Ackers gave a few words at a coaching seminar for Level 3 coaches

Interesting in today's times to hear a coach say "we don't coach anything past 4th phase at the Lions".

In other words, after phase 4, the players need to make up their own minds and read the game that is in front of them and play what they see. Look, no doubt that it helps when you have players like Whitely, Kriel, Faf and Jantjies running the show... but lovely to see their Globetrotter style of play finally coming to fruition.

In todays times when sides are often over coached, its great to see someone come in with a different perspective on coaching.

... it may also be though, that Johann Ackermann can't count past 4... but thats anther whole debate.

Good philosophy though.

 That's actually really interesting, Chippo...and it appears to be working for the Lions, no doubt the trust he puts in his places boost their confidence massively too

 Chippo
The key is to play players who knows how to read the game and have ball sense.   They will play what is in front of them and make decisions that count in favour of the team.  We have too many players on franchise and even Springbok level that madly charge at the opponents and not try and just smash through players without any idea about what to do next.
It was interesting to see what Jean de Villiers said about competition for Springbok selection.   In his day Jean was one of the "clever" players - but in later years he became more of a conventional player in the SA mould.   Maybe the reason for that was we had the robotic and predictable Morne Steyn at flyhalf - making center play very, very difficult.   However, in a recent press interview Jean said he must compete with younger players for selection and he does not expect to be selected without qualifying for selection himself.  Insofar as the center competition is concerned he mentioned of the Lions centers Harold Vorster.   Must have been impressed as to what he sees in Vorster amongst the younger competitors.  
Insofar as the latter is concerned - the tries I saw scored by Vorster indicates an approach that ties in with what Ackerman said and I would like to see more of that youngster on higher level.        

The reason you don't place emphasis on anything past 4th phase is because after that point the best defenses are strengthened and reset.

Morné has never had trouble on attack. We are talking about a player who setup over 50% of the Bulls linebreaks during their outrageous high powered offence of 2010. He was such a key decision maker and general around the field. He accomplished those fest without Du Preez. He was a key figure of the best attacking Bok team since 2007. You can try, but you will fail to find an example to support any contrary opinion. Its entirely unfounded. Here are some of our problems: 

1. Players not coming onto the ball at pace. 
2. Poor skills or a lack of distributors in key positions, such as centre. 
3. Poorly executed running lines and predictable patterns of play. 
4. Often we play too many phases which stalls the attack and we increase the likelihood of errors or penalties. It also lends itself to an attack that is too narrow and too deep. 
5. Communication. We don't have many centres who can communicate well. Our halfbacks rely on information from those outside then to know what's happening. 
6. Draw and pass. This is one those things which irritates me the most. It's such a basic flaw. Not fixing defenders has ruined hundreds upon hundreds of opportunities. 

Playing what's in front of you involves a lot of rugby IQ to execute. New Zealanders learn these basic principles as youngsters, we don't. Why? Because in SA you ought to just feel things and "express yourself". All New Age nonsense that never works. And using the Lions' to promote that nonsense is even worse .

 Letsal
The moment you start with "Morné has never had trouble on attack" one knows that what follows will be of the same unadulterated CRAP that you normally spout - since Morne never was an attacking flyhalf and never ever was a player able to read games and adjust the game accordingly.  
This was a reasonable discussion by Ackerman - not a load of utter crap you dreamed up about the useless and clueless Morne Steyn.    The rest of the crap is not worth reading.

