A Formula For Beating All Blacks

I reviewed the 2014 test to see how the Boks played when they beat New Zealand. Trying to gather some ideas about how best to approach the next test. What struck me was the width. Long passes and much flatter play all along the line. The point of contact was much further apart and this really stretched the All Blacks. 

In the Rugby Championship, the Boks started the first test very conservatively, constricting the Pumas before striking. It took Argentina over half the game at least before they could get anything going. The power game was simply too much. I had hoped the Boks would try to attack more ball in hand in the second game, and they did try. Three tries were lost to inaccuracy. Some fortuitous breaks in defence allowed the Pumas to punish us. Against Australia Rassie tried to be more creative in allowing the backs, particularly getting 10 and 12 more involvement. It didn't work. 

I find the Bok's game to be too narrow on attack. The passes too short and too much reliance on playing off 9. We have good wings who are being wasted. We have options at centre to provide more ball in hand. What I want is a return to style more akin to what Meyer used to defeat New Zealand. We have speed and forwards with good enough passing skills to stretch the opposition. It would make Kolisi more useful. If we can stop setting up with PODs and backs beneath as we currently do, we can create more width. If you watch the Boks, they allow the defence to move with the ball easily and struggle to get outside the edge of the defence. These short movements lead to few gains, and we end up with more bodies at the breakdown than the opposition. Against Australia we averaged 2 to 3 players supporting each ruck ; Australia quickly withdrew from the breakdown and we'd eventually lose momentum.

Move them around. Have a concentration of forwards in the middle of the field and like Meyer had. 

Maybe paying some kids to let the air out of the ABs bus tyres might be yer best option ,a half an hour head start might just about tip it your way .

That may be the case. With the manner in which the Boks have allowed offloads and broken down at key phases, it's likely going to be along day. It doesn't have to be though. The Boks have enough tools in the shed to be productive. If they play smart and to their strengths. 

Monsieur Merde

The only match Meyer ever won against the AB's was in 2014 when Meyer had his normal zero game plan.   So what is your evaluation worth? 

That test was won by two tries by Pollatd and one by  Hougaard and was nearly destroyed by  a line-up mess by Matfield when he was outjumped by Whitelock.   The midfield defense by De Villiers and Serfontein was a mess - they missed 33,3% of all attempted tackles. And the match was won finally won by a pressure 55 meter penalty kick by Lambie - which the Mozart serial BSter said was not a pressure kick.

Now Monsieur Merde wants Am and Esterhuizen as centers,   That would be a defensive sieve - so what can one expect from him in a suggested match formula?  Ze ro is a good answer.  

So Meyer beat the All Blacks in a game whose I date I specified with no gameplan? 

Do you hear that fellow Kiwis? We don't even need a gameplan to beat you! So that's where it was all going wrong since 2014. It's a good thing we have Clever Mike to spell it out for us. 

Fellow Kiwis ? What are you trying to tell us ? Freudian slip ? Do you hanker to be a happy ABs fan ?

Cant say as I blame you Augie.

AO

Lets face facts - Meyer never had a game plan iro backline play.   He said so himself when he said the "SA backline players have deficient ball skills and cannot play a ball-in-hand game."

Does that own statement by him implies a real game plan existed?  It never did and the game was a shambles as well.   Despite the defense problems and Matfield's poor performance that day, the Springboks produced  miracle performance on the day that was never repeated in Meyer's era as a coach.

Funny enough Meyer claimed subsequent to the famous Japan test that his game plan for the day was ignored by both Matfield and De Villiers,   It was obvious what that "game plan" was - overpower the Japanese up front - but it was fouled up by Burger, Bismarck, Matfield  and Pienaar.   It also entails for the scrummie to use Burger as first receiver and not the flyhalf - so it was doomed as well.

That much for Meyer's famed game plans invented by AO as if it really existed.   The joke is really unbelievable. LMAO.  

BB

I agree with you - but the damage can be reduced by making better selections than was used in the RC tests thus far,  I am sure that the foul-ups made in the Aussie test should be cut out and the hooker and the loosie combination should be changed,  

We all know that Erasmus made some poor squad selections for the Australasia tour - and he is as a result in a corner now.  That limits his options insofar as the loosies are concerned.  

Oh boy ... pay attention folks ... Poepies is here to show us the way.

He wants to move the All Blacks around ... he wants more width to stretch their vastly superior backline to breaking point ...  and he wants to do this with pockets of his pack in the middle of the field, presumably among the backline players.

