistic individual brilliance by Grant Batty. In the third test Bruce Robertson scored a controversial kick-through-try -thanks to a series of mistakes by the South African wingers- but the team was glaringly unable to manufacture a try in that test; in fact they were so incapable when moving the ball down the backline that Johan Oosthuizen scored the winning try from a ‘intercept’ when the ball bounced off Kit Fawcett’s shoulder on the one occasion they did try to run the ball.

This fact –that they couldn’t construct a decent try in the test matches and against the better provincial sides- is never mention whenever you read about this ’76 All Blacks. The main trust during interviews with players and in reports about this tour is how they were cheated by Gert Bezuidenhout; how poor the South African referees were; how South African rugby was relying on kicks and penalties to win test matches and how the kicking game dominated in South African rugby.

The Springboks traditionally play a structured 10-man style rugby and stayed true to this style in ‘76; Bosch did dominate this era with his kicking; the referees probably were a bit one eyed; the white population were creatures of Apartheid propaganda but this ’76 New Zealand team did not deserve to draw the series just because they played well in the last test. In spite of Bosch and our kicking game South Africa constructed two brilliant tries in the first test, missed out -thanks to a great Peter Whiting tackle- on a outstandingly well constructed try by Boland Coetzee in the second test and scored a well thought out try by Klippies Kritzinger in the fourth test.

See the near Boland Coetzee try in the second test here and noticed how the boks created the opportunity with innovative backline play against decent defense; by holding onto the ball, and by changing the point of attack on at least three occasions during the sequence of play.

The All Black pack was the better forward pack in the fourth test. They dominated in scrums, line-outs and at the rucks –especially in the second half- but the team was inherently flawed in its ability to build tries. Every time they played decent opposition (Western Province, Northern Transvaal and Free Sate) this inherit flaw cost them the match. They had close encounters against Transvaal and the Quagga-Barbarians due this same flaw and only won those matches thanks to some awful kicking by Bosch (Transvaal) and some opportunistic tries by Williams (Transvaal) and Joe Morgan (Babaas).

After having read three accounts by New Zealand authors of this series I have to conclude that the New Zealand reports of this series are just as unconsciously biased and flawed in accurate analysis of New Zealand rugby than they report South African referees and rugby to have been. The great Terry McLean alluded to this fact on a couple of places in his brief about this test match –and at some other places- in his book “Goodbye to glory. This is what he writes about the fourth test with specific reference to the rugby the All Blacks of ’76 played:

They died by their own hands, that was the inevitable verdict. True, Bezuidenhout was unconscionably incompetent in at least three incidents which undoubtedly turned the game –and the series- to South Africa.

He then goes on and elaborates about everything Bezuidenhout did wrong with emphasis on the two times that Bruce Robertson was obstructed from scoring; the South African lifting tactics in the line-outs; and the final penalty against Bush –who was nowhere near the ball- for barging in the line-out.

A penalty which Bosch converted and which won the test and series for South Africa.

He also mentions that quite a number of prominent South Africans including both the English and Afrikaans radio commentators (Chick Henderson and Gerhard Viviers), John Vorster and Danie Craven admitted that the second obstruction of Bruce Robertson should have been a penalty try.

After all this he comes back to the way New Zealand played and their post-match whining:

Such a pity, the caterwauling; because it did distract from the fact that Going twice failed with attempts at conversations by slicing across the line of flight like a golfer hitting from the outside in –the wind was with him, they were kicks as easy (if, to be fair, any goalkicks in any test match are easy) as the two he missed in the Third test; that Williams twice missed downwind two admittedly full-length kicks, one of which Bosch knocked on under his own bar; that Leslie seriously misread the situation at the Kritzinger scrummage; and that worst of all, the All Blacks took until the second half, having taken the wind in the first by choice, before they began to exert their talents in running the ball away from the giant Springbok pack.

After explaining that Williams and Going should never have been allowed to handle the goal kicking he opinionates that the All Blacks did not inspire confidence running with the ball. That was so even though Robertson was clearly the star back in South Africa and the fact that Williams was still –even though lacking the speed he showed in 1970- very dangerous with ball in hand. The All Blacks also persisted with a “curious childlike belief in the value of midfield trusts”, according to McLean. He continuous:

These (midfield trusts) looked glamorous. But the looks were no better than skin deep. Morné du Plessis, often playing forward of the last line of feet, and Whipp and Oosthuizen formed a triad of defenders even the genius of Michael Gibson would seldom have beaten. These three, with their sever tackles, were the principal instruments of South Africa’s admittedly slightly murky glory. They had ardent supporters in such as Boland Coetzee, ever a faithful hand, and in Germishuys; and, of course, with Bosch to hand, they were assured that at the right opportunities there would be right reactions.

