How do you wipe those smiles?
It’s undeniable, 2009 was the year of the Saffas; Super 14, Tri-Nations and the Lions. What’s also undeniable was the extreme game-plan that the Springboks employed along the way; a game-plan that exploited a unique set of new IRB laws through their talents – both established and emerging. What has this meant for rugby, and more importantly, how do you beat it in 2010?
When watching the Springboks this year you had a good impression at how differently they were playing the game, but it’s only when you look at the resultant stats reports from the IRB that you realise just how stark and extreme their strategies were.
The Saffa game plan
In the first, high pressure test against the Lions (which South Africa won 26-21), the Boks held possession for a total of just 11 mins 59 seconds (the Lions for 19mins 50secs). In the previous 5 years of both Tri-Nations and 6 Nations competitions, only once did a team hold on to the ball less, and it was when South Africa lost to Australia 49-0 in 2006. The tier 1 international average is around 19 minutes of possession, or 60% more than the Boks in this Lions test.
Such a deliberate ceding of possession was reflected in the kicking and passing stats. South Africa passed the ball a total of 49 times in the whole match, their entire back-line only 16 times. In contrast, the Lions scrum half alone passed the ball 75 times and the team 195 times. South Africa, despite the lack of possession, still managed to kick the ball 36 times, 30% more than the Lions. The Boks therefore averaged 1.4 passes per kick – an “unheard of ratio” – versus 5.7 passes per kick for the Lions.
As the Lions series progressed, South Africa eased up on this strategy, most notably in the final test (which they lost) when the series was won and they had made 10 changes to their starting line-up. Come the Tri-Nations though, and they were back to type. The Boks averaged 85 passes per game across the Tri-Nations, as compared with 125 (50% more) for both Australia and New Zealand. They also on average made 40% more kicks than their competitors per minute of possession.
Throughout the season an organised kicking game, superb line-out, largely solid scrum and long restarts all served to help keep the pressure on the opposition, as the Saffas chose where (your half) and when (rarely) they wanted the ball.
A new scoring paradigm
In 2009 this was the recipe for success. Overall there were 38% (27 vs 43) fewer tries scored in 2009 than 2008, and the lowest rate per game for 9 years. In the Tri-Nations only 1 try was scored from a kick return (vs 7 in 2008, 5 in 2007 and 7 in 2006), and only 19% started further out than 40 metres from the goal-line, compared with 33% in 2008, 53% in 2007 and 50% in 2006. In other words – booting the ball deep was safe as houses.
Crucially, the advantage at the breakdown had also tipped to the team without the ball in 2009, with the tackler having full rights to the ball, even after the ruck had been formed. This law, together with the no passing back into the 22, made fielding or running the ball in your own half a kamikaze proposition. Against this background, Heinrich Brüssow and Morne Steyne, a world class scavenger and goal kicker respectively, burst onto the scene. Could there possibly have been a better year for these two players to appear in the South African squad?
This new imperative in the game – keeping away from the ball – also translated into how the meager number of tries were scored in 2009; 67% of them were scored with 3 passes or less, against 40% in 2008. Of South Africa’s tries, 9 out of the 10 were scored with 3 passes or less preceding them. 71% of all tries were scored within 1 ruck or maul, vs 47% in 2008. Continuity is dead.
Whether or not this is a good or bad predicament for rugby overall is probably a matter of perspective. While the rest of the world bemoan a fragmented kick-athon, South Africa and Ireland (another exceptionally low passing/high kicking team in 2009) revel in what they call “traditional tight rugby”. The IRB has mumbled something about reviewing the breakdown laws, but nothing is committed. So the question for 2010 is how do you beat this game-plan?
Untouchable?
Fighting back
To start, with the laws as they are, there’s no getting around the territory game. In the deciding Tri-Nations match at home in Hamilton, a full strength All Black team held the ball for over 21 minutes (the highest Tri-Nations figure in 2009) and still lost. As unedifying as two sides trying to not to have the ball may be, you must master aerial ping-pong. Reading this blog entry from the Assistant Springbok Coach Gary Gold, you’ll see how much they think about their kicking game, and know what they’re trying to achieve with it.
Kicks, therefore, must be more accurate and designed to create pressure, which only comes from an organised, consistent kick-chase. For the Wallabies, this was patchy at best in 2009 and needs to improve. What Australia did build on was getting runners behind the ball to create attacking opportunities, a potential kick-fest anti-dote, if used judiciously.
The other plank in combating this game plan is to attack the Boks key possession and strike platforms – the scrum and line-out.
