It always intrigues me how partial and narrow-minded some of the New Zealand rugby commentators can be. The constant criticism of South Africa’s style of play and the ‘drooling’ over the New Zealand expansive game is something that irritates me immensely so as if there is only one way to play rugby and as if New Zealand has the perfect game.

It was consequently quite interesting to notice how New Zealand stop trying to play the ‘expansive’ game and reverted back to the bash-up style of playing in this last tri-nations test match. It was also fascinating to notice how these bias New Zealand commentators were making no mention of the fact that New Zealand was doing exactly what they did in 2007 against France when they choked.

Well if New Zealand didn’t choke in this last test then I don’t think they will ever choke. I wonder how many people have noticed Richie McCaw instructing his team to take deep breaths (leading by example) while making signs with his hands indicating that he wants them to calm down.

They were like hare in the headlights. Totally clueless and in total disarray for the entire first half. In the second half they reverted to the old style All Black rugby –like in 2007 against France- of bashing it up in channels 1 and 2.

The old ‘stampkar-rugby’ of the early 1990.

While this was going on the commentators called it coming back into the game. Well to give them credit they did come back but it took so much effort that by the time they drew level they were emotionally so drained that Australia had no problems scoring the last try.

New Zealand is at the moment in total shock. Not because they lost but because they choked yet again. They couldn’t handle the pressure. Finish and klaar.

We in South Africa know this. We know that the only way to beat the All Blacks is by putting their halfbacks under extreme pressure and by dominating the breakdowns. The Aussies took a leaf out of our book and copied what we did in Port Elizabeth namely giving the halfbacks no space.

The excuse after the PE test was of course that it was not the All Black A-team. Carter and McCaw and 7 other A-team members did not play. So the worrying factor for the AB after the defeat in Brisbane is that it was the frontline players who choked and who got totally annihilated at the breakdowns.

There are a number of concerns after some weak spots in the underbelly have been revealed. The major concern is the choking. The inability of players like Gilford, Jane and Mills Muliana to handle the pressure and the incapacity of the pack to turn it around and the disheartening performance of the loose forwards was shockingly revealing of just how vulnerable this ‘invincible’ All Black side can be.

The loose trio that played in this match just didn’t fire. Kieran Read is a shadow of what he was last year while Thompson has peaked to early and is deteriorating game by game. Richie McCaw is clearly past is best and not the factor that he used to be. They now sit with both Read and Thompson injured and with a sevens player Vito as back-up.

The tight 5 was also not so dominating at the breakdowns and set piece as last year and there must be some serious concerns about the form of Brad Thorn and Ali Williams. The back-up props in the squad did not convince at all.

Another concern must be the counter defensive system that has emerged for the decoy runners the AB’s use to spread the ball wide. Both SA and Australia have utilized an umbrella defensive pattern to smother the players waiting wide to receive the ball with long passes behind the decoy runners. Faced with this it was again, for me, shockingly revealing how unable Dan Carter is to dictate.

Carter disappear when his halfback is struggling and when he has to play with back foot ball. Carter has yet to convince me that he can take a game by the scruff of the neck and run the show when his team is struggling; not having it their way.

Referees and opponents have wise-up regarding the AB tactics at the breakdowns namely of storming past the ball and the blocking of the incoming runners of the opposition. Referees are also more aware of the NZ tendency to take supportive players out by driving in on them from the sides of the rucks.

Suddenly the spectators in New Zealand are complaining about unfair refereeing at the breakdowns. Specifically, about the fact that NZ supportive players get penalised for not entering the ruck through the gate when they are forced to run around obstructing players (players that have charged past the ball and then position themselves between the ball and the incoming NZ supporting players like they tend to do) to join the ruck.

The mind set of invincibility has been severely challenged by these two losses. The reality of the ‘choking’ phenomenon reinforced and there is real concern regarding lack of form and back-up depth in certain key positions.

Personally I am not convinced that NZ will be able to come up with something new and suited for one-off RWC matches. I am waiting in anticipation to see how the brain trust of NZ rugby is going to handle the situation because make no mistake the rest of the world have adjusted to how they play.

At the very least these two defeats have thrown the RWC tournament right open making it a far more interesting spectacle to look forward to.

Can NZ win this year? Well they must still be the favourites but I think the rest of the world especially France, England, South Africa and Australia now believe they can be beaten. There is more than just hope now; there are two video tapes that can be used as a blueprint on how to go about beating the All Blacks. 