McLean also has this paragraph in his narrative about the fourth test:

So to the darkness of disputation and defeat by the All Blacks. Their press conference the next day, which was taken by Stanley, John Stewart and Leslie, was a rumble and grumble of discontent. Forty-eight hours later, when they reached Auckland, the All Blacks exploded. Re-exploded might be the more apt word; they had been going off like rockets since no-side. Nothing would persuade them that they had been unfairly deprived of victory. Stewart made damning statements about South African Rugby which winged over the wires to the press of the Republic and which, looked at there, left no very favorable impression of Kiwi sportsmanship.

The velocity of Kiwi grief after the match was so overwhelming that Springbok complaints were totally ignored, swiped off the table as totally irrelevant within the “larger” issues (read kiwi grousing) at stake. Nobody wanted to listen, consider or debate the validity of South African complaints that Bezuidenhout’s fixation –because of kiwi moaning and groaning after the previous test- with preventing a repeat of the front row collapsing in the 3^rd test actually nullified any Springbok advantage in the scrums. 

The Kiwi goalkicking deficiencies and the refereeing controversies aside, the fact that the tourists won so much usable ball, had so many try scoring opportunities yet failed to convert possession advantage and opportunity -in both the first and last test- into tries remain the most perplexing feature of this tour. Even more perplexing, for me, is the denial or inability of the kiwi rugby scribes to see and acknowledge this fundamental flaw (inability to built or construct tries and tactically adjust against good opposition) as the primary reason why the class of ’76 lost the series against South Africa. 

18 September 1976 – South Africa 15 / New Zealand 14

The All Blacks did not impress after their loss in the third test. They won two mid week games (Upington and Kimberley) but did not really outshine weak opposition. They also looked lethargic and got drawn into some hustle and bustle in both games raising question about their focus and psycho-emotional equilibrium after 24 weeks on tour. They also lost against Orange Free State (15-10) in their only Saturday match. This gave rise to serious doubts about their ability to draw the series as they did not impress as a team which possessed the necessary motivation, cohesiveness and desire to take on a Springbok pack that dominated them in the third test.

The All Black test selection featured several changes to the line-up. Duncan Robertson was back on fullback after an uninspiring performance in that position in the first test. Two star performers during the second test namely Doug Bruce was back on flyhalf with Kevin Eveleigh replacing Ken Stewart on the side of the scrum. Frank Oliver was in at lock in the place of Hamish Macdonald for consistent good performances during the tour and a sterling game in Kimberley. Kent Lambert switched to loose head allowing Billy Bush to regain his place at tight head prop.

Dawie Snyman who did not impress in the second and third tests was replaced by Ian Robertson in the Springbok team. The big surprise and talking point was however the inclusion of a clearly overweight and unfit Klippies Kritzinger in the place of Theuns Stofberg.

Teams

Where the scatting criticism and nationwide condemnation motivated the Springboks to a pitch in the third test the backs-to-the-wall situation confronting the All Blacks inspired one of the most courageous efforts by an All Black team in a final test of a four test series in South Africa.

There can be little doubt that the supreme post-match disappointment and supreme reaction exhibited by the team was directly related to the supreme effort they made to lift themselves to honor the supreme pride and respect they harbored for the traditions of their All Black rugby heritage. The All Blacks pitched-up and the result was that the rugby they dished-up was by far the best of the series. The New Zealand forwards in particular produced a performance that far outweighed the efforts by the backs. Terry McLean writes:

The New Zealand game plan warranted a deep examination because it suggested that the players had gone into the match not quite geared to its demands. So was wasted the mighty work of the forwards. At the line-out, they lagged 6-10 at the half. At the end, they had won 18 to 11, a magnificent achievement. Strauss, the iron man, was no problem to Lambert, who, in his own right, was a bit of an iron man himself. Norton took two heels from van Wyk and, powered by a scrum to which every man contributed a quality much superior to the standard reached by the backs.

Whiting reached and delivered, Oliver, though much outweighted, was not outscored by de Klerk, and among them the back row men, Eveleigh, Leslie and Kirkpatrick, finished the game just short of exhaustion because of their valorous following, tackling, mauling and rucking.

