Monthly Archives: April 2012

The day Rhodesia beat the All Blacks

Posted on by
29

There are a host of international teams like Scotland and Ireland not even to mention second tier test nations like Canada, USA, Italia and Argentina who have never beaten the All Blacks. Wales have beaten the All Blacks only three times; the last time being in 1953. In general the only teams really able to foster some occasional wins against the All Blacks are England, France, Australia and South Africa with the latter being by far the most successful in this regard. 

The fact that Rhodesia (now of course Zimbabwe) have once beaten the All Blacks are therefore something really unique and says a lot about the state of rugby in Southern Africa at the time this occurred namely in 1949. The fact that South Africa also white washed the 1949 All Blacks 4-0 in the test series leaves the impression that it was a weak All Black side which is something most rugby scribes strongly reject.  Continue reading →

Some thoughts on the Stormers / Crusaders match

Posted on by
10

Everything considered a really entertaining match with both teams leaving nothing on the park. The Crusaders was in the final analysis just that slight bit tactically more astute and probably a bit more desperate for a win.

All credit though to the Stormers for trying hard and one would hate to be critical after such a splendid effort. That said I was keen to see just how the Crusaders are going to counter the Stormers’ defensive system and there is much to be learned by dissecting just how they (the Crusaders) accomplished this victory. Continue reading →

Sharks – steps-up with urgency and directness

Posted on by
9

Generally speaking it was a much improved performance by the Sharks though it against an embattled Blues team. The main difference, this week, being the greater urgency on defence and on attack. The blues are not a happy bunch with coach Pat Lam this week burtsing in tears on national television when questioned about his opinion regarding remarks that the blues problems relate to the high number of Maori and Pacific Islanders in the team. There was also Kevin Muliamu who opinionated his unhappiness with Weepu’s physical condition. So this victory need to be considered against that back drop whether the Sharks like it or not.  

It was a close shave to be honest with slightly more positives than negatives hence the victory. 

Positives being more urgency all over notably better line speed on defence and on attack. There was a lot less lateral running in the backline mostly due to McLeod cleaning quicker form the base without his habitual lateral drifting towards his flyhalf and secondly due to Lambie straightening the backline up.  There was some luck involved with the first two intercept tries but those two tries I though was also due to the greater urgency on defence. The last two tries were two well-constructed tries; no luck there. Better defence in channel 1 was another positive. 

Negatives were the tendency of being too upright when driving the ball up especially in the first half as well as the tendency to loose structure in line-outs and scrums in the first half. Not playing a tactical game when leading in the second half; more tactical game management was required by Lambie and/or McLeod in the second half with the sharks clinging to a slender lead. High tackles in the backline especially by Pietersen resulted in some missed tackles out wide.  Not playing in the first half but trying to defend a lead being another negative. The inability of the back three to create chances is still a concern. To be brutally straight forward the only two players who created something (example off-loads and line-breaks) for team mates were Keegan Daniels and Craig Burden with Lambie and Tim Whitehead also producing some occasional line-breaks.  

In the final analyses I have my doubts whether there is enough cohesiveness at the attacking drives and enough authenticity and speed out wide on attack. I also have my concerns about structure and dominance at the defensive breakdown so I find it hard to be optimistic that this 2012 Sharks team can go all the way. 

However, its early days and with the S15 this year going until August Naas Botha’s famous remarks -after a shock Northern Transvaal loss- that the Currie Cup is not won in April might be applicable at this stage.

Time for Cheetahs to man-up

Posted on by
17

I believe the Cheetahs to be the second favourite team of almost every South African not living in the Free State.

When they do get it right they play a style of rugby that no true rugby lover can resist. They are also I believe the biggest disappointment in terms of playing to true potential in the S15 for most South African rugby supporters. Most frustrating is the fact that they are so extremely competitive in the Currie Cup year after year and then they just fall flat in the S15.

It must be a case of lack of mental believe; that real believe that you are good enough to beat the NZ and Aussie teams on tour. This year they went out and won some matches on tour.

However the win’s -like previous years at home- come on the back of opponents underestimating them. Sort of surprising the opponnents. It’s one thing to score a surprise win; it’s another thing to beat teams that show you real respect and come at you well prepared and totally focussed.

I have real hope that the Cheetahs are busy shedding that mental inferiority complex that they’ve been harbouring over the last 10 years. The true test will be whether they can keep on winning matches now that the opponents are not underestimating them anymore.

The Chiefs will show them some respect and this will be the true test of their mental toughness. Will they man-up and believe enough in themselves to beat the Chiefs when the Mooloo boys show them some real respect and come at them with real focus and with all guns blazing?

It is time for the Cheetahs to stop fading when the going gets tough and to man-up; time to show mental toughness. Time to start going into home matches with an attitude of I’ll rather die but I will not lose this match on my home turf.

Let’s hope the Cheetahs have finally arrived in Super rugby. This weekend I believe will tell.

Stormers – showing the way!

Posted on by
19

The Stormers have shown yet again exactly how to beat New Zealand sides.