Really? What of the Bull's 2010 attacking form? He was the key player in one of the best attacking seasons by any team in Super rugby history, all without Du Preez! What of 2013? What of 2009 Bulls? We were told the Boks could never score tries with Morné, yet they did. His decision making continually causing problems for defenses. One instance in particular, that deft bullet pass out to Habana for the Welsh try in 2013, his great draw and pass for that crucial try against Argentina last year, or the excellent cut pass to release the outside backs against Australia. There is so much more. In 2011's Aussie test, he broke down the blindside rounding Beale and sending JP clean down the touchline. There was another good break that game. Or the excellent bouncing of Jauzion in Bok 22 and dummy in 2009? Or his solo try against New Zealand in his record breaking 31 point haul in 2009's second test? Or what of the 2012 Dunedin test with that dummy and swerve in the second test? I could go on Michael, but you will lie, trying to convince yourself that these moments do not matter or don't exist. Where are these big moments in the career of Lambie, Goosen or any other flavour of the day?

"The rest of the crap is not worth reading."

Such arrogance Michael. The rest of that "crap" IS real rugby. Not your fantasy rugby of collection or stats without context, but real rugby as it is played today, not the 1980s. But you don't understand the game, that much is clear, so why should it mean anything to you? Afterall, you aren't interested in discussing the game, just slinging mud at the Bulls and a few other players from other unions.

 oh dear...
another argument brought out of nothing.

Lestat
 
Status: Squad member 
Posts: 344RE: Ackers gave a few words at a coaching seminar for Level 3 coaches
May 15, 2015, 12:34:28The reason you don't place emphasis on anything past 4th phase is because after that point the best defenses are strengthened and reset. 
Have you ever played rugby before Lestat?  
The defense is most organised at first phase- otherwise their would be more tries from 1st phase.
The only time phase ball has the same level of organisation by the opposition defense, is very slow ball at the ruck. This gives the defensive team plenty of time to re-organise.
Try walking or even running backwards when the opposition are getting fast recycled possession from the ruck- then tell me it is easier to defend off quick ruck ball than 1st phase possession.
The whole reason the All Blacks want to play fast tempo rugby is to maximize the extra space from quick ruck ball. 
The basics of any game with a ball is to find space on attack, and close down space on defense. 
Why do you think the scrummies are trying to clear the ball from a ruck so quickly. 
Mccaw lies all over the ball to slow down the recycled possession to give his team a chance to re-organise the defense. Even a few extra seconds allows his team to re-organise and close down the space.

 I glanced through it - the rest of the stuff was crap blaming De Villiers and other player and exonerating Morne from any deficiency in backline play.  Any players playing in backlines outside of Morne Steyn has a serious problem in any form of attacking play.
You rake up a number of examples - five in total over a five year period involving over 70 tests and then said Morne is wonderful because of those 5 cases.  And wonder above wonder Morne scored a try in one case.   
In all those games Morne's contribution in backline play was negative.  On ESPN his summary of performances was that he was weak in 2011 and from the general perspective he was worse since then. 
Why if he is so good is he not the starting flyhalf for Stade Francais when Plisson is available?   Is a bench player of a Club good enough to be the Springbok flyhalf?   Why did  Meyer dropped him after the disastrous Perth test in 2014?     
If you intend to preach about Morne in future - why don't you start by giving an honest  answer to the above three questions.      

@Chippo- It is more likely the latter. 
If a coach is going to coach 1st phase, 2nd phase and 3rd phase- why not coach other phases?  Or conversely why have a coach at all - if over- coaching is a negative. 
Plus if it is really slow possession- their is no difference between 3rd phase and 4th phase.Option taking should be trained to players if possible- at any phase.
The New Zealand back-lines presumably practice more than 3 phases.

 SB
I think that you perhaps misinterpreted what Ackerman is driving at.  If the breakdowns are a repeat of each other, the first four phases will be repeated and the situation would not be that any further coaching will be done in respect of further phases.  The idea basically relates to variation of plays whenever it is possible for the Lions to do so and I think that the Lions were reasonably successful in their approach.     

 sharky, i think what ackermann was trying to say was that he likes his players to express themselves more once the game opens up.

Nothing wrong with that.