This was a mighty display by the forwards, one of the great events of the tour, and it was a grief and sadness that it was not suitably rewarded. But then, if a team in a test does not take its chances, who should it blame? The referee, as the All Blacks did, to a man, did? Or themselves, which they failed to do?

The Al Blacks took an early lead when Going slipped blindside from a scrum near the left hand touchline after outfoxing Paul Bayvel with a dummy pass. He advanced several meters before Gerald Bosch got hold of his right arm but he was able to shift the ball to Norton as Bosch pulled him down. Norton gave two steps before pushing the ball to Kirkpatrick in the open wearing number 4 on his back. Kirkpatrick running hard sidestepped to his left a few yards from the goal line and went over close to the corner flag with Moaner van Heerden and Ian Robertson crashing in short like two 747 Boeing’s coming in too fast and too steep without their landing gear on.

See the Kirkpatrick try here.

Bosch landed a superb 40 meters drop goal two minutes later to put South Africa on the scoring sheet.

Neither side where able to achieve dominance in the next 20 minutes with play ebbing up and down on the field. After 30 minutes Going slipped around the open side from a maul close to the Springboks goal line and ducked again under tackles of Boland Coetzee and Kritzinger to score about eight meters from the right hand corner flag. The conversion taken by Going was unsuccessful.

This series of pictures shows Sid Going scoring his try after 30 minutes of play in the first half by ducking under Coetzee and Kritzinger.  

See the Going try here.

Going almost scored a second try but slipped just short of the tryline after breaking past Gerald Bosch as this picture shows.

It was near the end of the first half that the Springboks scored their one and only try from a scrum close to the left had touchline and only meters away from the All Black goal line. Klippies Kritzinger, who had swapped places with Morné du Plessis for this scrum picked-up the ball and surged over Eveleigh’s ankle- high tackle and swiveled his heavy frame through the arms of Doug Bruce and Joe Morgan to score. Bosch converted the try for South Africa to take the lead 9-8.

This sequence of pictures shows the Klippies Kritzinger try. The ‘boks outwitted the All Blacks at a 5-yards scrum to score this try. Krizinger packed at No8 and with the All Blacks focusing to prevent a blindside move. Kritzinger picked-up and crashed on the open side through the tackles of Kevin Eveleigh, Doug Bruce and Joe Morgan to score. 

See the Kritzinger try here.

Williams missed with a 50 meter penalty shortly hereafter and just before halftime Joe Morgan almost repeated his second test try. From a scrum Morgan sliced between Bosch and Whipp but was wrapped-up by Boland Coetzee five meters out.

Six minutes into the second half Doug Bruce landed a left foot drop goal after spinning around from an ill-directed Going pass. Two minutes later Bosch landed another penalty awarded against Billy Bush for South Africa to regain the lead 12-11.

Bruce Robertson who was involved in two obstruction incidents which should have resulted in at least one penalty try according to the Kiwi and most spectators for that matter which include the radio commentators (Afrikaans and English), John Vorster and Danie Craven.

There was 26 minutes left on the clock when the most controversial incident in this match that would ultimately also define this tour and series ensued. From within their own 10 meter area Going went left putting Bryan Williams in space. Williams chipped ahead and Kevin Eveleigh running up in support re0gather the ball. Eveleigh ran a few meters and inside the Springboks 10 meter area throw a long netball-like pass to Bruce Roberson at full tilt. Roberson chipped ahead, the ball bounced and sat-up neatly about 1 meter from the goal line. Robertson had a clear run to the ball with Springbok cover defense at all sort to try and beat him to the ball. Just before Bruce Robertson could re-gather the ball Johan Oosthuizen (some sources reckon it was Ian Robertson) on cover defense held him just long enough around the shoulders for Peter Whipp to get to the ball first and dot it down. The All Blacks in person of Ian Kirkpatrick demanded a penalty try but referee Bezuidenhout only awarded a penalty. The International Law Book is quite specific: “A penalty try shall be awarded between the posts if, but for obstruction, foul play or misconduct by the defending team, a try would probably have been scored.”

This picture shows Kevin Eveleigh passing the ball. Eveleigh was the man who put Bruce Robertson in space in the move that led to the “infamous” Bruce Robertson-obstruction-incident in the fourth test.

Bezuidenhout maintained that he did not see the incident but the legitimate question by the All Blacks was why a penalty then and not a 5-meter scrum for Whipp carrying the ball over. In order to award a penalty he must have seen the incident.

