222 minues without the scring of a single try by the Springboks

When I raised the issue about the total inadequacy of the Springboks to score tries on this site I was roundly attacked by some for raising the issue as a means to sidetrack attention from what was a messed up situation.
However, it is apparent that this issue is troubling many people as is evident from the following article from News24:-
"The Springboks' attack - or lack thereof - has been exposed when one looks at how long it's been since they crossed the whitewash.

Bryan Habana's try in the 18th minute of the Boks' 41-13 defeat to the All Blacks in Christchurch on September 17 was the last time the Boks recorded a five-pointer.

Since then, the Boks went tryless for the remainder of that match, the whole of the Test against the Wallabies at Loftus Versfeld and the record-breaking horror defeat to New Zealand in Durban last Saturday.

Forgetting injury-time, that's a 222 minutes without a try!

So dire was the Boks' attack in this year's Rugby Championship that in six Tests they scored a paltry eight tries (1.33 per match).

How frightening a stat then that the All Blacks scored more (nine) on Saturday alone!

    

The All Blacks, unsurprisingly, topped the try scoring charts with 38, followed by the Wallabies with 13 and Argentina with 11."

There was zero ability to attack in the team and the selection of some players were  inexcusable.   These no doubt included  Hougaard on the wing, Habana, De Jongh and  Morne Steyn.

Habana is NOT the player he used to be - is regrettably past is best and it is time for   

his retirement from international rugby.   Hougaard is no wing and he used to be and that is it.    Lambie tried - but it is clear he was not match-fit and his playing at full back was not the ideal situation.  

In my evaluation I pointed out that of the 15 tries scored by the Springboks this year in 11 tests - 6 tries were scored by Pieter-Steph du Toit and Whiteley and two were scored by Goosen and the latter had two try-assists iro the remaining tries.   He was by far the best of the backline in attacking play - even playing out of his normal position - but was dropped from the team by the ignorant coach.  

One can only assume on thing - Coetzee is clueless about the issue and has no idea about how to play the game of rugby.   Instead of using Goosen - he picked the clueless De Jongh at 13 - the position normally occupied by Goosen in the Racing  Metro team.  

So what else is to be expected from this lot - another series of disasters in the EOYT.    One has to wonder why Coetzeee was ever appointed as coach.   The try-scoring record of the Stormers/WP when he was the coach there was equally atrocious.    It had for years had the worst try-scoring record of any team in Super Rugby and even in the CC.          

Coetzee has turned the Springboks into the Stormers- without the strong Defence. 
When Rassie left all attacking play at the Stormers ended. When Nienanaar left- all defence fell apart.

 Coaches, at this level of the game, play the kind of rugby the players afford them to play.

The inadequacy to score did not date back to Coetze. SA do not have the players to play a fluid rugby. Players are too deficient for that.

A rugby turned toward scoring is powder to the eyes when practised by SA. It happens against weak opponents.

As soon as the opponent gets stronger, SA turns to the rugby they are the most confident in: a static rugby, with an emphasis over strength.

Today's rugby is no longer about strength, it is about power.

The conservative rugby cherished by SA might work against a weakened AUS. It is overwhelmed when faced with proficient fluid rugby. Coetze kept the line between the two tests. It showed the limits.

 While ComradeMike is 100% correct in questioning the Boks try scoring shortcomings, I do think that trying to pinpoint this that and the other person in the Bok team/squad/management set-up is the wrong way to go. The problem is that that creates the impression that the problem is easily corrected by changing certain individuals. I am afraid that it is not that easy and it simplifies the real issues.
The Traditionlist is more correct when he says: "The inadequacy to score did not date back to Coetze. SA do not have the players to play a fluid rugby. Players are too deficient for that.
A rugby turned toward scoring is powder to the eyes when practised by SA. It happens against weak opponents."
Just have a look at the try scoring in the Super Rugby competition. 
The NZ teams scored 289 tries and gave away 191. Bear in mind that all apart the other "cross-conference" games, the NZ teams played each other twice home and away. 
The SA teams, under the same circumstances, scored 288 tries but gave away 280. We scored only 8 more tries than what we gave way.
The best SA side, the Lions, scored 71 tries against 42. A nett result of +29. The worst SA side, the Kings, scored 34 against 95. A nett result of -64.
The best NZ side, the Chiefs, scored 68 tries against 39. A nett result of +29. The worst NZ side, the Blues, scored 45 against 47. A nett result of -2.