The Highlanders play classical New Zealand rugby; a style that is almost entirely focussed on the breakdowns. Personally, I’ve been much impressed by the Highlanders structure, commitment and tidiness at the breakdowns since Jamie Joseph took over as coach in 2011.

They (the Highlanders) commit numbers to the tackle ball and drive over in unison creating pressure with their ability to force the opponent on the back foot with relentless presence, pressure and dominance of the trenches. On defence this dominance of the breakdowns -with superior numbers and structure- create either turnover ball or provide slow and poor ball for the attacking team. On attack they pull the defenders in by punching holes in the midfield with their loose forwards charging in bent over fashion into channels 1, 2 and 3 just to recycle and repeat the process until they create fast front foot ball. From this base they send the ball either wide using long passes and decoy runners or snipe around the fringes.

The Stormers simply took them on at the breakdowns forcing them back at each and every collision countering the Highlanders core strategy in no uncertain terms.

On defence the Stormers rushed-up in a line and made sure they tackle either on or behind the advantage line relying on each individual to do his part in driving the ball carrier backwards or to turn the bal carrier. Turning the ball carrier slows the forward drive down mostly because the ball carrier can’t leg pump anymore but also because the supportive incoming ruckers need to check their lines of entry. Part of this turning-strategy is also to keep the ball carrier on his feet; not forcing him to the ground before he has been turned. An additional benefit of this turning-strategy is that it prevents offloads because to turn the opponent you need to tackle in on the opponents arms and lock the ball in and of course by turning the ball carrier you close down the offload channel. This tackle strategy allowed the Stormers to commit less players -rarely committed more than 3 players- to the tackle. In occasion where they did need to commit more than 2 players the tacklers were in most instances on their feet and thereby able to quickly fan-out and take-up new position in the defensive line. 

In essence they did not try and win turnovers at every tackle but rather focussed on keeping the defensive line intact by pushing the ball carrier back and by fanning out. They only went for the turnovers when it was really on; clearly considering it more important to force the attacker backwards than trying to contest for the ball on the ground.

It is an approach that makes perfect sense once you start to think about it. It reduces the risk of getting penalised or to get pulled into the rucks at the tackle and it stops the attackers from getting front foot ball. Furthermore the attackers are due to eventually spill the ball -going into contact- or to drop passes if they are constantly driven back at the collisions.

This strategy saw the Stormers stifle virtually every Highlander charge into the midfield which as a consequence provided poor recycled ball to the halfbacks culminating in poor/wild passing and dropped passes. The Stormers tries resulted from this pressure.

The Stormers also put the Highlanders under pressure in the scrums and line-outs making sure that their opponents receive mostly poor ball. The defensive approach described above is not new to the Stormers game as they did much of the same thing last year. What is new nevertheless is the Stormers improved srummaging ability and the contributions of the backs at the rucks.

The Stormers have yet again shown that presence, pressure and powerful tackling at the breakdown is the name of the game when you play New Zealand sides.

It’s a hard grind and not flashy but still the best way to beat the Kiwi teams.

Sharks – lack of intensity?

Posted on by
9

Sharks surely had their chances but lack of intensity on attack and defensive saw them slump to a humiliating defeat.

I would venture that the travel factor -after weeks on the road- played a significant role in this lacklustre performance. They started off well in terms of holding on to the ball but there was never intensity as they took the ball up. They look flat; no speed onto the ball; sort of just going through the steps right from the start and got even flatter as the match evolved. None of that never say die attitude that the Cheetahs entralled us with last weeks against the same opponents.

During the early part of the first half (and second half as a matter of fact) the Sharks dominated the possession stats with the Hurricanes having to make almost twice the amount of tackles. However there was a certain lack of concentration, intensity and team work as evidenced by the constant spilling of the ball, poor decision making on attack and lack of quick support at the tackle ball. They kept losing the ball in the tackle; they were slow in support at the collisions culminating in crucial turnovers; and they opt for taking the ball into contact on numerous occasions when there was actually space outside.

All the above as well as the constant flare-up of tempers indicate physical and mental tiredness. I believe the approach of most teams is to try and win at least one match on tour and secure bonus points in the remaining matches. The Sharks having won their previous match against the Brumbies rested some of their big guns in this match indicating that they either underestimated the Hurricanes or sort of didn’t mind losing the match.

It was a disappointing performance by the Sharks altogether especially because they looked to be the better coached side. The Hurricanes –as was the case last week against the Cheetahs- scored mostly individualistic tries and have not convinced me that they can actually built tries. The sharks on the other hand clearly have that ability (to construct tries) but lack of intensity and concentration saw them bumble numerous opportunities.

One of the Sharks biggest problems in this match was the defence in channel 1. As the match progressed the Hurricanes exploited that weakness (poor or slow defence in channel 1) and in so doing were able to break through the Sharks defensive line on a number of occasions with ease scoring as a consequence some flashing tries without really constructing it through a process of builiding phases and pressure. Lucky packet -almost undeserved- tries made worse by a dubious TMO decision with Conrad Smith’s try. McLeod and Michalak and the openside flanker were late and as a result mostly ineffective on defence in channel 1.