The scrum was their strongest try scoring platform, with 4 of their 10 tries coming from it along with 20% of all Tri-Nations penalties. The good news here is that the Boks scrum wasn’t traveling well by the end of the Tri-Nations, and this carried over into Europe. It’s also becoming a point of strength for the Wallabies.
The Bok line-out is no weak link, but the amount of possession surrendered to it was astounding. It won almost 40% of all opposition throws in 2009; twice as many as the other two teams combined. Simply taking your own throw would dramatically shift the balance of power, but with only 44% of South Africa’s line-outs even being challenged (vs 65% of Australia’s), there’s also plenty of headroom to get some pressure onto their own ball as well.
What this means is that the Wallaby line-out has to be the next point of focus for the Wallabies management. As mentioned in a previous post, Nathan Sharpe being the sole specialist line-out jumper in Australia has become a case of neglect. The Wallabies need to be fast-tracking some 200cm+ specialist locks (forget the lock/flankers), getting an expert coach (Foles, Googy, Vicks, from up North?) and imparting as much of dark arts as possible, ASAP. I see no reason why there couldn’t be clinics run within the S14 franchises to accelerate the process ahead of the next international season, so vital is the accelerated development here.
While this may be a blueprint to take care of the Saffas in 2010, it’s also what’s needed for any team who aims to lift Bill in 2011, as this game plan is what we always see come finals footy. The questions is; can the Wallabies face up to the stats and do what’s needed to be done to become true contenders?
Tags: australia A, british and irish lions, tri-nations
Loading ...
Thats an awsome post! im glad these points have been highlighted. the bok style of play is putting me to sleep, yet its so frustrating that they kept winning. The Bulls employed similar tactics through out the super 14, the waratahs game was just one exampe of a match dominated by kicking to squeeze out another dull win.
South Africa had a brilliant year as far as silverware goes, but where they the most skillful team? in some aspects maybee but as a whole probably not.
I know test match rugby is about the result. But if the boks can win 5 out of 6 games against the wallabies and NZ with the game plan shown above then the laws need to be changed. Because lets face it, rugby is about tries not penalty kicks.
The real question is how can running rugby be brought back into the game?
Did you see the way the Bulls won the S14 final!!!??? Secondly, who scored the most tries in the Tri-nations in 2009, I think you’ll find in was the Boks my bru!!!! You can’t ask for the laws to be changed because you are not good enough to beat the Boks, you guys make me laugh….!!!! Find a way to counter our kicking game plan and stop moaning about it!! We did not ask for the laws to be changed when we lost to the Aussies and NZ, we just got on with it mate…!
To be honest there are a few ELVs that works pretty well. Myself watch quite a bit of schoolboy rugby and the short arm tip and go works pretty well in speeding the game up on that level and the perfect level to promote running rugby. Test rugby is something different and the most distrubing thing in our SA rugby were the different laws at once since we started off with the ELVs. There was a time when we had four sets of laws at the same time. Some of them are difficult for a rugby mad person like myself to understand, trying to explain them to the Mrs or kid is difficult. In the Varsity Cup you explain the ruck rule to them, then Vodacom Cup is different, then the S14 differs. In come the NH tour and back to the old ones just to change for the Tri Nations again. Walking the white line at schoolboy level and it all boils down when it change all of a sudden. Try and explain them to my Mrs that walks on my side and you’ll understand all the frustration.
If they ever want to change the rules again they should start with the refs. They were the soul reason for a total waiste of time and energy on a total vokop. and Mr Watson dont make us the bunny of these laws ever again. Keep them away from my neighbour town of Stellenbosch.
Great article, gagger.
Fortunately even the NH seem to realize that the game is unbalanced in favour of a Springbok-style play-without-the-ball gameplan. Unfortunately they weren’t exposed to it in all its frustrating inglory during the EOYT due to the Boks drastically underperforming. If they had been there’d be a lot more urgency to calls for change.
Finding a fullback with a huge boot on him would be a good start for containing their kicking game a bit.
Absolutely right JJJ. It’s not rocket science – even in high school you knew that if your fullback didn’t have a good boot on him, you were going to be exploited.
After being blessed with Burke and Latham we are in a drought as far as kicking fullbacks go at the moment. I think JOC is a better kicker than AAC but fullbacks around the country should be practicing their kicking like nothing else because it might just be their ticket into the Wallaby squad.
Lucky Mark Gerrard’s around…oops (I beat Bobas to it!)
Excellent article. I would add to that the need to improve our goal kicking. The Bok game plan also revolves around at least one player who can kick penalty and drop goals accurately and from distance. I’m not sure on all of their end of year tour games, but they missed a lot more goals than usual against Ireland, and only just lost.