See the Bruce Robertson obstruction incident here.

Both Robertson’s (Bruce and Ian) was involved in another obstruction incident which according to the Kiwis should have been a penalty try as well. The other incident was in the first half and was nowhere as clear-cut as the one in the second half. Doug Bruce chipped ahead and Robertson following through nudged the ball over the tryline. Bruce Roberson had a clear run to the line with no Springbok close enough to beat him to the ball. Springbok fullback Ian Roberson coming from the right -also on his way to the ball- bumped into Bruce Robertson inside the Springboks 22-meter area throwing him off balance for several strides just long enough for Chris Pope to pass them both and win the race to the ball.

See the first Bruce Robertson obstruction incident here.

Due to all the rouse about the penalty which should have been a try scarcely a word was said about the violence in the game. Batty had a go at Morné du Plessis early in the game and got a good clip later on for being a nuisance.  

This picture shows Grant Batty coming of second best against Morné du Plessis in the fourth test.

True to form Moaner van Heerden did not steer clear from the nasty stuff. Moaner picked-up a wicked cut on the head, not, by accident one have to presume but was also involved in a fist chase in front of the main stand that evolved into a free-for-all punch-up. Word is Moaner head butted Kirky who took offence and chased him down the sideline swinging wildly with both hands while Moaner tiptoed backwards like a ballerina. As the Moaner/Kirky tangle started to quiet down Busch ignited another rally by pushing Strauss hard in the back. Lambert threw the best punch putting Kevin de Klerk down on the ground with a sweet right hook on the chin.

This picture shows the free-for-all stage just after Bush pushed Strauss hard in the back.

The Moaner/Kirkpatrick tangle can be seen here.

Piston van Wyk’s nose and cheek were strained with blood from a cut over the right eye as can be seen in the picture below. This was of course an accidental cut and not purposefully inflicted and had nothing to do with Norton winning the heel against the head contest 2-0. Piston and Tane Norton clearly liked each other as can been seen in the picture below.

A bleeding Piston van Wyk staring down Tane Norton (top photo). Norton won the tight head contest 2-0 making a statement that the ‘bok scrum was not all as superior as was thought after the third test. The Springboks had their own thoughts about that and argued that the referee nullified their scrum advantage with his obsession to prevent front row collapses.

Kevin de Klerk getting lifted in the line-out. The All blacks totally dominated the line-out in the second half –after working out de Klerk and starting to use the same ‘cheating’ tactics than the Springboks- eventually winning the contest 18-11 after having trailing 8-10 at half time.

Morné du Plessis getting out foxed by Terry Mitchell. Du Plessis formed a rock solid defensive line with Whipp, Oosthuizen and Boland Coetzee in the midfield nullifying the All Blacks constant attempts to punch holes through the midfield.

Four All Blacks that had a major impact on the ’76 tour. Top left is Frank Oliver. Top right is Peter Whiting. Bottom left shows Kent Lambert and Bottom right Kerry Tanner.

Run of play

Bosch was successful with all his attempts at goal. Williams missed penalties from 43 and 47 meters. Going missed with both conversion attempts.

Video footage summarizing the first half of the fourth test can be seen here.

Video footage showing the second half of the fourth test can be seen here.

Here is something really hot. Too hot to handle. If she was a rugbyball I would have had real sympathy with the bulls for spilling the ball everytime the go in to contact (that sounds real suggestive I know) but this is not the hot potato I want to write about. I have an issue with the SA rugby players inabilty to control the ball when they go into the collisions.  

This weekend revealed the problem with South African rugby to be hot potato-ittis. The old disease of spilling the ball forward in the tackle took on epidemic proportions in the South African teams. The bulls in particular were spectacularly awful in this department. It was also prevalent at crucial moments in the Stormers match although not so frequent.

The Sharks had similar problems the previous two weekends against the kiwi teams and I got the distinct impression that the Kiwi teams are targeting the ball in the tackle as a counter measure for the power play tactics of the South African teams.

This counter-power-play-tactic of the kiwi teams, in particular, work because South African teams try and barge through opponents instead of attacking space.

Coaching my u/11 boy’s rugby team one of the fundamentals of kiwi rugby I’ve picked-up is to coach players to step into space before they hit contact. The players learn to step of the line (sidestep away from the defender and then into the defender) just before taking the ball up. This technique has a number of advantages.