Sharkbok, in your eagerness you have erred. Yes, first phase possession is when the defense is strongest, hence why I used the word 'strengthened'. IRB data shows that most tries are scored between 1 and 4 phases. After that the defense gets the upper hand and start to find its shape again. Ackerman is following trends and placing high priority on strike efficiency in that phase range. What teams will do when the attack starts to lose momentum is bring it back to the start of their attack pattern, All Blacks with Carter is middle of the field and begin probing again. That's how its done. There's only so much space to work with and directions to move in. 

@flashI agree although their could be 2 ways of interpreting this as Chippo pointed out.
1. Dont over- coach and let the players rely on their instincts to take the best optionsor 2. Coach players in all phases and help them learn to take the best options.
I think one of the problems is that South African coaches only coach the set piece and 1st phase. Our teams are usually great in the line-outs- and good in scrums- and good on defense in first phase.  Our strength is strong ball carriers that can dominate the collisions and go forward ball. 
Meyer often laments the option taking of South African back-line players. 
A good coach and perhaps ex-player should be able to help the younger players with their option taking.
We saw Hougaard getting dropped by the Boks shortly after passing to the outside to Loodfoot who had no space and was bundled into touch by the reserve New Zealand flyhalf 

@Lestat, can you provide this data to support the claim?
Teams dont get their defense together after a certain amount of rucks. This is totally incorrect- unless the rucks get slower. 
Their is no logical way to explain that the more rucks their are- the easier it is to defend. It is actually the opposite way around- "if" the ball is cleared quickly. 
Sometimes their is over 20 phases but is team does not move forward and cant get on the front foot. This is easy to defend against.
New Zealand teams often dive all over the ball when defending their own 22.They are doing this to slow the ruck down- to give their teams more time to organise their defence. 
They know that if the opposition gets a few quick ruck balls - near their line, they are probably going to score. (Either with forwards or backs). They just give away 3 points instead- to stop the team getting 7 points and getting their tails up. 
Why else would the referee punish players for trying to slow the ball down. 
If the ball is quick from each ruck and the attacking team is taking the correct options- the defence is going to get more and more splintered with each phase. (Their players are getting sucked into rucks, which creates more space out wide- or potentially even through the middle. 
The whole point of a crashball on first phase is to pull in defenders- like Frans Steyn does. If the ball is cleared quickly the attacking team are on the front foot- and the opposition have to run backwards and are outnumbered. . It usually takes a few players to pull Frans Steyn to the ground, which creates an overlap in the backline - "if" the ball is cleared quickly before the defence becomes organised again-(Players getting to their feet from the tackle area and running back into their defensive alignment. )
They only get their defense together when the ball is not cleared quickly from a ruck- or the opposition take the wrong option. 
From what I understand most backline tries are scored from off-loads during multi-phase play. Also from quick turnovers. 
It is more important to get quick ball from a ruck- than go through lots of phases.It could be the 10th phase with very slow ball and it is harder to score than in the 5th phase when the ball is quick. 
When a team is attacking- and they concede a turnover- their defense is typically mis-alligned and this makes it easier to score due to more gaps.

You are still not proving your point. Yes you have the crash-ball to disrupt the defensive line. I understand all of those things. But the fact of the matter is that within four phases the defense starts to regain it's numbers, they are not going to contest every ruck and you are not always going to get forward momentum. A good example is the three-man gang tackling of Spies and the subsequent recovery, you can watch any of his tests.

You are basing all of your argument on one thing: only slow ball allows defense to regain its shape and numbers and that just isn't true. How you contest the breakdown is another issue. You are missing too much. Its very frustrating watching us get quick ball, but going nowhere because they are exiting tackle point and subsequent ruck quickly and realigning. How many phases can you go in one direction? Kiwi teams can go the width of the field in passes. You can go long or short. If you go short, you will be using channel one ball, which you hate. If you go long, you'll eventually have to return the opposite direction. How does this affect the attack? Where are the defenders? Was it from a lineout or scrum? All this factors to consider. Furthermore, the longer you attack the greater the chance of errors. Knock-ons, breakdown turnovers, penalties for not releasing, forward passes etc. The longer phase play continues the harder it become for the attacking team to control, secure and direct possession and find the field positions to work with. It also means going through numerous phases to reload the backline. You wouldn't want 9 and 10 tied up in rucks. Thus takes planning. First phase ball ties up the forwards and you have the backs fully loaded. 

