The Cat
What you said about backline play is 100% correct - but your statement as to Morne's situation is the first time ever that Morne is part of the greater problem. Yes - running lines and combination with forewards is a requirement and I have said that our attacking play in the backline is seriously flawed - exactly for the reasons now enumerated by you.
So no comprehension lecture is required. I said from the word go that there is a lack of skills development of the backline players - which allowed for all the things that you now enumerated. In this regard I said that we do not have a decent backline coach - who can deal with the issues now listed by you. I even added the issue of off-loads in tackle situations.
For that reason I clearly stated that the whole backline was subject to criticism and I sibngled out cirtually all the players accept th wings in the relevant regard.
There are link players in that regard that is really the key to backline attacking play and that is the scrummie - as distributor of the ball and the flyhalf - the backline pivot. The main function of the scrummie is to read the game instinctively and distribute the ball fast and effectively - but n even more important function is that of the flyhalf - who should get the ball on the run and not standing still and then wait or hesitatee as to what to do.
Both should have ball sense and sum up situations quickly - and from there let the game flow. All sounds very, very nice bar the implementation of the process as outlined. It was amazement that I now read you say that Morne is partly to blame for the deficiency - I always thought that you said everyone - but Morne - is to blame for the provlem.
There are or were two players involved at present as scrummie and flyhalf - and those are Hougaard and Morne. I have stated clearly that Hougaard is not a natural scrummie. His serice to the backline is slow as a result of his tendency to run a few steps before passing. That enables the defending players to get to or cut off the flyhalf behind the gain line and is not acceptable. Iy is necessary for the scrummie to at times also kick the ball - but Hougaard's kciking game is very problematic - in earlier tests he played in too many of his kicks were charged down - too far to be effective - or in the case of relieving kicks within the 22 not out. That is a problem Meyer has already identified - hence the move to play him on the wing. Pienaar is by no means perfect - he is also slow in delivery to forwards tow whom he passes too many balls to forwards in the believe that they would link up with the backline and hence launch attacks. In the main our forwards then crashball and the result is another loose maul. I think that their is need for skills development here too- because although the theory is sound - the implementation not so. owever is passing to the backline is faster and more effecicient than Hougaard's, However, I believe that Pienaar is playing according to instruction - which may impact on his ability to be really an effective scrummie.
When it comes to the flyhalf as a pivot - there is a major problem here. Morne is hessitant as tow hat he should do - witness one of the early balls he got yesterday. He was standing far back and received the ball from Pienaar and was apaprently thinking of a drop kcik at goal - but there were Springboks in front of him and the defenders caught him way behind the gain line. He also as a rule delay the passing of the ball to the inside center or to kick and where to kick - with result that his passing to backline players are too slow to be effective. It is also for that reason that his strategic kicking is often prollematic - since the kicks are often too far ro allow for proper follow-up and allows the opposition players timne to consider their options - since they are not under pressure. Those aspects have been highlighyed by many observers and givn as a reason for the failure of the backline as a whole to function effeciently in attacking play. Although there has always been a problem in the relevant regard - ie effective backline play - he had one ability that was of great value - and that was his kicking goals - either by drop goals. penalty goals of conversion of tries. There has been a major problem withthe latter aspect of his game this year in tests. He had one good game in the relevant regard and that was the test in Cape Town. Against the POMS he converted 56% of his kicks at goal, against the Argentinians and the Aussies it dropped to below 50% and yesterday it was 20%. That is not at all acceptable.
On the whole Goosen - whom you said would not improve backline play - has the ability to pass quciker givng better opportunities for the players outside of him. Whist not yet in eviddence in the tests - on Super 145 level he has often used skip passes and inside passes to players runnig at angles - which adds value to attacking backline play of the Cheetahs whose backline play you apparently admire.. However, in total Goosen only played less than 40 minutes rugby on test level - so those aspects of his natural game would also develop with more experience on test level. That is the huge difference between Morne and him - and that is why peope often say Goosen should be selected at flyhalf. .
I do not think that Morne is a poor flyhalf - but I also think that he is not a flyhalf that can really implement what you said attacking backline play should be or at least he bever effectively showed that he can in thre years of test rugby. .
