A unified SA style – Is it realistic?

Newly appointed Springbok coach Heyneke Meyer says one of his greatest challenges will be to have the country’s Super Rugby franchises on the same page.

 

Meyer said on Monday that his ultimate aim would be for all the teams in South Africa to adopt a similar style of rugby.

 

In future I would like to install a national style of play and defence and all the attributes that go with it, and everybody should buy in,” Meyer said.

 

I am realistic and know you can’t force people to play the same, but there should at least be a common goal and places where you can touch base.

 

This brought me to the question is this possible at all and what is the typical South African style? I think what most SA teams have in common is the idea of dominating the set piece (scrum and line-out). Soften them up in the forwards before you spread it to the backs type of philosophy.

 

NZ has the same idea but for them it’s not about softening the opposition up but about dominating the contact points; you need to deserve the right to swing the ball. Get fast front foot ball first before you take it wide. So NZ developed over the years superior structure and skills at the breakdowms. They use the No8 (or one of the other loosies) to take the ball up and then have blockers, cleaners and sealers in place to recycle the ball and speed it up before sending it wide.

Lately under Graeme Henry they have also developed a style of sending the ball wide and attacking with the back three running with speed onto the ball. Most NZ franchises play like this namely dominating the breakdowns, punching holes with the loosies and sending the ball wide with decoy runners/blockers and then create play around the back three sometimes with a lock forward or prop standing wide (especially when close to the try line). The purpose of the lock forward or prop standing wide is to either secure the ball (clean out the tackler) when their attacking player get tackled or to receive the ball close to the goal line an crash through defenders to score. There is certainly a style in NZ rugby. Tony Woodcock and Ali Williams and Brad Thorne have scored a number of tries like that in both S14 and test rugby.

 

Look at this clip how NZ sends the ball wide utilizing blockers/decoy and double-up runners and then interplay out wide. Notice also the forwards standing out wide. In this case they didn’t use the forwards out wide but they are always positioned out there and ready to clean out or crash over.

 

Attacking wide with decoy runner’s video clip.

 

Australia under Bob Dwyer played more off first phase ball. They would attack with speed using first phase ball and then recycle quickly and repeatedly until they score. Look at this try as an example of the typical Aussie style: Jason little try.

 

Another thing that all Australian teams do well is the high Aussie football type kick that drops on the opponent’s goal line with attacking players jumping for the ball.

 

Bennie Olser and the 1937 Springboks have set the South African style of scrum them into the ground and then have a general at flyhalf that keep the ball in front of the forwards with long raking line and tactical kicks.

 

In 1952 Craven deviated from this strategy by starting to use fast loose forwards that link with the inside backs on attack. This was a highly successful approach and the 52/53 Springboks went undefeated through the UK and France. This strategy unfortunately didn’t work on the softer NZ grounds in 1956 and the ‘seagulls’ hanging wide was seen as one of the main reason why SA lost that series. It was a style that would have worked against the same NZ team in South Africa as 1949 and 1960 proved. What were needed in 1956 on the softer grounds were small adjustments to our rucking namely more structure and better control went we went into contact with the ball.

 

This style of fast loosies linking with the backs is typical Stellenbosch/province rugby. Remember those tries Rob Louw scored in the first and second tests against the 1980 British Lions. Northern Transvaal rugby has always been about scrum and line-out power with roll mauls of the scrums and from the base of the scrum.

 

Superior Springbok teams were teams that married the Province and Northern Transvaal style; solid set piece with some play off that and fast loose forwards that can link with the backs, in my opinion.

 

Meyer went on and said: “I would have loved to have started with an extensive planning session where we could put in a national strategy with the way we want to play, but at this stage it is a little bit late.

 

My main aim is to set a great working relationship with them because they see the players much more than I do, and that is why I want to go around and spend time and see what they are doing at the franchises.”

 

I think Meyer is spot on.

 

They way forward is too make small adjustments to the styles of the various provinces (Sharks, Cheetahs, Province, Lions and Bulls) with-out ruining their individuality. The Sharks play a mix between the Stormers and Bulls while the Lions under Mitchell are targeting the breakdowns like the NZ teams. The Cheetahs play counter attacking rugby; riding the opponents attack until they make a mistake and then pounce with speed onto that loose ball.