I don't have the IRB documents on hand, I'll have to go through my files when i get home. 

 This wonderful idea of crashballing and quick ball recovery is the key to the concept of backline play originally used in the main by the Bulls and over the past three years also by the Sharks - but essentially it does not work out as the theory would suggest and as a matter of fact it is normally counter-productive.
The reasons for the poor results of the crashball concept are -
*   the inability of the majority of SA loosies to follow the ball, protect the tackle ball  and quickly recover same - if it is done by fellow-backline players it reduces the number of potential attackers;
*    the chronic inability by most SA forwards to actually recover balls quickly and effectively; and
*    the chances of loss of possession by the crashballers.
Mention is made of Francois Steyn as an effective crashballer and how difficult it is to tackle him - but over the last nearly 3 Super 15's he was the player most inclined to lose ball possession in tackle situations and unlike De Allende he was reasonably easy to tackle.    
The reality is that crashballing is basically more towards bringing the backline to a dead stop - allowing the opposition to line up their defenders - than an attacking mechanism.    That is why it is not really followed by other SH teams and the idea is that it is better to effectively off-load balls in tackle situations after drawing in more than one defender than to use the crashball concept and have a delay in ball recovery as is the case with teams using the concept.     

s Lestat
 
Status: Squad member 
Posts: 347RE: Ackers gave a few words at a coaching seminar for Level 3 coaches
May 15, 2015, 18:03:14But the fact of the matter is that within four phases the defense starts to regain it's numbers. 

they are not going to contest every ruck and you are not always going to get forward momentum.So what then is the best phase to attack from then?If you say it is not 1 or 4. The easiest way for a team to score consistently is with quick ruck ball. Clean breaks can be made- but it is easier when their is a few quick rucks with go forward. 

You aren't understanding what I'm saying Sharkbok.
Michael, you don't know how the forwards are organised on the field. They seldom operate alone, but in units, called PODs. You'll have the carrier and at least one other cleaner. It's customary for the backs to function behind the forwards. The backs will make the decisions. The problem we had at test level is a dearth of strong carriers like Alberts. Trying to go the way of the Lions leads to a hit and run style that won't work at test level. Super rugby affords more space, and even Cheika enlisted the services of Potgieter to provide some grunt to help implement his game. You cannot get around the fact that without strong direct carries, you are not going to create space. Straightening up the attack. At some point a player has to run directly or else the attack becomes too lateral. This is what happened at the Stormers because of Damian and their smaller backs. He would lurk behind a POD, and they'd fix the defenders and pass out the back to get him around the edge of the defence. These screen plays are necessary because the defence has so much time to watch play unfold. However, if your forwards aren't a threat for a direct carry, the defenders will just bypass them and catch your backs behind the advantage line. We had that problem throughout last year. We didn't have enough strong carriers to lay a platform down for the backs. We needed an Alberts. Having a powerful 12 would have helped. 