Team selections and game plan for the last Tri-nations test

The Springboks are at risk of a white wash (losing all 4 Tri-nation tests matches) for the first time in tri-nations history.

Desperate times. Indeed. Is it possible that there is actually some plan/strategy behind the team selection for this tri-nations test? Can Piet twakkies strategize?

The teams for this match are:

South Africa:

15 Pat Lambie, 14 JP Pietersen, 13 Jaque Fourie, 12 Jean de Villiers, 11 Bryan Habana, 10 Morne Steyn, 9 Fourie du Preez, 8 Pierre Spies, 7 Willem Alberts, 6 Heinrich Brüssow, 5 Victor Matfield (captain), 4 Bakkies Botha, 3 Jannie du Plessis, 2 Bismarck du Plessis, 1 Gurthro Steenkamp

Substitutes: 16 John Smit, Tendai Mtawarira, CJ van der Linde, Danie Rossouw, Ashley Johnson, Francois Hougaard, Butch James

New Zealand:

15 Israel Dagg, 14 Isaia Toeava, 13 Richard Kahui, 12 Sonny Bill Williams, 11 Hosea Gear, 10 Colin Slade, 9 Jimmy Cowan, 8 Liam Messam, 7 Adam Thomson, 6 Jerome Kaino, 5 Ali Williams, 4 Samuel Whitelock, 3 John Afoa, 2 Keven Mealamu (captain), 1 Tony Woodcock

Substitutes: 16 Andrew Hore, 17 Ben Franks, 18 Jarrad Hoeata, 19 Victor Vito, 20 Andy Ellis, 21 Piri Weepu, 22 Cory Jane

South Africa’s team selections were in all probability inspired by a need to give some returning players (after injury) game time before the RWC.

Nevertheless, the 5/2 forwards/back split on the bench and the fact that Beast Mtawarira, John Smit and Danie Rossouw are starting off the bench might be indicative of South Africa’s game tactics or at least might be a refreshing new angle on an out-dated and way too predictable game plan and substitution policy.

Truth be told you don’t need to be a genius, oracle or octopus to predict how South Africa is going to play the game.

What I do find interesting is the fact that we see a deviation from normal policy to play returning players who need game time from the bench. Normally Pieter’tjie will start with the inform players and only bring the returning players on the field in the last 20 minutes or so.

Intriguing is the fact that John Smit and Beast Mtawarira starts of the bench while Alberts and Bismarch starts with Brüssow. Gurthro Steenkamp is clearly not going to last the match and neither is Alberts, Bakkies Botha and Jannie du Plessis.

There seems to be some strategy behind this and I would venture that the game plan is something along the following lines.

Keep it tight and start bringing fresh legs on in the tight five within the first 10 minutes of the second half. The fitter and more mobile props namely Beast and CJ as well as the game fit Danie Rossouw and playmaker Ashley Johnston will be introduced in the last 40 minutes of the game when the All Black normally pick up the pace. The plan clearly, to use these substitutions to keep up with the pace of the game. Replacing the entire frontrow and one lock as well as one losse forward an attempt to not loose any form of sort of control we might establish up front.

Bismarck, Brüssow, Alberts, Bakkies Botha and Gurthro start to prevent the All Black from establishing early dominance at the breakdowns. Bismarck and Brüssow are our best pilfers while Gurthro, Bakkies and Alberts normally do well in driving the attackers back in the tackle. If these guys do their bit we can prevent the All Blacks from getting flow and scoring some early tries.

Alberts, Gurthro and Bismarck (and Spies sometimes) are also good at taking the ball up and creating front foot ball. If we can force a few penalties in the first half and get Morné to kick a few drop goals while preventing the All Blacks from scoring tries by disrupting them at the breakdown we will be in with a change when the fresh legs come-up in the second stages of the second half.

Johnston, Danie Rossouw, CJ van der Linde, Hougaard, John Smit and Beast Mtiwarira can potentially make impact in the last 20 minutes and with Butch then on flyhalf we can ensure that the backline play flatter on the advantage line and more direct. 

This approach also ensures maximizing leadership on the field in the last 20 minutes with Smit coming from the bench. 

I am not sure if Pieter’tjie actually planned it this way but the more I think about it the more I feel that this is an interesting even modestly refreshing variation on our normal team selections and substitution approach which might potentially impact positively on how the boks play on Saturday.

It is still the old game plan but with slight variation in cavelry. 