I suppose it would be cynical to suggest that the Boks perhaps were deliberately under-prepared for their AI’s this year so as not to spook the North by flogging them. They are less likely to want to change the rules if self interest isn’t at the heart of the matter and the North has the numbers as we have so often seen. It will be too late to do anything before 2011 to change the rules by the end of this season. But that’s just cynicism I know.
As we saw from the All Blacks and Wallabies the Northern Teams are hardly a threat to the top three (leave out the Scotland Game as our usual baffling moment of implosion). More wonder as to why the Saffers did so badly.
However it is interesting to note that the Northern Team that plays closest to their style, Ireland, attacked their biggest strength, the lineout and came out on top. Ireland is also the most successful Northern Team over the last season as well.
I also wonder if the constant offensive kicking has another more subtle effect in the later part of the games in that their opposition forwards, in particular, have been constantly turned around all game, retreating and conceding ground at every kick and that by the later stages of the game their fitness and mental strength is put under pressure.
It is hard to be on the front foot as a pack when you are constantly being turned around and you are retreating back to your own territory constantly to defensively enter the breakdown. For a forward this is the worst situation that can develop. Every time you make territory and get into your opponents half the kick forces you to turn around and concede it again.
This is debilitating for a pack and as the game wears on reduces their effectiveness whilst the kicking teams pack is constantly being given easy territory.
So agree with the analysis. Attack the lineout and cut down their opportunities to regain possession after the easy territory gained from the kick.
Perhaps not committing all your forwards to the offensive line and keeping one or two back to smash the offensive tackler after the kick so as he can’t be on his feet long enough to win possession or the penalty would be another tactic, but perhaps that would have other more undesirable outcomes.
Great article, wonderful insight. Hopefully Deans and Co have been working out their strategies since the AI’s and we will have some of the answers needed by the seasons commencement.
yes, having a good fullback with more range and a more accuate goal kicker would definately help. Maybee hand over penalty kicks to someone without a curling kick?
These solutions would help but it sounds like simply joining the saffa ‘without the ball’ gameplan.
I think the IRB need to sort out a few laws. When the ELV’s were ‘watered down’ the short-arm sanction for most breakdown offences was left out, and the predictable result has been less running rugby and constant 3 pointers.(Thanks NH) The short arm thing was awkward but it did have its benefits.
Graham Henry had a rule change idea where defence could call a mark every time the ball was kicked in the air, no matter where it was on the pitch, you could have a scrum back from the kick or a free-kick from that mark. It seems a drastic solution but that would definately help keep the ball in hand.
Yeah well as pattrick has already said, we got rid of our biggest kicking fullback.
Round the corner punting means he could curl it both way without having to torp it. (shmoos torping kicks are terrible).
His Goal Kicking was okay too for someone without pro training, never curled it much either, always a tiny bit of slice then straightened down the line.
I think he’ll come back from Japan as a better kicker too probably having more attempts.
A few initial points – I may come back for a second go!
1. I don’t believe that winning is everything. The game is bigger than that, and Waratahs dwindling crowds, for example, indicate that a lot of their fans agree.
2. We don’t know yet whether the Bok strategy will stand the test of time. They were poor and unsuccessful on tour. Tired, maybe, but what from?
3. The Lions and the Wallabies showed that the Boks don’t defend well when the target is (a) not clearly defined and (b) moves quickly. Quality attack is therefore necessary.
4. Whatever strategy any team uses, it must be of quality if it is to succeed.A poor kicking game or a poor running game will fail against good opposition. I believe implicitly that there is no defence to perfect attack. (Unfortunately, the Wallabies attack is a long way from even good.)
5. Components of the game are interdependent. E.g., a strong midfield game can have a significant effect on your opponents scrum or lineout. We can therefore seek to combat the Bok defensive lineout, by distracting them with the damage that we are causing in mid-field.
6. Of course, we must also seek to nullify their kicking game at its source, mainly their set-plays. The Wallabies did this by winning the scrum contest decisively in Brisbane.
7. A stop-start game will never beat a team with spirit who are prepared to tackle for 80 mins. Remember the Scots!
The Lions sought to avoid this and had considerable success. Thankfully, for the game, NZ seem to be well on the way to rediscovering their ability to do the same.
8. I talk about this constantly on my web-site – in match reviews, in my Coaching Tips and in my Manual.
9. The Boks will be beaten – and soon, I believe – and then the sheep will follow the latest patch of perceived greener pasture!
The Wallabies need to play to their strengths & not worry about replicating the Springboks. We played our best rugby in 2009 when we held the ball.