Another problem the Sharks seem to have is that they run too laterally with the ball in the backline and lack real pace in the back three. Mvovo is the only one in the back three that belongs in this team, in my opinion, the other two have not shown anything to me that suggest that they have the flair and/or ability to create tries or opportunities for team mates. Whitehead (the No12) was the only one that ran straight and did show some nice acceleration and directness but was mostly skipped because of Michalack’s tendency to throw long passes to the outside.

The problem is Michalak habitually drift sideways after receiving the ball from McLeod who always seems to be running at least 5 steps laterally towards his flyhalf before he passes the ball. Pietersen on the outside also seems to favour the outside break which mostly doesn’t work because the defence has already been pulled laterally by the drifting McLeod and Michalak.

A disheartening week for the Sharks but the result of the travel factor and management (resting) of some key players (I hope).

Slow is fast with coaching

Posted on by
7

 

This weekend that was I went on a coaching course with a group of players. The course was generally speaking very informative. We rotated through different stations doing basic handling, rucking, tackling and kicking drills with lots of feedback to players and coaches. 

 

At the end we played a game (10 players on each side) called touch and ruck. It is a really nice way to enforce some basic skills at the young age groups. Players learn about maintaining the offside line, to go up in a line on defence and on attack, to touch with both hands (essential to learn that you need to punch through with the arms when you tackle), to rip and place and to clean-out at the rucks.

 

One of the things that did annoy me during this touch and ruck game, however, was the session leader’s obsession with players holding the ball in both hands when they run with it. He constantly blow the boys up (resulting in turn-over ball) if they ran with the ball in one hand.

 

Now I can understand the need to learn to protect the ball when you go into contact and that having both hands on the ball allows you to pass to either the left or right side.

 

However, any natural runner with a rugby ball will tell you that they rarely have both hands on the ball. In fact they don’t even think (or know) what they do with the ball in their hands. Go and look at any footage of Danie Gerber and you’ll see that he rarely have both hands on the ball. It is unnatural to run with both hands on the ball. This is the reason why some forwards can’t handle a ball properly and why we see one dimensional if not poor handling skill with some senior rugby players. You can’t focus on holding the ball in both hands and play heads-up rugby at the same time.

 

If players need to be able to handle the ball with one hand (or at least the ability to move the ball from one hand to the other) once they start playing rugby why this initial hair-splitting about carrying the ball in both hands? 

 

Over coaching is sometimes as bad as no or poor coaching. My believe is that you should work on something if a player have a problem with it but to change Sony Bill Williams into somebody that carry the ball with both hands will kill his authenticity and reduce him to just another average player (which some might think he is but that is not the point here).  

 

Finding balance between allowing the player to express himself and running a tight structure is probably the hardest thing to do when you coach or manage any group. Identifying the things that you need to be strict on and those things that you can ease up with is maybe the first step in being a good parent, coach or manager.

 

Danie Craven was too strict in 1956 and that touring group was extremely unhappy. The 1965 touring group management was not strict enough and that tour was a disaster. Peter de Villiers inherited the most experienced Springboks in the history of SA rugby and being a ‘nice’ guy did not produce the results we all wanted.

 

 

Some of the AB coaches like Vic Cavanagh and Fred Allan are interesting individuals/coaches to look at in terms of getting too grips on how to be strict and relaxed at the same time and I’ll delve a little into that in the weeks to come.

 

Cavanagh and Allen had this tendency to break things down into steps and to start by doing skills standing still concentrating on feet, hands, shoulder and head positions. Next step would be to go through the sequence in slow motion, then at walking speed before taking it into jogging and match speed pace. Attention to detail was key to their coaching. The All Blacks under Graeme Henry did the same at the start of the 2010 season and turned their fortunes around after losing against South Africa in Hamilton in 2009.

 

Jake White influence was the structures he brought into the team (at set piece) and the fact that he stuck with the same players. The impact of that was clearly evident every time we fielded a B-team even during his tenure in 2007 but especially during last year’s tri-nations. Rugby is a team sport and it’s about cohesiveness and team work and it normally takes a coach about two years to get his players to develop understanding and cohesiveness at rucks, mauls, line-outs, scrums as well as on defence and on attack. (so by the way Jake is showing once again that he knows what he is doing considering how much better the Brumbies are performing this year).  

 

It took Mitchell about two years at the Lions to win the CC but they are still not really there if one look at S15 results. Ludeke was a bit of a disaster in his first season at the bulls and the Stormers have been there and there about with Alistair Coetzee for the last four years but have yet to win the CC or a S15 trophy.

Slow is fast if it comes to coaching. Get the little things right before you move into the fancy stuff. I hope the public allow Heynecke Meyer the time to get his structures in place. The Springboks will probably yet again be stereotyped as playing boring 10-man rugby this year. That will be fine with me as long as we see structural progress from game to game.