 Letsal
The crashball theory is supposed to be one of the methods to optimize attacking play -  the application is deficient and not meeting up with requirements.   Basically the situation is that even though the application happens near enough for the forwards to get to the crashball - it frequently happen the opposition is there before our players.
The main weakness though is to repeat crashballing with virtually every ball the inside center gets.  Predictability is the easiest thing in the world for opposition teams to deal with - and the result is in the main detrimental.
A far better way of improving attacking play is to draw in more than one defender and thus create space for other players and at the correct stage during the tackle off-load the ball effectively.    Some centers cannot do that - others can, but the off-load is inaccurate and does not go to a player directly - a few players can and make effective off-loads.   The best center in the world at present doing off-loads in tackle situations is S-B Williams of the Chiefs and he does that very often in games sometimes as many as 4 times in a game.  
I want to give an example of where the situation goes completely wrong and remind members of the Sharks - Hurricanes game in 2014 - where Francois Steyn handled as far as I can remember the ball 33 times.  He -
 *   kicked the ball 11 times; *   passed the ball 5 times - only 1 pass went to another backline player,  the other 4 passes went to forwards; and *   the other 17 times crashballed totally ineffectively and lost ball possession twice and was penalized for hanging on to the ball twice.  
Backline players outside of Steyn scored 2 tries - but that happened when Steyn for some reason or another did not touch the ball in the process of scoring of the tries .  That was an extreme case of being predictable - something which in all formats of backline play should be avoided like the plague.      
     

Michael, you are falling into the similar problems that Sharkbok had. Allow me to liberate you from your errancy.

"The crashball theory is supposed to be one of the methods to optimize attacking play -  the application is deficient and not meeting up with requirements.   Basically the situation is that even though the application happens near enough for the forwards to get to the crashball - it frequently happen the opposition is there before our players."

Using hard running ball-carriers to attack and break up the defensive line is not a supposed theory but an absolute essential ingredient to any kind of successful movement. Saying the application is deficient is in complete disagreement with everything that rugby is or has been for decades! I cannot believe what I'm hearing from you... even you! If the opposition get the hit on the defensive wall first then that is purely down to poor planning and decision making by the players. I can recount an instance in 2012 against England. South Africa had a lineout half-way. The plan was to use Frans to make the rudimentary hit middle of the field and that would have freed up the outside backs to have a 3 on 2 with a spread attack. As it was Jean and JP were dithering around and looking at each other instead of both coming over the top to secure possession. The crash-ball worked, the players were in place, but poor decision making wasted the opportunity. It happens not because the method is flawed, but errors from the players. It's the job of the cleaners and support to be on hand at all times. Another rugby fundamental. If you stopped using big ball-carriers then you have absolutely no hope of ever achieving anything in rugby at any level. If you do not have directness in your game you cannot stress the defence. You'll be crabbing, looking for space that doesn't exist. Team are smart in determining which rucks to contest. You have to force them to break their structure, pull defenders inside and then go wide. That's why it is said, "You have to earn the right to go wide".  
Wales use a tactic where they have big ball carriers repeatedly attack close to the ruck, angling in on each run, so they can break up the defence and then go wide. It's one of their patterns. 
In fact, it's standard practice for teams to use their PODs to grind for quick ball and to break up the defensive line. That's what the Reds did with Copper, that's what the Bulls did with Morné. Both would direct their charges and call for the ball when space was achieved. Big ball carries, often coming around the corner. 12 is supposed to be the stronger, more direct inside centre. He is supposed to punch it up. 

"The main weakness though is to repeat crash-balling with virtually every ball the inside center gets.  Predictability is the easiest thing in the world for opposition teams to deal with - and the result is in the main detrimental."

The main weakness of the crashball is that repetitiveness makes it easier to see coming and prepare for? Well, that goes for everything else. In rugby you do what works until the opposition learn to stop it. Take the England test last year. England had Barrett run at Lambie all day long. Their big ball-carriers were clearly instructed to target him because they were looking up to see where he was, and they would adjust their run to hit him. It was predictable, but we had absolutely no answer for it. This happened in the first Lions test where Jacobs, our only weakness in that game, almost cost us the test. They sent Roberts to run him down time after time. Yes, if the opposition are clearly geared up to stop the hit inside then you come to what I said about multiple phases. The defense starts to get the upper hand. Your attack can become too narrow. That's if you don't have the organization or planning to use the ball once space is achieved. Crashbaling or one off runners off 9 are predictable, but that doesn't make it any less effective. The defence may see what's coming, but they still have to physically subdue it, and that takes resources. This has a knock on effect on the defensive line. 