Compare 1st halves against Wales & Ireland to the 2nd halves & it’s plain to see that we shouldn’t be playing a kicking game.
You think we should be running it in our own half?
Not always but if it’s on out wide it’s on out wide.
Re: Giteau bounce pass to AAC in Brisbane against the the Boks.
Point is, under these rules all teams have to have a good kicking game. It doesn’t have to be your only game, but you can’t ignore it.
It just makes so much sense that the Wallabies “need to play to their strengths”. My problem is working out just what that is at the moment as apart from the scrum everything else looks like it it’s in a state of flux.
What ever happened to our lineout? One of the best around. We now seem to be opting for the kicking game & at lineout time cough-up the pill.
Good on Bob Dwyer for saying (above) what many of us think “I don’t believe that winning is everything. The game is bigger than that, and Waratahs dwindling crowds, for example, indicate that a lot of their fans agree.” Dead right.
I think fans could handle losses if they could see their team having a go & playing positive footy. IMHO it’s been the constant kicking away of possession that has annoyed fans the most. We want to see ball in hand, passing, deft touches, support play and attack that gets us up off our seats. At the moment it’s roll your eyes stuff.
I love Saffa Rugby.
The attitude on the Set Piece i think is lost on a lot of nations, only argentina, france maybe, ireland as well come to mind when i think of teams who dedicate a lot of time to ensuring their set piece is a weapon and not just a mechanism to restart the game.
…the Saffas have it right, you need 100% confidence going into every set piece you will win your own, and look to steal 1/5 balls on opposition set piece, at least!
Their lineout is world class but many teams including the Wallabies have stopped contesting it which is plain stupid, so it looks even better than it actually is. We can learn from the Irish in this regard as they took the honors in their game for the lineout and subsequently the match.
The Boks scrum is disintegrating and they are faced with the prospect of putting Smit back at hooker, punting him altogether or getting crunched every time they come up against a half decent pack. None of these are attractive options as Smit means as much to them as captain as McCaw does to the AB’s. As the Wallabies showed in Brisbane they can be hammered comprehensively at the breakdown with aggression, speed and commitment.
Their set piece isn’t that great overall but their lineout was a spectacular success in 09. This played in perfectly with their kicking game. More fool us for just letting them have it their own way at the throw-in. If we can reduce the effectiveness of their lineout and keep our focus on offense at the breakdown, with our dominant scrum we will go a long way to undoing their game plan.
Sounds good on paper but execution is the key.
In response to a recent post I mentioned my distaste for statistics and the old adage “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Well, I suppose there is no avoiding them in complex professional (and amateur) sport.
I think so much of the game is won between the ears. Anyone who has played the game is aware of the overwhelming psychology of the sport. The uninitiated only sees the physicality and the athleticism.
The point Gumby made re forwards being marched up and down the park and having their morale as much as their energy sapped, is equally valid as the point made by Bob with the example of focusing on the midfield possibly opening up areas to exploit elsewhere, and unexpectedly e.g. in the scrum.
The facets of Rugby are so interconnected, especially at this level.
Whatsmore – whether we like to admit it or not – it’s governed to a certain degree by so much luck. We are playing with an irregular shaped football here fellas.
A lot of Zen Buddhist philosophy can be applied to this (bear with me). The butterfly flapping its wings causing a cyclone elsewhere in the world thing..?
With in excess of thirty participants, hundreds of ball-handlings and maneuvers, a subtle decision, right or wrong, can have so much impact several phases or plays later in the game, and as a result there are thousands-upon-thousands of immeasurable factors. Not all of this is coached, or even conscious.
Part of D. I. Campese’s brilliance was he didn’t know what he was doing himself half of the time (some detractors may say all of the time). But at least he was having a go; he was taking those risks, and it resulted in some of the most astounding sporting achievements and spectacles. Having a go is what makes the game exciting to watch, enjoyable to play and overall rewarding come full time.
(This can be applied to feats of amazing defence as well, before we inevitably get critical of Campo and tear that old band-aid off and pick at the scab of his controversial defence).
What if Campo didn’t quite pop that pass up to Noddy at Lansdowne Road against the Irish in ‘91..? What if Lynagh was slowed by a fraction of a second by an Irish player, and wasn’t right on Campo’s shoulder..? It’s the sheer unlikelihood of the outcome and the brazen determination which makes it such an epic moment.
And the great moments against The All Blacks the following week such as Campo goosetepping his way across the entire Blacks backline to score and later blindly lobbing the ball over his shoulder to Timmy to seal the victory… Well; they simply wouldn’t have even occurred.
I’m sure Bob has some strong opinions and memories of these moments.