Alberts, Bakkies, Gurthro, will be tasked to drive the AB’s back in the tackle while Bismarck and Brussow will try and steal the ball. 

Stopping the AB flow would be essential to achieve a win. 

Other than that Gurthro, Bismarck, Spies and Alberts will be used as runners to set it up or to punch holes. 

The boks have no choice they will have to stick with what they’ve always done and try and find the players who can enforce their game plan effectively.

Changing the game plan now to try and beat the AB with expansive rugby is absolute madness. 

Best way to counter someone who is best with a particular style is to do the opposite. 

Enforce a different rhythm or structure onto the match which will not allow the opponent to play the way in which he/she is best. 

You can’t beat the best in the world with their own game. You need to throw them of balance and force them to play in a way in which you are better or that disallow them to play their natural game. 

After having said all that I am not sure we can play in way in which we are better than the AB’s at the moment. Even if the play a 10-man type game they will probably still outplay us. 

Our chances of beating them are however better, in my opinion, if we can prevent them from running with the ball. 

We have the backs out wide in Pietersen, Lambie, Habana and JFourie to score tries but not enough structure at the breakdowns to play an expansive game. 

Our ball retention when we ruck it up and our ball handling skills in the back line have been absolutely horrible so far this tri-nations. 

Last week against the Aussies we created try scoring opportunities but were not aggressive enough at the tackle area to benefit from our breakaways. Players try and pick the ball up instead of blowing over and clearing the defenders out.  We will have to improve in this facet of the game if we want to score tries. 

Our best chance in scoring tries, I believe, will be to use starter moves from set piece. Moves that involve Habana, Lambie, Alberts and Pietersen running onto the ball like the try JP Pietersen scored against the Lions from a lineout. Another option would be offloads or quick pick-ups after punching holes with angled runners or pods. For instance use Alberts and Spies to punch the holes in channels 1 and 2 after set piece and then offload to Habana, Pietersen and/or JFourie coming though at speed. 

We have the team to beat these All Blacks but lack proper coaching and I also believe our players are not fit.  Some look genuinely overweight while others look extremely rusty. 

Are these players still hungry enough to win a RWC? In the final analysis it is the player/team who wants it most who lift him/her/themselves emotionally to physically do whatever is required. We were hungry in 1995 and in 2007 after isolation and having done so badly in 1999 and 2003. 

The current players have all already won the biggest crown in world rugby. Are they still hungry enough? Looking at the physique of some of the players I tend to see mostly a state of ‘overfedness’. 

There is a bit of a public hysteria at the moment in South Africa after the first two Tri-Nations Tests this year, specifically because of the way the Springboks lost in both these games. 

I don’t think any Springbok supporter will ever be happy with ‘throwing’ Test matches for the sake of a ‘larger/bigger’ objective. However, this is exactly what happened in 2007.

Pieter de Villiers is bargaining on his senior players to redo what they did in 2007 and he and his management team are obviously following the Jake White script in preparation for this year’s Rugby World Cup. 

In essence the senior players were rested to be ready for the World Cup. Professor Tim Noakes reckons it is too little too late and that it will require a heroic effort from the senior players to regain the trophy, due to the general state of fatigue in the squad. 

There are concerns also about the fact that these senior players have only achieved one style of playing and that the 2007 pattern of high kick and charge (keeping it tight while dictating with halfbacks) will not be enough, due to the way the game has evolved over the last years. See this article in the Cape Argus. 

I have my concerns too but after studying the Rugby World Cup pools and looking at the Springbok’s probable opponents during the quarters and a semi, I think the 2007 style might just take them right to a semi-final, at least.

The Springboks are in Pool D and will play teams like Fiji, Samoa, Wales and Namibia. The hardest opposition, without a doubt, will be Wales and Samoa with Fiji having the ability to surprise with their razzle and dazzle style. The Springboks will need to keep it tight in all three those games (Wales, Samoa and Fiji). Dominate the lineouts and kick the ball into the stands so that they can’t use quick lineouts and run at the Bokke. It will be territory-driven games; pin them down in their own half (between the goal line and the 10-meter line) and box them in against the touch line. Against these opponents the 2007-style should be sufficient, I believe, and the Springboks should be able to top their World Cup pool or secure at the very least a second place with the 2007 style. 

If the Springboks top their pool they’ll play Ireland in the quarters and the 2007 style has proved to be effective against them during last year’s End Of Year Tour. If the Springboks end second in Pool D, they will probably play Australia in the quarters. In a one-off Test I believe the senior Springboks can beat Australia (and possibly New Zealand) with the 2007 style and I’ll explain why a little later, but let me first complete my discussion on the possible route the Springboks will follow to a semi-final. 