He wants to revert to a Meyer style of play where the first receiver off 9 is a forward ... the same game plan that he used against the Japanese.

The problem is that the current squad of losers can't even do the basics right. They don't know how to contest the ball at the breakdown ... they don't know about support play, playing off each other's shoulder ... they don't know how to defend as a unit ... that the simple act of running out of line creates a gaping hole ... that an over throw from a lineout 5m from your own tryline is stupid and should be avoided ... that the simply basics of securing your line out ball first and clearing the line with a kick to touch is the obvious choice.

These simple basics are beyond them ... and Poepies wants to complicate matters now with an outdated Bulls style of play that we saw 15 years ago.

It's 2018 now, Poeps ... try to keep up will you!!   

I have one word for him ... DUMBASS!!!

CC

The farce is that Matfield was in the main standing around the centers causing more damage than is imaginable - yet AO now wants that situation to be repeated.

What a farce.   

We need to select the right players in the right positions before we do anything else.

We need to get the basics sorted first before we venture towards elaborate and innovative play.

Rassie has had more than enough time with the players to know who the losers are and who to build a team with. He should fire all the losers and NEVER return to them.

Our tight 5 can be improved by replacing Bongi, Beast and Mostert with Akker, van Rooyen and Lood.

Our loose trio can be improved by replacing Kolisi, Whiteley and Du Toit with Jaco Kriel, Vermeulen and someone like Wiese, Ackermann or Augustus.

Herr Drache, you keep embarrassing yourself. The current Bok pattern is actually more convoluted and takes more time to set up and creates more rucks. Simplify the game and allow their athleticism to be put to use. We can use the mobility of our forward. Beast, Kolisi, Marx, Eben, du Toit, Snyman, Wilco, Van Staden  and Mostert can pay this game. We have enough forwards with good hands. Use them. Why play so narrow and tire ourselves out with needless rucks when the opposition aren't even contesting, and we lose numbers with bodies in those rucks? Why not spread out the defence and force them to make 1v1 tackles? Look at the Wallaby and Puma games, the All Black defence can be breached, it's not invulnerable.

Herr Drache. When  you call something like this outdated, you are actually saying the All Black game is outdated. It's very funny how often you make these gaffs. For a time I thought you were making mistakes because you were over eager to be contrary, now I'm not so sure. 

What you describe may be factual in you delusional mind and that is a fact,   The players are not playing the game you said they are,  There is no real competition by our loose forwards at breakdowns.  There is very little team effort where forwards and backs combine in carrying balls.

The players you punt all the time has serious limitations - both in defense and in reading of the game,  All those things are necessary to get the result you dreamed up. 

That brings me to the issue of breakdowns - they are the result of tackles and when those tackling is deficient - there obviously are no breakdowns,   That means that in the case of Springbok ball carries there should be players who protect own balls,   This is done by all players - but more specifically by the loosies,   This is a key a rea where the Springbok loosies failed all the time.  They either are pace-deficient or incapable of doing what they are supposed to do.

Breakdown ball protection, quick recovery and even turnovers in the main result in continuation of attack and counter-attacks.   This deficiency which we have seen indicates a serious problem  in all our players.   The main areas are -

*   deficiency in defense by a number of backline players - most of whom has been punted by you; and

*   incapacity in respect of our loosies,

I am afraid what you claim is happening is in fact nothing more than one of your cloud 9 statements.           

Actually Clever Mike, the team is very organised at the breakdown. The Boks are heavily structured around their PODs, where there is always a back in behind. Sometimes a back is amongst them, like we saw last Saturday when Whiteley was flanked by Mapimpi and Jantjies in a three man line (17:53). Or when the Boks had two forwards spread apart with a back right behind them (40:43); Steph with Willie and Kolisi with Damian and Dyantyi out wide. There are many layers to our attack. That's something I wanted to eliminate for the sake of simplicity. We have depth, but narrowness. Make the attack a little shallower, play a little flatter and make the passes wider. Make the point of contact further apart and force the defenders to cover more ground. This opens up 1v1 opportunities which Kolisi is exceptional at exploiting. So too Beast, Marx, Eben.

The ball is protected by the players allocated to that channel of attack. This is very typically a 3 man POD. One carries in and two clean. We average no less than 2 cleaners at every ruck, sometimes 3. Seldom more than that. We are very organised in this area of the game.

Overall Mike, you are straying from the topic. You haven't addressed any of my points in the opening post and have yet to comment on the game I want. You make some waffley statements about how the Boks are playing now. 