I don’t mean to get too esoteric and flowery, but stats only tell you so much; it’s the will to win which gives the game its magic. Statistics soak all this up and number crunch it into boring shite in my view.
Good thing I’m not an aspiring coach then I suppose, because it probably, means I would stink at it.
I hate to admit it but the Poms deserved the ’03 Cup. Johnson was such an inspirational leader and determined player, it’s what got them over the line.
How much did luck play in that outcome..? What if Bernie or Smithy had managed to charge down that infamous kick like they had so many times in the past..? What if Flatley had concentrated in his kicking more – sure – but there’s a lotta luck in there…
But then again I guess this Zen thing can be applied to anything in life.
This reminds us that it is a game, as Bob said and the game is bigger than any one player, team, and winning or losing.
But bloody hell, wouldn’t it be good to be winning more often than not again..?
Coatsie
before you use the Butterfly wing thing again, i just want to make sure you have it right.
its not Zen Buddhist, far from it, it has its origins in science.
it was actually the name of a scientific paper regarding the importance of sensitive dependence and initial conditions.
Sensitive dependence and initial conditions have been discussed for the better part of 150 odd years. the actual term is more recent
It came about because a scientist who was a meteorologist (cant remember name) was playing about with a computer model and was re-running a set of data, however to save time, he reduced decimal places from i think 6, to 3 eg 0.123456 to 0.123 (a seemingly minor omission) across a few values in his data set.
Over the course of the computer run, the omission of these (in what is reality) minor values, vastly changed the results of the experiment at its conclusion.
This led to a scientific paper:
Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in brazil set off a tornado in texas?
Although the theory had been discussed since the mid 1800’s, this paper named the butterfly effect theory, which is as disucsed previously, is concerned with sensitive dependence and initial conditions.
You may now use the reference correctly.
http://www.ecopolis.org/edward-lorenz-does-the-flap-of-a-butterflys-wings-in-brazil-set-off-a-tornado-in-texas/
http://www.viewsfromscience.com/documents/webpages/chaos_p3.html
Please keep in mind, the concept is not about the Flap CAUSING the hurricane, but more that the Flap changes the intial conditions of the atmosphere, which over time, as an intial condition, may result in favourabloe conditions for a hurricane to develop….or….NOT develop also.
Its not about the flap being amplified over space and time to create a hurricane, but, well, intial conditions.
Fascinating stuff really.
Jeez El Dommo – and I thought you were just a dumb arse rugby coach?
Only on weekends. Throughout the week….actually no…thats it i;ve used up my brains now.
Um… Ok…
What I was talking about was
From: http://www.lightplanet.com/buddhism/buddhist_principles.html
So.. “Nya-nya nee nya-nya…”
So the message is: Don’t mess with a Buddhist Monk; otherwise he will pour petrol over himself and self emoliate…
(I think I have use my holidays more wisely, I really do have too much time on my hands, like some other contributors to this blog).
And no I’m not a Buddhist; I’m a loose head prop and merely look like him…
This all sounds like someone has been messing with a Buddha Stick or two if you ask me. But no-one did so I’ll just “butt” out!
self-immolate, to get with the spirit of things.
woah
HAHA
Yeah, dont mess with a scientist.
You got to hand it o the Saffa’s, they were the best team of 2009. This, however, doesn’t mean you would want the Wallabies to play like them. Sure winning would be good, but at least we don’t all have a sook about one of our players getting suspended. Also, if we sat back and kicked at goal from 60m out constantly I would vomit with rage.
Personally I didn’t mind seeing Franny Steyn nail those penalties from inside his own half.
It was a pretty awesome sight to see a player smash a ball 70metres at sea level right over the black dot.
Not sure they were the best team of 2009, I seem to remember another team that wears green not loosing a game all year, one game they actually beat the the so called team of 2009.
Were they the best team in the south? Sure, but their game plan came together this year with a good Lions campaign leading into soft opposition in the Tri-Nations.
I am not trying to be a bad sport but the the poor peformance by the the Wallabies and All Blacks can’t be overlooked, nor can the way the Saffers fell apart up north.
I predict M.Styne having second year sydrome and with F.Styne playing in France their kicking game will fall part. Their scrum is not as good as it used to be, they have no real fullback and their wingers are better at running than kicking. Their mid field looses a lot with De Villers (the same is shown in OZ with out Mortlock and even more so in NZ without Smith)
Their lineout and general forward play is still excellent but if you can’t play well across the field and pull it into a good gameplan you will loose against quality opposition
My prediction for next year
NZ win Tri-Nations winning 5 games, all three against SA and 2 against OZ
second and third is down to bonus points which the Saffers will win as they have a better chance of finishing within 7 of opposition
With I could see the Wallabies winning but i dont think we are their yet, one good game against a weak Wales doesn’t coverup for a disapointing year
yea losing F Steyn and De Villiers will cost them dearly. Steyn’s role in putting pressure on the other team – both from kicks in play and for goal – is huge. De Villiers is easily their best centre, a cut above Adi Jacobs and Jaques Fourie.