"A far better way of improving attacking play is to draw in more than one defender and thus create space for other players and at the correct stage during the tackle off-load the ball effectively."

I cannot express in words how hard I am laughing right now. So, after telling me that attacking the inner channels is a failed concept that only works in theory and is never done by the best teams (well, it would have to be that way if you are right), you now propose that we create some space for the outside backs! That is one hell of a contradiction Michael! How does one create space for the outside attacking support runner without crash-balling if they are engaging the defender with the very intent of making contact and then distributing in the tackle? Eddie Jones would hit you on the nose with a rolled up newspaper if he heard what you just said!

"Some centers cannot do that - others can, but the off-load is inaccurate and does not go to a player directly - a few players can and make effective off-loads.   The best center in the world at present doing off-loads in tackle situations is S-B Williams of the Chiefs and he does that very often in games sometimes as many as 4 times in a game."

SBW is good in certain kinds of games. In 2012, at home, Jake's Brumbies completely nullified him. Scotland did the same thing on the EOYT of 2010. They completely nullified him. He is good at offloading, but he is not the best centre. He was used with an emphasis on offloading. The Crusaders made the best of that by having runners coming into line running all kinds of angles, but it was eventually overcome. And now he is having to evolve his game and become a more complete 12.

Frans v Hurricanes 2014

As per the Hurricanes game last year, I completely debunked your myth last year. I exposed everything! Against the Hurricanes Frans gave the Sharks alot of secure carries in traffic when they were struggling to lay a platform down. And as for wanting him to pass more? What clear options did he have? Not many. I know you adore the Lambie style of play where you pass to a player in a worse position than yourself just to show that you passed the ball around, but Frans is more mindful, as he should be. Instead of being the robot you allegedly detest, he thoughtfully gave the Sharks some secure ball in a hotly contested battle of the collisions and that went a long way to securing the result. To say Frans was a liability is a damn disgrace. Added to that, the Hurricane defence was up very quickly and with intent to cut out the wide channels. Had you watched more carefully you would have noted that there weren't many passing opportunities that Frans or Coetzee missed. Kankowski himself said at half time the Sharks were trying to force too many dangerous passes and that they needed to keep it simple. Low and behold that is what they did in the second half!

 Chipo, I like it. Which goes to show, players are not robots.

Ackers may be wishing he coached a few more phases, or a few less against the Brumbies?

 Letsal 
This guy suffers from verbal diarrhea and the way he deals with it makes it the real thing.
1.   The crasshball theory
This must be a serious joke - I wrote about the concept of crashballing - he responded about "running hard" at the opposition.   The problem he misses is that running hard at the opposition can be by any player on the field of play and cannot be regarded as crashballing and in fact rarely result in a real crashball situation.
The crashball is where the player does not really run hard at the opposition - matter of fact the speed of crashballers are slow and when they get tackled they go down quickly - since they must fall in such a way that they can place the ball so as to ensure quick ball recovery.  
I cannot believe that the idiot goes off on a tangent on an issue I never raised. 
2.   Predictability
After reading a long paragraph he seems to agree that predictability is a serious problem, but apparently missed the point again.   I wrote that  repeat crash-balling with virtually every ball the inside center get sand said that to do it virtually with every ball the inside center gets causes predictability.
It would be wiser for you to deal with actual issues raised and taking into account the actual wording off the issue you have to respond to. 
3.    Creating Space for players    
 All I can say does this idiot knows the English language and secondly does he know rugby at all?   I am amazed at what he wrote.