 

The one common feature all SA teams have is solid set piece (scrum and lineout) but lately we’ve lost our style of using fast loosies to link with the backs as well using our big forwards to roll maul the ball up (essentially keeping the ball of the ground). In one of our best games during the 2011 RWC namely against Fiji we kept the ball off the ground and used our forwards to take the ball up but off-loading to supportive runners coming from depth.  

 

A good grasp of the basics, Meyer said, would always be important in rugby, but he warned that South Africa needed to adapt to the law changes and new styles of play or be left behind.

 

One thing that will definitely change is the conditioning of the players,” he said.

 

“It is a longer season and there are more games, and the games are quicker and the ball is longer in play.

 

I think Meyer is spot on in this regard but we need to be careful not to try and play Aussie or NZ type rugby. Our strength is in our big forwards and we need to adjust to the faster game with-out neglecting that strength.

 

Interesting times ahead but I like what I’m seeing from Meyer.

‘56 Springbok tour – Southland

July 28, 1956 – Rugby Park; Invercargill 

South Africa 23 / Southland 12 

Southland hospitality was at play when the Springboks arrived in a cold Invercargill. Lavish entertainment including flights to the beauty spots in the South Island was laid out by the Southland Rugby Union. 

The rugby also turned out to be entertaining with the Springboks scoring 6 tries and the Southland forwards putting in a spirited performance against the heavier Springbok pack. Place kicking almost cost the Springboks the match while defensive lapses -due to injury to some senior players who couldn’t play- in the Southland backline saw the Springboks establishing an 11 point lead within the first 12 minutes of the match. 

As this cartoon indicates the Springboks had some real problems with their place kicking. They were able to convert only one of six tries and that kept Southland within reach especially in the second half when they came back strongly scoring their second try and forcing a few penalties. 

All in all it was an entertaining match that had the crowd involved and roaring in support for the home team. Two late tries secured the match for South Africa and gave the scoreboard a more respectable look from a South African perspective. 

Teams and individual performances 

Southland had a formidable team in 1956 and an even more formidable record against touring international teams, having beaten all of them except South Africa. Fullback Jim Millar had played for the South Island as had halfback Jack McKenzie, who had also been an All Black reserve. Arthur Woods, the hooker, toured with the All Blacks in 1953/54 and Kevin Laidlaw (No12) was destined to tour with the All Black to South Africa in 1960 playing in three of the four test matches. Murray Miller the lock forward who captained the side was an experienced campaigner and played in the 1956 All Black trials.  Continue reading

1971 Springbok tour – First test

July 17, 1971 – Sydney Oval, Sydney 

South Africa 19 / Australia 11 

Not much is available about this test apart from some Gerhard Viviers commentary (see comments section below) and brief descriptions of the Springbok tries. There were two changes to the South African team who played against France earlier the season at home.  

Morné du Plessis and Hannes Viljoen got their first caps in the places of the injured Tommy Bedford and Gert Muller. The South African team can be seen in the table below. Continue reading

’56 Springbok tour – Victoria Park, Westport; 25 July 1956

South Africa 27 /West Coast-Buller 6

Dominating in the scrums and line-outs has so far proven to be not enough for the 1956 Springbok team. Not even halfway thought the tour yet and they’ve already lost two tour matches namely against Waikato and Canterbury as well as the first test in spite of winning the line-out and scrums contests in each of these matches. 

The two main problems seem to have been; firstly, an inability to contest at the rucks/tackle ball; secondly, lack of polish in the backline. The lack of structure at the rucks and collision areas has been the main area targeted by the local team’s right from the Waikato match. The primary approach was simply to change the line-outs and scrums into rucks and then to charge through in numbers and/or to put the ball behind the Springboks with box kicks and then charge at the backs. 