Also tricky will be the problems with Smit and the scrum referred to above. On this year’s showing the Jarpies will have to choose next year between replacing Smit as a leader or losing a lot of scrums, which in turn will do a hell of a lot to negate their pressure game.
I was at the AB v Boks test in Hamilton and over the last 15 minutes or so, the ABs nearly ran the Boks off their feet. Prior to that the ABs play was well below average and gave the Boks all the latitude they wanted. What would it have been like if the ABs had unleashed themselves with confidence to play running rugby just before the break. My guess is that the Boks confidence would have evaporated by the last 20 and an AB win would have been recorded.
Let’s remember, while we are busy lavishing statistical praise on the Saffas, that neither the ABs nor the WBs (especially the WBs) were playing THEIR game with confidence and were further crippled by poor execution.
The fact that the ABs ran it so much more than the Boks tells us nothing about HOW they ran it; but they ran it with wilting skill levels and resoundingly low levels of confidence most of the time.
Statistics tell what happened, they don’t tell how it happened.
It was only when their self belief was restored that we saw the ABs perform like the class act they are and when the WBs self belief was high in Brisbane the Saffas never got a look in.
Don’t change anything, the WBs are perfecting a style of play and starting to believe in it. My view is that if they pick up in 2010 where they left off in 2009, we won’t be having this debate about Saffa stats this time next year.
Great article though Gagger and awesome food for thought.
Mmmmh! You might have something there Robson. Perhaps the AB resurgence in the last 15mins at Hamilton was as much to do with their fear of the absolute bucketing they were heading for from their loyal supporters for losing badly yet again, especially after the Wallabies had just smacked the Saffers arse in Brisbane, as much as anything else.
Might as well chuck caution to the wind in that situation as you’ve got nothing to lose but can you play that way for 80 minutes every game?
Spot on Gumby. The Wallabies also play their best running rugby in the last 5 minutes when the game is lost and there’s no real pressure.
You need a game-plan that can work for 80.
I don’t think they need to play with fire and fervour for the full 80, they just need to play with more accuracy and composure in the first 60.
Both the WBs and the ABs last season were beaten by the Saffas because the Saffas played their style of rugby with amazing accuracy. In contrast the WBs and ABs didn’t play their style of game at all. And for an appaling amount of the time when they did the execution was poor.
I would hesitate to say the success, or, hmm, brutality of the Bok gameplan doestn have something to do with running the ball poorly, or other teams like the Kiwis or Wobblies not executing their gameplan with aplomb.
The simplicity and brutality of their gameplan, or of any team exectuing a ferocious gameplan backed up by core skills, will force any team into its shell, or, conversely into making low percentage decisions.
Argentina showed that very well, after knocking off France in 2007 WC…3 times. Simple, efective, but burtal gameplan to hit the French out of the game in Puma preferred field position.
and If thats not enough convincing, the Prem colt Grand Final in brisbane was won in much the same way…with the victorious team in the end forcing the vanquished team (yes, vanquished) into a style of play in the last moments of the second half, they werent overly comfortable with….actually, the last 3 games played by these 2 teams all went the same way, by a similar 2,3,4 point margin, because of the gameplan to strangle the opposition of territory, and hit them so hard, the become afraid of catching a pass.
So i think Robson, despite the good points you mention, you have somewhat trivialised the effect the saffa plan, has on other teams into forcing them into playing, shall we say less crisp football.
To stop this kicking shit there should be a rule that if a kick is caught by the defending team in their own half it can be marked.
Further, the defending team (now the attacking team as they have possession by virtue of the mark) can either take a quick tap, pack a scrum or kick the ball out and also have the line-out throw.
I love rugby but fuck-a-duck it tested my patience last international season.
Figure out a way to neutralise the “kicking shit” and there will be no need to change the rules. It will come. Someone always figures out a way to change the current dominant style of play.
We can’t just keep changing the rules when someone plays a pattern we don’t like especially as you can’t even get everyone to adopt the same set of experimental rules. The North will always be suspicious that the South are trying to put one over them; as if we need to.
The current rules make it easier to win games without the ball so I think there is without doubt a need to change them.
A very simple law change would be that anyone who is in front of the kicker cannot move forward until the other team has possession.
