England didn’t think about Plan B….
June 10, 2012 in International, Rugby, Springboks
It was quite apparant that the Springbok’s plan was clearly known to us, the world and the English before they even took the field. The predictable box kick approach with wings chasing up and trying to force errors was clear from the onset. And England had a plan to counter it.
Concerns were rife after the Baby Boks poor display against Ireland, mainly as a result of poor kicking from the scrumhalves from the backs of the ruck, that the Springboks will play a similar game. And I was close to nauseau when I saw that this was indeed, exactly what was happening. The pattern was clear: Set up the ruck, forwards exit to the backline, ball is left unprotected, England counter rucks and Hougaard can’t play the ball.
Alternatively, the Boks set up the ruck, they protect the ball well enough for Hougie to handle it. Hougie broadcasts his next move to the men sitting on Saturn, and the English employ the red scrumcapped Tom Johnson to charge down the kick from the side of the ruck. How offside or not offside he was is irrelevant. He did it enough times for it to seem legal, and just as with the baby Boks, this halted the planned route the Boks were trying to take.
Plan A didn’t work. Predicably so.
However, what was relieving, even though not entirely convincing, was the manner in which the Springboks tried to avoid the charge down at the ruck, to give Hougie more time to kick. Building a worm at the back of the ruck, frustratingly taking ages to play the ball.
The first half battle was saved by the tenacity of Willem Alberts and never-say-die defense of the Springbok backline. The halftime score was justified at 6-6, but had Morne converted the kick at the stroke of halftime, the halftime lead of the Springboks would have sugarcoated an ineffective first half performance.
Heyneke Meyer, though, proved he had more common sense than rigid steadfastness, and the Springboks came out in the second half with a much more relevant and impressive performance. A performance which did not allow England any breathing space or posession.
The kicking from the back of the rucks was halted and Hougaard was allowed to play his natural game. The backline got more frontfoot ball, the forwards got more into the game and the Springboks absolutely dominated every aspect of the game.
Plan B was initiated, and it worked!
It’s quite comforting to see and now know, that the Springboks can adapt to the requirements of each game. It took them the first half to get into their groove, try a few things and make it work. When it didn’t they adapted, changed their approach, and succeeded by scoring two tries unanswered until time was basically over.
In the end, I was very happy with the way the Springboks closed out the game, although a little lapse in concentration in the end made the scoreline flatter the English.
Congratulations Bokke, and congratulations Heyneke on your first win as Springbok coach, and Jean on your fabulous try and win as Springbok captain!
The matchday 22 mostly lived up to expectations in the second half, but just a couple of side notes from my side:
1. Hougaard’s natural game is not to make box kicks. He needs to work on the time he takes with the kicks.
2. I thought that Heyneke may have seen the error of his ways in selecting Kirchner when he subbed him for Lambie, seemingly much earlier than anticipated, but reports are that Kirchner has an injury, and that might be the reason he’s been subbed. Honestly, Lambie was way more involved when he came on and made a major difference.
3. With the high workrate and great performance of Habana, you surely cannot exclude him from the Bok squad, I don’t care how much his critics complain.
4. That said, we need a backline player on the bench that can do more than cover centre. We were massively exposed when Habana went off for blood and Wynand had to cover for him.
5. The only change I’ll make to the starting 15 though is Lambie in for Kirchner. Kirchner, if injured, will drop out of the 22 man squad, while I would pick Basson to replace him on the bench.
Wynand will stay on the bench as cover for Lambie….Should Lambie get injured, Frans will fall back to full back and Olivier will go the centre. We have no other full backs in the squad. So, Kirchner out, Basson in.
Players who will hopefully step up in the next test:
Spies —> need more brawn from him, he plays well below his strength.
JP Peterson —> a little slow on defense, need to get more involved.
Hougaard —-> starting looking good just before he was taken off. Will hopefully be allowed his natural game next weekend.
Morne Steyn —-> Bok plan is based on his kicking accuracy. Kicking to posts was not his usual excellence.
Overall, if I had to rate the match out of 10 for the Boks, I’d give it a 5.5. 4/10 for the first half, 7/10 for the second half.
Looking forward to next weeks match; I am expecting a thrashing of the English!
uysh said on June 13, 2012
Fair point Lucan. Let’s agree its not a case where you can throw a blanket over and make one rule for all, one can assess it on a case by case basis.
Anonymous said on June 12, 2012
Lord Lucan,Rhodesia was a self ruling country from 1923, it was offered the chance of joining South Africa or having self rule, they chose the latter. UDI was declared in 1965. But enough of the history lesson.
Back to rugby, Ronnie Hill played for the Springboks in 1961, Colin Bland was also playing cricket for South Africa prior to UDI so it really wasn’t a forced scenario caused by UDI.
As far as sport was concerned a ” Fifth Province “
Asmodeus69 said on June 12, 2012
Met old boy my Zim-Bok reference was not directed at you or your post, I’ve no idea why you decided to chose that word, rather than my overall comment to reply to. You see the sarcasm in my posts is just that sarcasm, I wouldn’t take it too personally, anymore than I do when you Yarpies call the England team the SA ‘B’ team. You need to lighten up sometimes. However I think we both know the hypocrisy doesn’t come from me.
I agree that poaching players is not cut and dry and there will always exceptions, however rules need to be established if we want to ensure competitiveness and development in the sport.
Nothing should stop a player from plying his trade in any country (as you say to earn a living), however that in itself should not prevent a player from playing for his country of birth, so no ones saying the Beast should have stayed in Zim, but he should have wanted to play for Zim. You’re missing the point if you think most rugby players move because their countries are basket cases, far from it.
You don’t see an exodus of Scottish born players wanting to play for England, they may play in the English leagues for money, but they are patriotic to Scotland. Same with the Argies playing in Europe.