One, it prevents T-boning like what happened with Flip van der Merwe against the Crusaders.

Two, it allows the ball carrier to get his body between the defender and the ball; consequently preventing the opponent from tackling in on the ball and dislodge it.

Three, it allows the attacking player to either off-load or have a supportive player -running on his outside shoulder- taking the ball out of his hands before the ball goes to ground.

Lastly, stepping off-line before you hit contact pulls the next defender out of his defensive channel as an automatic reaction to the attacker moving into space. This breaks the defensive line and that is why a flip off-load will put the next ball carrier into space.

Go and study replay’s of the Sonny Bill and Crusaders off-loads and you’ll notice that in the majority of instances they (SBW and Crusaders) step off the line just before making contact. This wrong foots the opponent and allows the ball carriers that split second too offload.

The cure for the hot-potato-ittis disease of SA rugby is simply to teach the players to step into space before they hit contact. The Crusaders also use angled runners to attack space and these angled runners are normally the ones that either punch the holes or offload at the moment of impact.

Even the pods -though it requires some practice- can work with this step off-the-line tactic. One way to do a pod and a step off the line is for the attacking team to charge up in numbers. The ball  carrier step off the line, next player take the ball with rear support to force him through the gap. If the gap opens up for the first supporter then his rear support player are in position for a offload, pass or to support in the next contact.

Other than that I thought the bulls didn’t show-up for the match mostly because they didn’t think they can win the Crusaders in New Zealand and the Stormers suffered from the age old destroyer of teams and players namely Grootkop-ittis.

Shocking was the similarities in body language -before the match and during the first 10 minutes- of the Stormers players and those of the Springboks at the start of last years tri-nations test against the All Blacks. That swagger and carry of shoulder and head that indicate I am something special and this will be a walk in the park because we are SOO GOOD was nauseatingly prevalent at the start of the Stormers/Reds match.

One of the primary things that happen with grootkop-ittis is the shift from an internal focus to an predominantly external focus resulting in players not concentrating on primary tasks but playing for the pavilion. This is of course Bryan Habana’s problem too; evident with his little throw-up of hands and head shaking when he make a mistake. He make mistakes because he is busy playing for the spectators namely too concerned how it looks rather than focusing on the task at hand. The result of this playing for the pavilion for the Stormers this weekend was three yellow cards and 30 minutes with 14 players on the field.

The Stormers/Reds game also hinted that tactical kicks are still important in the modern game. When two teams match up in terms of set piece, work rate at the breakdowns and defense then your tactical kickers still seems to determine outcome.

Genia and more specifically Cooper won the tactical kicking battle comprehensively against Duvenhage and Grant. The Reds didn’t allow the Stormers to dominate the breakdowns as was normally the case against all other opponents this year and Grant and Duvenhage needed to step-up and unfortunately that didn’t happen. The result was that Stormers lost the territorial battle and the penalty battle.

I’ve been impressed with Grant so far this season and a dictating performance this weekend would have seen him step into my slot as first choice Springbok flyhalf. What I like about Grant is his ability to grow and improve other than Morné Steyn who seems to be stuck in yesterday’s model of flyhalf play. Hopefully Grant will emerge from this with some better understanding of his importance when his team struggle to attain dominance at the breakdowns.

Overall, the Bulls look like a team on the down while the Stormers looked like a team just a little too sure of itself needing a wake-up.

Cheetahs showed some real fighting spirit against the Highlanders and impressed with their creativity with the ball in hand.

Lions had their moments in the first two or three matches this year now it’s back to the same-old, same-old scenario of being gutsy losers. Sharks as usual impressed against the weaker teams but I haven’t seen anything that suggests they’ll be able to win the big guns come next time round.

Wayne Gray wrote an interesting article (Prelude of things to come in World Cup) in the New Zealand Herald about the Bulls victory over the Hurricanes. Here are some extracts:

Fast forward to October. The All Blacks want to play a fast-paced, ball-in-hand style of rugby at the World Cup.

The Springboks will favour muscular confrontation and an aerial bombardment if they adhere to recent comments from coach Peter de Villiers, who wondered why his side should vary much from the attritional, combative style the Springboks had used with success in annexing two World Cups.

Late-night kickoffs, greasy conditions, rugby under increased sudden-death pressure and lights – they are conditions favouring a kicking game unless your interplay is spot-on.

The Bulls favoured their regular kick-chase template at Napier on Saturday night when they surged to a handy halftime lead which allowed them to withstand the second-half rush from the Hurricanes.