Scenario A after the Pool games: Springboks end 1st and then beat Ireland.  

If the Springboks reach the semi’s after having beaten Ireland, they’ll most probably come up against New Zealand in a semi. It now becomes a one-off game where the winner goes to the final….  and anything is possible in such a match. More on how the Springboks could beat the All Blacks a little later. 

Scenario B after the Pool games: Springboks end 2nd in the Pool and then play Australia.  

If the Springboks play Australia in the quarters and win, they’ll face either England or France in a semi. The 2007 style has brought us a comprehensive victory against England during last year’s End Of Year Tour and I believe the Springboks should beat France with that type of game as well.

In essence, the only two teams that really play the expansive game with aptitude are the Australian Wallabies and New Zealand All Blacks. The rest, like England, Wales, Samoa and France are inherently “wannabe expansive” teams which can be shut down by a team who manage to dominate them at set piece and at the breakdowns. Expansive rugby is not England’s natural game and if you dominate them up front –like the Springboks did during last year’s End Of Year Tour- they fall into disarray if and when they try and play expansively, whilst on the back foot. Wales and Samoa like to play expansively but do not have the set piece strenght and structure at the breakdown to back it up. If you steal their lineout ball and deny them a right shoulder in the scrum and make it hard for them at the breakdowns they succumb to mediocrity. France has a reputation as a team that can play with flair but over the last 7 years they have adopted a very England-like style of playing. They don’t have the flyhalves, centres, wings and fullback they are reknowned for, who could lift the pace of the game in the wink of an eye and ignite snow into hot sizzling and blistering magic backline play. Flair and razzle-dazzle are not natural for the current Frenchies anymore. 

Read here what Peter Bills has to say about English rugby. 

The only two teams on the planet that play naturally with expansive flair are the Wallabies and All Blacks. I therefore believe that if the Springboks play their 2007, typical Springbok game – with conviction and precision all the other “wannabe expansive” teams will be very vulnerable against the Springboks, especially if they try and throw the ball around whilst having back foot ball. They key for the Springboks is to stay 100% focussed and not allow the game to open up, even for 1 second, against the likes of Wales, Samoa, and Fiji and to dominate England and France at the breakdowns and set pieces.   

Whether the Springboks win their pool or end second in their pool, they’ll have to go through either the New Zealand All Blacks or Australian Wallabies to reach the final. 

Considering the pressure, emotional psych-up and the high emphasis on defence which accompanies the World Cup quarter and semi-final matches it is almost a certainty that these matches will not be expansive games. It will most probably be tight, structured matches with low risk-taking game plans. This of course will suit the Springboks if they bring their A-game to the park.

So how to beat Australia and New Zealand?

The All Blacks has just provided us with a blue print on how to beat them and the Wallabies. 

The All Blacks use an umbrella-style rush-up defensive system. They have developed that in order to counter the midfield ”Pods”. There is usually some space on their wings but you can’t play lateral and try to exploit that space out wide all the time. That was the mistake the Wallabies made last weekend in the 3rd Tri-Nations match of the year; too much lateral running by Quade Cooper in an attempt to draw defenders and thus creating openings and/or to exploit the space out wide. 

The Kiwi’s didn’t fall for Cooper’s lateral running and subsequently going out of line in the defensive lines, like the Springboks did; they just drifted with him and forced him to try and use long passes to get the ball wide. His lateral running closed down the spaces out wide and he then compounded the problem with long passes, which allowed the Kiwi’s to easily drift to cover the outside backs. Tight fast defence is key against the Wallabies. They had the majority of the ball and great territorial advantage but never looked like they could score against the All Blacks. You need to tackle them behind the advantage line and stay in line on defence, to force Cooper to only move laterally. 

Against the All Blacks you need to stay direct and it is essential that you mix it up all the time in terms of using pods and angled runners close, then taking the ball wide via decoy runners. The All Black umbrella rush-up defenders in channels 1, 2 and 3 has the potential to leave openings in the All Black defensive line. If you rush-up you essentially go out of line, so this is a potential area of weakness the Springboks could study and target. To exploit those openings the Springboks need to shift the ball quickly from the contact points and then use angled runners coming through with speed. Once the balls are won in the lineouts or scrums, shift the contact point quickly by passing it to a player or pod standing flat (to get the rush-up defender committing to contact). Flip the ball then, before making contact, to a fast angled runner coming through the gap left by the rush-up defender. Variety with this approach and traditional general attack will be key because once you become predictable the All Blacks will start covering the holes. 