At first glance, it does not seem that serious until you realise that the Blues was the only side who scored less than 50 tries. One scored 50 tries and three of them scored 60+ tries. Only one SA side scored more than 50 tries. Apart from the Kings and the Lions, the other three sides all scored from 40 to 49 tries.
The fact that we have nincompoops like AC and Stick in charge is a big issue but that is only part of the problem. It goes way way further than AC, Stick, Habana, De Jongh, etc, etc. Making a few changes at the top is like fighting brain cancer with paracetamol. 

It is a chicken and egg situation. 
The players don't have the required skills- but they would if they had a good coach.
The Lions- and even Cheetas have been able to play an expansive style of play. 
The Sharks and the Stormers have become worse than the Bulls
A coach like Eddie Jones would be able to maximise the resources that are available.
Imaging the All Blacks coach got the Boks job- and the All blacks got someone like Straulie, Pdivvy, Coetzee.
It is unfair that we are straddled with such useless coaches. Perhaps if we had better coaches- they would uncover some more backline players that can catch and pass.

 What I said above did not enter the brain of the brain deficient Ceradunce.   I went back to 1997 when the problem was already identified and an effort was made to correct it.   Since then the problem got progressively worse  with the "traditional SA Rugby" term was coined to cover up the increasing deficiency.   Never before isolation were really backline deficient - that developed in the 1980 and reached crisis proportions already by 1996.
What is amazing is that the TRADITIONAL SA RUGBY term was never used before isolation - it only became a catchword to cover the deterioration of backline play in SA.
Be it as it may after the Mallet stint - when he used the team put together by  Du Plessis -  he became unstuck when he had to start making replacements and was effectively fired as a result.   After that the backline play in SA deteriorated progressively and the garbage about "traditional SA Rugby" was constantly spouted to prevent corrective measures. 
Of the last 4 coaches the following can be said about the coaches involved:-
*    White is clueless about backline coaching - he was saved by Jones in 2007 aand Larkham at the Brumbies.   Fact is it was a major reason why he was fired at the Sharks and now Montpellier.
*    De Villiers to his credit identified the problem - but he was to poor a coach to take corrective measures - the senior players ran the show.
*    Meyer was totally clueless as well and ended up with the 2004 Bulls game plan in the RWC last year.  
*    As was pointed out Coetzee destroyed the Stormers backline play and is even worse than Meyer.   While Meyer selected heavy duds for the backline Coetzee picked microlights with zero attacking abilities.
I never implied that the replacement of one or two players will solve the problem - I merely mentioned two essential changes to start with.   You cannot fix a long term problem by short term changes.
Has anyone even tried to get things as wrong as Coetzee did?   I doubt it very much.  His selections were a crazy patchwork and to blame the players only - the way some do is ignorant at best.             
    

We never persisted with open rugby under Mallett' In the 98 TN we had crash ballers PeterMuller and Honiball pounding up the ball.....we lost against the Poms with hardly a backline movement. We scored 9 backline tries in the 2004 under Jake, in 4 matches. We scored 4 backline tries in 98 under Mallett. More nonsense.

 Mozart
You are talking crap again - what are you talking about?   The Springboks won all their matches in 1998 - bar against the English in the EOYT and you come up with a story about scoring 4 backline tries in the whole year.    And then the 2004 story as to Jake White about 9 tries in 4 matches.  
Jake White was not a backline coach ever - he was known for playing Jake=ball - not rugby - but the above was not an attack on him.   It was an objective analysis of what is always a fact since re-admission to international rugby in 1992.            

I said in the 98 TN Plank.. Check it out and apologize......Jake White's team scored more than twice the backline tries Mallett did in their resprctive first TNs.

ccl.

More like ccs.

 The plank are you - you did not say the 98 TN when the Boks won all their matches scoring four tries is a virtual impossibility.
However, Jake White is not the only symptom of a seriously defective idea about rugby - the whole lot after White was even worse.
The idea of yours and some others about "Traditional SA Rugby" is an abortion used to cover up the inadequate coaching and consequential flop of SA backline play.   Every time that comes up on your side it has been proven as utter crap and BS.   Shall I emphasize once again that physical development is a universal and scientific development scenario and there is absolutely no reason why any SA player or player combination would be physically superior to their opponents in other teams.
The answer is obviously to ensure that all 15 team players perform - not only the forwards.    In doing that they should use best methodology so your constant BS harping on "Traditional SA Rugby" is a farce and a totally delirious lunacy.        