If you want rugby to spread, which I assume you do, then the development of rugby in new or up and coming countries like Russia and Georgia, needs to be encouraged. If one supports an exodus of their best players to higher ranked countries then it can only be to the detriment of rugby, while the movement of a star player from similar ranked countries ie SA to England will not have such an impact (although I don’t support even that) on the sport.
I’m not sure why you are so angry and defensive with your replies to me Met old boy, sarcasm aside, it is a valid point and while you may well disagree with me, I hope it could at least be in a civilized manner. I actual enjoy many of your posts.
P.S. I see the Baby-Boks have lost their Captain, not looking good for you chaps, good luck all the same.
uysh said on June 12, 2012
Hang on, you mentioned the Zim-Boks and when I asked you a perfectly legitimate question as to why you are referring to the Zim-Boks, without provocation, when you are fielding 3 foreigners of your own, you bring this whole tyrade of hypocricy blah blah blah to the post which it had nothing to do with. So don’t now come and say I “changed the subject”.
And personally, I support it if a player from a famined country goes and try and make a living from his talents in another country. It’s got nothing to do with developing Rugby in countries where people hardly have food to eat, going just accross the border to go and make a living. In England’s case, England is just being suckered by these okes who have no pride in wearing your jersey and is just there to milk you from you British Pound.
In NZ’s case, there is a case for saying they rob the Pacific Islanders from their talents, but then again, where will those players be if left to the Islanders? Perhaps nowhere.
So, its not a simple clear cut, yes or no. Each case on merit.
No go and write a post yourself about this, then you can share all your comments about how its better for a star player to not develop at all by staying in a country who doesn’t feature on the world rugby listings, than going to a country where he has opportunities to develop into a star and where we can enjoy watching them play.
Asmodeus69 said on June 12, 2012
I didn’t Met old boy, I was simply replying to your post of 11 Jun 2012, 12:38
‘Steroid-Zim-Boks? A bit rich coming from you guys who fielded 2 South Africans and a Samoan…’
Why is there a problem!
Anyway there you have a topic for your next blog. As you said Zim hardly have a rugby team, which isn’t surprising if all their top players aspire to play for another country.
uysh said on June 12, 2012
Ok so just so we are clear, why are you bringing your concerns regarding Zim-Boks onto a post where I mentioned nothing of the sorts about the SA-English?
Asmodeus69 said on June 12, 2012
The ‘pot’ as in the Yarpie fans accusing the English of fielding non-English players, while their own team does the same.
Now I find it quite amusing and adept when you Yarpies call the English Team (Rugby & Cricket) South Africa ‘B’ Team, shame you don’t share the same humour when I now refer to the South African Team as the Zim-Boks. It’s called friendly banter. And don’t forget as I said I don’t like poaching players.
So if you would be so kind your thoughts on development of rugby as a result of poaching.
uysh said on June 12, 2012
Maybe first answer the question as to which pot you were referring to being hypocritical?
Asmodeus69 said on June 12, 2012
Now now Met old boy I see I have ruffled a few of your feathers, no need to sulk old plum. I’m not asking for an argument, just a reply to my perfectly legitimate question.
Why don’t we start again and I’ll rephrase the question without any reference to Zimbabwe.
Do you think it is in the best interest of rugby development for a person from a second or third tiered rugby nation to be poached/ lured to play for a first tiered rugby nation?
uysh said on June 12, 2012
Don’t confuse my refusal to argue with a fool with me concurring anything.
Asmodeus69 said on June 12, 2012
I assume by your silence that you concur with me old chap.
Asmodeus69 said on June 12, 2012
Bryrich old chum I am quite aware of Rhodesian players being eligible to play for South Africa. I have lived in Rhodesia, and I even have a Rhodesian rugby shirt.
However, Rhodesia was a unique situation, it was neither an independent country (UDI was not international recognized) nor was it a Dominion within the Empire. Southern Rhodesia (as it was referred to) was a British Colony and competed as Southern Rhodesia at the Olympics and other national sports prior to 1964.
Rhodesians only started playing rugby and cricket for South Africa in the 1960’s and 70’s. However, at that stage both SA and Rhodesia had become pariahs of the sporting world, and very few internationals, played under the name of Rhodesia was possible. I know Rhodesia did play Italy in 1973, but I’m not sure if there were any other internationals (Rhodesian passports were not recognized in most countries).
Many Rhodesians who stayed loyal to the Crown, returned to Briton and played for one of the British Unions, which is still considered the greatest honour of all.
Anonymous said on June 11, 2012
Living in the States I did not get to see the match, restricted to two minute hilites on Sky Sports, ugh!!
Anyway well done the Bokke.
Lord Lucan might be interested to know that South Africa using the odd player from north of the Limpopo is not a new thing. Rhodesia whilst an independent country was regarded as a fifth province for sports. Many Rhodesians played rugby and cricket for South Africa. Not quite the same as the English having several foreigners from countries without a common border to England. Puting on the green and gold was a very great honour for Rhodesians as well.
Asmodeus69 said on June 11, 2012
I’m a little surprised at your ignorance around rugby development Met old bean. So tell me old boy do you think it is beneficial to the National Teams of countries like Tonga and Samoa to have there players poached and playing for the Convicts and All Blacks!?
I’m not surprised however around your stupidity over my example of Zimbabwe. But let me spell it out for, Beast plays for the Steriod-Zim-Boks and he is a Zimbabwean, understand now (nothing to do with human rights).
Not feeling too foolish I hope!?
uysh said on June 11, 2012
Zim hardly has a rugby side. Do you suggest people remain in that country with zero rights to humans and without food simply because they have to play rugby for that country and not another?
Stop trying to be clever, you are making a fool of yourself once again.