It would sure stop the monotony of the Saffer box kick
Juan it isn’t going to happen any time soon and no chance before 2011 in my humble opinion. From memory there is an IRB policy that precludes any rule changes two years out from a RWC. Don’t believe that has been repealed. If that’s still the case talking rule changes is a waste of time.
Have to use brain and talent to sort this out.
i agree with gumby. i also think change is on the way… centres cant be satisfied handling the ball once or twice a game, can they? surely they love running rugby, ball in hand, as much as we love watching it? am i wrong?
Great article. What comes out loud and clear is that very good execution of a mediocre plan is always better than mediocre execution of of a great plan. To beat them we have to have great execution – period – but because their plan is clear & obvious, the Saffas have just built themselves into the old AB corner – NO PLAN B.
By a “great” plan I mean a game plan that encompasses an A , B & if necessary C. The Wallabies have traditionally mastered this better than most, possibly with the exception of the French when they were executing well.
I think the answer for the Wallabies lies in rebuilding the wall – one brick at a time as Gagger suggested, but then focus on intelligent multiple plan execution. The AI’s were a good indicator – they weren’t up to it at the start in Japan because some of the bits were missing (ie lineout) but by Cardiff there were signs of it coming together with a strategy for countering the obvoius disadvantage of taking possession into the breakdown.
I still sense the AB’s are working on execution only whilst the French are similarly focused(double the number of clubs likely in the HC playoffs than last year)- but they have the capacity to run with a Plan B if they execute well.
Finally an interesting piece in Sunday’s Tele(UK) by Ackford on Cipriani. He is struggling to make the England squad because he is not consistent/predictable – just want we want to hear with tones of similar rants re Campo ! Just what Coatsie was saying.
The Bok current gameplan isnt anything new. Thats the way we’ve been playing for more then 100 years. The Bulls plays the same way in the SA CC competition, the Tahs try to copy it and even England played the same when they reign in 2003.
It rewards the basic principle of rugby starting with the Tight5.
No rocket sciense , just get a better tight 5 as the Boks and the battle is won. If not loose.
The ELVs nearly change this but luckily was shot down to change our beloved game in league rugby.
That sounds reasonable, but it’s wrong on two counts.
1) the Boks don’t actually have a strong tight five, just a great line-out and backrow.
2) the ELVs, quite the opposite, made set-pieces essential since there were so many short-arm penalties.
Try to tell me lineout and drive and rucks aint part of the Tight 5 job description. The only part we struggle against the 3 Nation teams was one test in the scrums. Meaning Aus & All Blacks tight 5 are even shitter then ours.
You’re right, the ABs used it with distincion in beating the Boks in 1956 and it then took them to 1964 or thereabouts to shrug off the habit. To their everlasting credit the Wallabies have never tried to play ten man rugby and they get my vote of approval in doing so – even though it’s cost them games on many an occasion. The game is designed, after all, for 30 players to participate in not just 20.
Fan-bloody-tastic article.
As a Bok and Bulls man its obviously satisfying to see your teams win. And we of course don’t give a toss about the game plan. Like Paarl said, it’s what we grew up on. I love it. Sorry.
But if I read the article with a neutral rugby hat on, then the current reality is a blight on the game and its useless administrators and rule makers.
A team that willingly kicks away that much pill, doesn’t move the ball, and feeds off mistakes for the majority of their points, should not in theory be able to dominate.
I’ll enjoy it for as long as it lasts (and I fear it may be a while yet), but something has to give.
As for how to beat the Boks? I think it is really, really simple in theory but we all know how hard it is to execute.
1. Smash them at the breakdown like the Frogs and cry-baby-whinge-arsed Irish did in November (a couple of mean feckers like POC and their ugly-as-sin back row helped that cause greatly)
2. Flawless kicking from hand – don’t give the guy who retunrs the kick time or good position (or both which is more often than not the case.)
3. Your back 3 must play an excellent positional game, especially in support to negate the chasers as much as possible. The likes of Habana is an expert in getting onto the catcher and by the time the cavalry arrives it’s an even contest at best.
4. Get your own lineout ball, or most of it
5. Rattle Morne Steyn early in the game (if you can get to him).
6. Find a way to tie Fourie du Preez up. Guess who gets back and capitalises on average to poor kicks for a large percentage of the time? Fourie du Preez is a master at this. It’s like having a second 15. You will rarely see other teams’ 9’s play this type of positional game and FDP is a massive cog in the game plan referred to.
I wish all and sundry a cracker of a 2010 and may your team win (NOT!)
FdP do play some role but Bakkies is the man. When he did not play we struggle.