The Springboks need to change their defensive pattern against the All Blacks. They’ve only ever won against the All Blacks when they have employed a rush-up defensive style which closes down the space and time of the halfbacks. Jimmy Cowan and Piri Weepu need to be put under extreme and constant pressure and need to be forced backwards in every tackle. Weepu, with his low center of gravity, has been the Springbok downfall on a number of occasions when the Springboks had actually played really well against the All Blacks. The Springboks need a solid pair of flankers that can take him back in the tackle and force him to the ground before he is able to offload. Take Weepu or Cowan or whoever plays halfback out of the game and the All Blacks become vulnerable. Alberts, Spies, Schalk Burger and Juan Smit can potentially dominate Weepu and Cowan. 

The All Blacks latest style of attack is one of avoiding contact close to set pieces. They use decoy runners to get the ball wide and then utilize offloads in the tackles in the midfield and outside channels. They station props and locks out wide to run in on the offloads and in so doing force through the little guys out wide, specially when close to the goal line. When they ruck the ball up in channels 1 and 2 they do it with speed and commit multiple players to the breakdown to blow over with impact and then move the ball wide briskly by means of long passes.

The only way to counter this is by putting pressure on their set pieces and their halfbacks and more importantly by playing the game deep in their 22 meter area. Dominate them territorially, give them poor ball and stop their rhythm by forcing them back in the tackle.

The pressure of the situation and the fact that the All Blacks have a bogey on their back of ‘chocking’ in the World Cup, is the Springboks biggest ally in a semi-final or final against the All Blacks. Too maximize the benefit, the Springboks need to make sure they:

1. Play the game in the All Blacks 22 meter area.
2. They take an early lead and then keep the pressure on.
3. Stay in contact with the kiwi’s on the scoreboard as the game progresses. 

The enormity of the situation and the fear of losing will naturally inhibit the Kiwis from running with the ball in the semi-final or final. If the Springboks lead on the scoreboard or are in close contact (within 7 points) the All Blacks will naturally be very fearful of trying something outrageous . Imagine the outcry and extreme public rejection if a player like Israel Dagg tries something spectacular and it goes very wrong, leading to a match winning try against them in a semi-final. Ask Jeff Wilson what happened to him after the All Blacks muck-up in 1999. 

If the Springboks can pin the All Blacks down in their own 22-area, tackle them behind the advantage line and take an early lead or stay within close score board contact, the All Blacks will be very, very careful and avoid opening the game up, therefore be too conservative and they will be very vulnerable. However if they get ahead by more than 15 points they will get more adventurous and daring and therefore more lethal.

The worst thing the Springboks can do is to try and run the ball expansively against the Wallabies and All Blacks in the World Cup. That is not to say the Springboks shouldn’t have starter moves or set moves aimed at punching holes in order to score tries or that they should fail to use their backline. 

Pressure and structure at set piece and the breakdowns, as well as precision tactical kicking, coupled to aggressive defence behind the advantage line, could take the Springboks all the way, I believe.  

Might be wishful thinking, on my part, but I still have hope that the Bokkies can do it.

Sorry but I just can’t put a positive spin on this most embarrassing performance by the Spirngboks. The All Blacks were in total control. They won the lineout battle; they totally dominated the breakdowns; they pushed us back in the scrums any time they wanted; they chose to not do so for large parts of the match because it was not neccessary but their scrum was as solid as a rock . The dominance they enjoyed up front was just one of the reasons why we couldn’t exert any pressure whatsoever on Jimmy Cowan. 

We were woeful on defence and apart from John Smits try and the one rush by Danie Rossouw and Chiliboy’s run we never really looked like we could score tries. It was all planless and flap flap in the back line everything done way behind the advantage line.

The All Blacks on the other hand scored almost at will and their brilliant sixth try from set piece (lineout) summed-up the ease at which they ran through us.

We were better in holding on to the ball than last week against the Wallabies but that is about all. Kruger, Greyling did very little other than scrumming. You never saw them at the breakdowns (go check on rugbystats) and the ease at which the All Balcks pushed us back in the first scrum, at the breakdowns and the solid right should they got to produce their first try says it all in terms of how poor these two ‘strongmen’ perfromed in this test.

But go here to read and watch my video analysis of this match.