First of all nobody wrote anything about  "attacking the inner channels".  Fact is that crashballing is only a very minor concept in attacking the inner channels.   The reason why it is insignificant is that crashballers run straight at the first defender(s) - and does not aim at the slight gaps between backline players, that draws in defenders from both side - leaving a defensive gap as a result.  If that is coupled to a good off-loading ability the attack is normally very effective.
Please stick to the topic - and do not go into a haze about anything else - especially since it is clear that you do not understand how the crashball concept is actually applied and the deficiencies that is constantly present when players use the concept.
SBW and Off-loading  
I wrote about being the best center in the world in OFF-LOADING  OF BALLS.    I never said he is the best center in the world without a very clear classification of the field he is the best in.  There are deficiencies in other aspects of his game - which would not make him the best center in the world - hence the clarification originally provided.   Where you again went haywire is that by responding to something I in fact never wrote - your response is a serious joke.
Francois Steyn   
This debunk story of yours is utter and unadulterated crap - you say things that never happen in reality and then say you have debunked what other members say.  The Hurricanes - Sharks game of 2014 was  disgraceful show of ineptitude by Fransie - he was piss-poor in that game.    


    

 Mike, relax, crash balling is a subjective term. Negative on this site, but like the Gary Owen and the rolling mall, it's part of the game,  and if done well, something to behold.

 Lions r building for next year.

 Hacked waaaugh the Lions lost the game rather than the brumbies winning it. The Lions shot themselves in the foot with too many unforced errors.
SA backs are not on the whole well coached. Poor selection s ala Alistair coetzee also doesnt help.


 

 Exactly Beans. The Lions have been through alot lately and this is the first time in a long time they have had some sort of consistent coaching and managing.

 I like what I hear from Ackerman...patience is the word for the Lions, in time I reckon they'd be doing some great things.

 Hear hear Denny --> maybe even come 2nd to a NZ Team

Mallett read my comments and had this to say afterwards:

Mallett was speaking in the SuperSport studio on Saturday night following a dismal weekend for South African teams in Super Rugby.

All four teams competing lost, with the Bulls going down to the Blues in Auckland (23-18), the Sharks losing to the Waratahs in Sydney (33-18), the Lions undone by the Brumbies in Johannesburg (30-20) and the Cheetahs thumped by the Highlanders in Bloemfontein (45-24).

Mallett said: “At half-time we heard Naka (Drotske, Cheetahs coach) say it's back to basics. So for the first 10 minutes of the second half we saw driving mauls and up-and-unders. And it was strange that they were kicking up-and-unders on Patrick Osborne because he's a very big guy.

“The coaching that you get in New Zealand is very different from what you get here. At practice they will put players into situations that they'll face in game. They will play attack against defence. The attack is faced with varying types of defence - a press defence, a shift defence, a slow defence, a staggered defence, a tight defence or a wide defence. And they get the attack to choose the right option in relation to the defence they're confronted with.

“South African coaches have a tendency to say, ‘From this lineout we're going to do this move. We're going to play the centre on a crash-ball. We'll play the same direction with forwards off No 9, then we'll bring it back the other way with a pod of forwards off No 9 and if we get momentum then we'll play it wide".

“But it's all pre-programmed and it's easy to telegraph. Whereas what the New Zealand teams do is give the No 10 the power to make those decisions on the field of play. He will direct during phase play who needs to get the ball. And that's why they read the situation so much better than us.”

---

To much focus on the first phases- and not enough passing in the backline. 

 

New Zealand and the Crusaders like to play a pattern where they punch it up and have to receivers either side of the middle of the field and choose what presents the most opportunities. They exactly have a plan and are very good at calling and executing 2 and 3 man plays and supporting each other. New Zealand use their forward up to 60% more as support than any other SH team as per the IRB data. They use them as they were backs, which extends the line. 

What New Zealand do as Mallett described, is exactly what I have been saying all along. Puzzle solving. Teaching their players to identify what is in front of them and how to break it down. Our players are not adequately prepared to do this. How could they be? 

 You can leave out my Blues when you are mentioning NZ @ Lestat. I am not sure what they are up to lately