Doc Craven use to call it in his day: “Soften them up with the forwards and hit with the backline”
Thats the way we played in his days for centuries and Jake White brought that values back and it havent change since.
In our local CC the golden years WP had was when they had a big tight 5 and beat the Brutes with the great Naas Botha just this way.
It hasnt change and with our great athlete losies with Schalk, Brussouw, Juan & Spies we can look forward to a even bigger 2010.
All the very best to you mate, but don’t count on it.
NZ discarded the kicking game in the 60s because even their own die hard, heavily biased supporters were getting sick and tired of it. What they replaced it with has been a style of rugby that has won overwhelmingly more matches against both South Africa and Australia (in fact all comers) than it has lost.
The Boks play the 10 man kicking game with consistently superb finesse. The ABs and WBs play a different style of rugby with only very occasional finesse.
Once Oz and NZ start to play their styles with just 50% more consistency
the Bok game plan will be under severe pressure.
During the 09 season the biggest enemy the WBs had wasn’t the Bok game plan, it was themselves. Frankly I think the ABs represent the biggest threat to Oz rugby not the Boks, because of nothing other than the ABs sheer try scoring potential. When they are on song, they can score tries and lots of them.
You have to kick five penalty goals to eclipse two converted tries.
NZ with Ali & Jack may offer some competition this year but their lineout woes goes deep and offer not much on S14 level.
SA have the closest to Matfield with Bekker and he sure made a stepup in the EYT.
We need a replacement for Bakkies tho, but we’ll get one. Plenty of biltong eaters in SA.
Score tries dont count much if you end up losing. Like Naas use to saym “Check the scoreboard mate” In the history books their wont be mention of tries only the score and the winner.
You’re right tries don’t count much if your not scoring them. But both Oz and NZ have far greater potential to score them than the Boks.
As I say the Boks played their game plan to perfection and full marks to them for that. The ABs and WBs didn’t play their game plan to anything like perfection. But when they do – the Boks are going to have to kick a hell of a lot of goals.
You getting closer. SA always was and is big on defense.
Its your view to see the All Blacks as a bigger thread.
The fact is if you want to beat the All Blacks and Bokke you need to play passionate for the full 80 minutes. Anything less a effort wont bring victory.
We wont ever forget the 49-0 drubbing in Jake Whites subborn days but then we also wont forget the 53-8 drubbing we dish out in 2008.
Myself always feel the Wallabies or Aus S14 plays the cleverer kind of game against us compare to NZ. The have the more direct kind of game we play.
For any Saffer the All Blacks are the real rival or enemy and the one we love most to down or the one we dont mind that much losing to.
The last two years wins against them on NZ soile is one myself rated higher then any WC title we won and the pinnacle for the good old time Bok supporter myself is.
Long may this continue and a moerse pitty we cant have the old time tours we had in the old days.
So who are the 2m second rowers coming through the ranks who can round out what is otherwise an excellent wallaby forward pack? A traditional strength of wallaby rugby is looking decidedly weak.
Chris do you really think it is that weak? It has looked a bit fragile for sure, but the stats are not rubbishing it totally.
I thought there were good signs towards the end of last season, the best of which was the number of jumpers who can be used. It’s just a matter of perfecting techniques so that there is good co-ordination among all of them.
Two years ago the WB scrum looked like it was in its death throes, it’s now one of the best (if not the best) scrummaging units in the world.
I believe the lineout will come again too, and soon.
Fair enough Robson, but my question is: with whom? Specifically, who are the second rowers who can at least provide line-out parity in time for the 2011 world cup?
I do share a bit of your concern Chris but we developed a few combos on the EOYT and those will be enhanced by the re inclusion of Sharpie and maybe, just maybe, the return of Vickerman.
I also think Dean Mumm came to the party big time at the end and will be a serious contender for a regular spot this season. Horwill didn’t really shine at the end.
Interesting piece BUT everyone here is missing ONE vital point.
South Africa developed their game plans because Australia and New Zealand were getting away with murder.
It’s a chicken and egg thing really and like it or not South Africa are the most dynamic side in world rugby ie they adapt faster than any other side. In fact, I’ve seen them switch mid-game, mid-season, mid-tournament.
I give them credit for that ! A single strategy is as helpful as a single golf club.
Learn to improvise and adapt like the South Africans (and give them credit for it)
What is this “murder” you’re talking about? What actually did Oz and NZ do that was “getting away with murder”.
What the Saffas do they do brilliantly, no question. But it’s not improvisation, the ABs were doing it in the fifties – and getting away with it.
[...] 2010 resolution; beat the Saffa game-plan [...]