The spine of the Boks side was on show – Morne Steyn, Fourie du Preez and Pierre Spies – the brains-trust and hub of their formula backed by the muscular power of Bakkies Botha and aerial genius Victor Matfield.

Tack on a belligerent defensive attitude and you are not far short of the Springbok template.

Add in the best players from the unbeaten Stormers and the feisty Sharks, tweak the patterns and the Boks become a rugged unit.

He has the following on the All Blacks in the Hurricane team:

The Hurricanes looked bewildered and uncertain – hardly the portents for a successful outcome.

The pack, apart from Jack Lam, Victor Vito and Andrew Hore seemed ineffective and the heat was transferred to their backline. They earned little change as well.

The back three of Cory Jane, Hosea Gear and Julian Savea underwent many catching tests with varying rates of success, not really the impression they want to deliver in their quest for All Black honours.

Gear looked likely on his return after a lengthy injury, Jane appeared uncertain and Savea has not started with any great accuracy.

The heat this week from the Bulls will go on three more contenders for the black uniform – Israel Dagg, Zac Guildford and Sean Maitland- when they play against the Crusaders.

Dagg and Jane are in a mighty scrap for international fullback-wing duties while Guildford and Maitland are well placed to make statements this weekend.

And they won’t die wondering. If anything is as certain as death and taxes, it is the kicking focus from the Bulls.

Here are some responses by New Zealanders on this article:

It is interesting that as usual there is complete silence in the media on a pretty ordinary game from Conrad Smith. He barely featured at all. To say that Cory Jane had an “uncertain” game and then not even mention Smith’s performance is ridiculous.

Why he gets a free pass from the media all the time is beyond me. Everyone is always searching for excuses for him – sure, he doesn’t beat his man and his passing is nothing spectacular, but the backs are just “better organized” when he’s there. Whenever the backs play well, it’s “because of the guiding hand of Conrad Smith.” Leave aside the fact there is no evidence of that I ask this question – wouldn’t it then be fair to place the blame on Smith when the backline is disjointed, like it was in this Hurricanes game?

I think the media should take a hard look at whether they are praising Smith because of his performances, or because the reputation that they have built for him. Ask yourselves – when was the last time you saw a standout performance from Smith (based on his own play, not on the vague statement that he somehow makes the backline better).

The bulls were very efficient but they were allowed to be, this Hurricanes side is the worst in the franchise’s history – and that’s saying something!

How Mark Hammett managed to get that job without any obvious credentials will forever be a mystery.

As can be seen from the last statement Mark Hammett is also under extreme pressure at the Hurricanes.

One scribe writes:

The appointment of Mark Hammett to coach the Hurricanes in 2011 was rash in terms of suitability.

After a comparatively brief stint as assistant Crusaders coach, a certain panic was involved in giving Hammett the top rugby job in Wellington.

After missing out as Crusaders head coach to Todd Blackadder, Hammett was seriously chased by the new Aussie franchise, the Rebels.

The Canterbury hard man gave every indication that he was keen which in turn, prompted NZRU chief, Steve Tew to hastily offer him the Hurricanes role aimed at quashing the risk of losing a senior coach to Australia.

Consequently, Hammett accepted Tew’s offer and Wellington’s incumbent, provincial coach Jamie Joseph, who wanted the Hurricanes position was moved sideways to the Highlanders.

Well everything is clearly not nice and cosy in the land of the Silver fern. Nonu is apparently emotionally at the lowest he has been in his career. The Chiefs and Hurricanes have had poor starts with the Highlanders and the Blues with reasonable starts. The Highlanders is definitely the surprise package of the tournament so far while the Crusaders seem to be a step above everyone else.

What is clear, for me, from the responses this week is that the pressure is beginning to mount and that there is already questions about how the AB should approach the WC tournament.

Gone is all last year’s hype about the “New Style of rugby” the All Blacks brought to the table with the pundits starting to ponder whether shifting to winning rugby and away from being stylish and flash as the best strategy for the WC.

It will be interesting to see what happens next week after the Bulls/Crusaders game. A win by the bulls might see this view (play to win and not to shine) getting more support. My gut feeling is that the Bulls are going to lose badly and that will bring even more debate on how the All Blacks should play.

Personally I can’t wait for the Stormers/Crusaders game. That match has the potential to provide some indication how the Springboks should approach the All Blacks this year.