The game you want may be an ideal to strive to can only be implemented if the players selected are capable of implementing it.   That remains a problem - since you are constantly supporting player selections incapable of implementation.   

Actually we have the forwards to implement this game. We have some fast, mobile and skillful forwards. Use them. Esterhuizen is a great distributor and decision maker. Use him. Am is a solid 13. Or if your prefer a more lively runner, 13. The negative with Kriel is that he dies with the ball. I wouldn't mind him at 14 once. See what he can do. What I want will be less taxing on our players, particularly the forwards and allow our runner s more opportunity to shine. There will be more passes and fewer rucks. 

Pleaae go back and study the match reports on Esterhuizen - their sis zero prove that he has the qualities you credit him with.   

I have followed his career since his Under 20 years.   He always was a physical player - never a decisionmaker.   He always was basically a crashballer,  

You are obviously entitled to dream up things - but please keep it realistic.  

Show me one instance of Damian distributing that wasn't a passive pass down the line. Lüg, it's becoming extremely tedious having these discussions, as you repeatedly peddle the same worn out lies and fallacies every single day. You never move forward. Never learn anything new. 

Damian has been emphatically outplayed by Esterhuizen. The Welsh test you cite as an example of Esterhuizen costing us is one in which he was credited by everyone to have been the best Bok back, if not the best Bok! When I press you for details, you come up with nothing. Then you get personal and the discussion disintegrates into an irreversible mess. It'd be interesting of you could actually form some kind of rebuttal. At least try. 

Lol Shark.

Tanie Suzie and Cheikas hotel chair with the built in microfone might be the best idea.

Wonderful statement by our world expert.   Don't throw the ball around in your own 22 - just kick the ball away is the logical thing to do.  

In 90% of the cases it is to get a better angle to make a relieving line kick that would be more effective.  Often enough it represent a ball gathered just outside the 22 - which means a kick is not allowed directly into touch.

The dismal fact is that Mozart never advocated anything other than kicking balls away - irrespective of whether such a kick represents easy ball possession handovers which open the way for counter-attacks by the AB's;

A classic case is his hero Morne Steyn who was known by the AB's for doing just that.   When he got the ball - the opposition wings and flyhalf would fall back to cover for the kick and the loosies and inside center would go for the potential recipient making any pass a hospital one since Morne never attack the gain line - it happened in fact once in all tests played and Mozart and co is crowing about that one.    The problem was also Morne's ability to make poorly directed kicks,   

Mozart would never admit that  poorly-directed kicks in tests against the AB's  caused more problems for the Springboks than anything else.   

Fact is that Mozart also claimed that the game needs to be limited to a total extent so as to get the best results.   The man is really so deluded that he cannot see that what happened in the past six years was the reason for the situation where the AB's constantly outplayed the Springboks - hence only one win - where a decent flyhalf helped and where the test was won despite the normal Matfield foul up and the final penalty kick by Lambie - according to Mozart the 55 meter kick was not a pressure kick.  

Same story - same stupidity,                 

I have yet to see Mozart call for the Boks to kick everything away. I have read quite a bit of his posts and he seems to have an appreciation for field position. This is a view I share, and an area that has been a stumbling block for the Boks for nearly nine years. 

Morné was not known as such to the All Blacks. This is your own opinion, based on nothing. We've already seen how you distort what people say on here and the words of those coaching involved with the game.

Your interpretation of past games is also flawed.

With regards to the game I'm calling for. It does need to be backed up defensively. I'm not calling for a frantic game. It doesn't have to be that way. However, I do call for a gameplan to rectify the problem areas of our attack. Teams are losing to New Zealand because they are not capitalising on their opportunities. If we don't increase the efficiency of the ball we use, we will lose, and we will be punished severely in the process. 

For all the talk of Rassie being a forward thinking man, I'm only seeing a few gimmicks here and there around the same flawed structure. Meyer did it better. 

Us Kiwis hated Morne Steyn what does that tell you [ and it was nothing personal against wee Morning Stains] 

@Bluebok, arrive with baseball bats and start swinging - two of your tries were scored right from the ABs playbook - copying is the best flattery.

I think how to beat the ABs is to have the flakey ABs Fullback have a brain snap and pass to your fullback on our own 22 with noone else to cover as the stupid fullback himself was the one who did the lineout throw .

And the other is to have one of our centres pass to your wing a nothing ball to score instead of straightening up the attack.

I was wondering when the ref and the touch judges would pick that up since they camped the whole of the first half in the ABs half - the 2nd half it was easier for them to pick the offside as the ABs were standing deeper in attack