 I wonder ... did Mallet also see his side thumped 48 zip?
How about 57- 15?
Did he also lose to Japan and Argentina?

 Damn shame the Boks have come to this, anyone seen the documentary about the All Blacks test series win in 1996. The ABs greatest moment to beat the Boks at home, that was the ultimate above all else. Ex All Blacks in tears after beating the Springboks for the first time in history. 
For this All Black fanatic the current state of South African rugby brings no satisfaction at all. Almost depressing to go from the ultimate battle of the Titans, to the annihilation on the weekend. Former Springboks who smashed and destroyed all before them must be spewing and very angry. 
They didn't put their bodies on the line for nothing!!! The Bok jersey represented something very powerful that even the greatest All Black players feared and respected. Wheres the commitment, the heart and passion that was shown by the South Africans. That spirit of never lying down cant be gone FFS!!!! I hope the Springboks wake up soon, NZ misses our greatest rival 

 It's always so much better when one wins a tough encounter where the opponent was at his best.
Destroying us as you did on Saturday was no fun for us and I'm sure you guys walked away feeling empty.
I hope we see tough, brutal contests between our two nations again.
That is how it's supposed to be.

 anyone seen the do[removed]entary about the All Blacks test series win in 1996.


And the rest shed light.

SA rugby is being given a seat due to a glorified past.

That was in 1996. Professionalism happened in 1995. Twenty years later, the effects are seen: NZ took advantage of the increased means provided by professionalism. Others did not.

It is as simple as that. SA rugby did not progress. NZ did progress. As a result, one rugby has grown significantly better than the other.

Well Mallett certainly saw his sides thumped. This being perhaps the poorest sequence in Bok rugby since readmission. Happened to your hero Mallett in 99. 18-34 New Zealand 6-32 Australia 0-28 New Zealand 19-29 Wales Let me add them up for you Carbuncle Mallett 43....wales/NZ/Oz 123. Pretty awful.

In fact if you exclude the two tests against Italy who were so bad at that time that we beat them by 100 points......Mallett's record after his initial run of 17 wins which were teed up by Du Plessiis was a miserable 9 won/10 lost in 99 and 2000. And the 9 wins included the usual soft WC wins against the likes of Uruguay, Spain and Scotland. ....and a win against Weakling Canada. That leaves Mallett with a 5 wins/ 10 losses against decent opposition in his last two years.

 Mozart
Hell you are dim and so easily predictable.   This is about a sh!t system developed after the 1980"s eliminating backline attacking play and developing a phrase called "traditional SA Rugby".
Du Plessis in 1997 identified the BS and tried to correct it.   He put together a squad capable of scoring tries and winning matches - examples given.   Mallett took over the team and his flops started  when he had top replace the players originally identified by Du Plessis.   '
So in your normal way you diverted the topic to a discussion on Mallett and White a coaches.   You have no idea about the problem and how to solve it and the answer is not the BS you normally comes up with.   
It is no use trying to debate anything on this site - your contribution will always pollute the discussion.             

 Mozart
Hell you are dim and so easily predictable.   This is about a sh!t system developed after the 1980"s eliminating backline attacking play and developing a phrase called "traditional SA Rugby".
Du Plessis in 1997 identified the BS and tried to correct it.   He put together a squad capable of scoring tries and winning matches - examples given.   Mallett took over the team and his flops started  when he had top replace the players originally identified by Du Plessis.   '
So in your normal way you diverted the topic to a discussion on Mallett and White a coaches.   You have no idea about the problem and how to solve it and the answer is not the BS you normally comes up with.   
It is no use trying to debate anything on this site - your contribution will always pollute the discussion.             

Well here's the thing: 1 I proved White in 2004 scored more than twice the backline tries Mallett did in the 1998 RC....blowing your theory that Mallett was the backline king out of the water. In fact Mallett won the 98 TN with only 4 backline tries 2 I showed the moment Mallett lost the team he inherited from Carel his re imploded, ending with just 5 wins and 10 losses against decent competition in his last two years. Proving once again for fools like you that the cohesiveness of the team is far more important than individual selections. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to educate you again.