This not only negated the Springboks dominance in the scrums and line-outs but it also countered the Springboks style of using fast loose forwards linking with the backs. The Springbok seagulls (loose forwards hanging loose) were seen by the knowledgeable rugby scribes as the reason for the Springboks problems at the rucks. Clive Ulyate’s tendency to overuse the tactical kick also were under increased scrutiny mainly because it took both the wide hanging loose forwards and the pacy Springboks backs out of the match.  Continue reading

Technical advisor????????????

I read that Rassie is apparently going to be the Springboks new technical advisor. Now I have a number of questions about such a supposed appointment and about the premature announcement.

Firstly, how do you appoint a technical advisor before you appoint the coach? Shouldn’t the coach have a say in this? For goodness sake these two people need to work together and the coach should at least have some say in the matter.

Some even suggest the ‘new technical advisor’ is in the UK at the moment to try and convince the ‘new coach’ to take the job. I find that bizarre and doubt whether it’s true at all. It amazes me that somebody could even make such a suggestion.

Secondly, why does Rassie have such a ‘high standing’ as a technical expert? What exactly did he do when to deserve that sort of standing? Who won what with him as technical advisor?

For the last two seasons Rassie have done very little if any coaching at all. If he is such an outstanding analyst why didn’t he help the Stormers in that regard during the last two seasons. Fact is Rassie was replaced as coach by Alistair Coetzee. Fact is the Stormers started playing better rugby under Alistair and that without (as far as I know) Rassie’s expertise as a technical advisor.

Now if the Stormers did not see the need to use him as a technical advisor why the hell must the Springboks use him? If he is so great why didn’t the Stormers use him? If the Stormers did use him why wasn’t it ever mentioned in the newspapers? One would think that such a ‘great technical analyst’ (I mean he is appointed or nominated even before a decision has been made who the coach would be) would have had such an impact that the newspapers would have picked up on his effect on the team.

Thirdly, Rassie has a track record of not getting along with other coaches. He is a bit of an eccentric and was even regarded by Laurie Mains as being depressive.

He was sacked as player by Laurie Mains and that huhaa also ended his international rugby playing career. He apparently had a big fall out with Alistair (although denied by Alistair but ‘waar daars ‘n rokie is daar ‘n vuurtjie’) and way back when he coached the Cheetahs there was stories that he left for the Stormers due to him and Naka not getting along.

Rassie has never been good with the media (not as bad as PdV but certainly not outstanding). He admits this with his statement that he doesn’t think he is old and wise enough to handle the media as Springbok coach.

So here we have a person with no clear credentials as a people’s person being appointed to direct a team and coaching staff how they should play the game. Is it just me or are the key and the lock just not a good fit here? 

’56 Springbok tour – Canterbury

 Canterbury 9 / South Africa 6 

This match was a turning point in terms of the media and public’s (in both countries) relationship with Craven and the 1956 Springbok team. 

Terry McLean writes: This was the day that Canterbury, for the second time in three encounters, defeated South Africa, this was the night that Danie Craven, after telling me that he was not a happy man, said a critical piece about refereeing in New Zealand, this was the week-end in which he made an official complaint about the quality of New Zealand refereeing and this was the succeeding week in which angry passions were stirred in the backrooms of newspaper offices, both South African and New Zealand, that the Grey River Argus felt impelled to say, Sour grapes, Dr Craven –very sour grapes indeed!  

The 1956 team was not a particularly happy touring group and struggled to find their feet right from the start of the New Zealand leg of the tour after losing the first match against Waikato. The Springboks had a hard time adjusting to the wet playing surfaces, the rainy/muddy conditions, the flat lying and rush-up defensive style of the New Zealand teams but in particularly with the kick and charge/marauding foot rush tactics of the New Zealand teams. The rucks were a nightmare for the Springboks and they were at loss how to counter the locals’ aggression, structure and ascendency at the tackle ball. Continue reading

1971 Springbok tour – Tour matches up to the first test

 The afternoon of the same morning they arrived from South Africa the Springboks played in their first game against a combined team of Western Australia in PERTH 

Charles Blunt the President of Australian rugby formally welcomed every Springbok with a handshake before the first match (see Picture below). 

 This picture shows Charles Blunt president of Australia rugby being introduced to the players by Hannes Marais before the first match. Here he shakes hands with Dirk de Vos.  Continue reading