Bok rugby is iron, not lace

The  running rugby apologists rave over the Quaalude and the ABs. We will  never beat the ABs unless we accept their dominance, they argue. We need to study NZ play they say...copy their heroes.

But we have the most powerful forwards on the planet and fast, direct backs. Our game isn't clever passing and elaborate moves. We knock the buggers over and feed on the turnovers.

HM is putting together a dominant pack, with depth in every position.....the most powerful pack the game has seen. Some players work with that style....Fury sealing off the outside turned the ball back into the maw of the Bok pack. Alberts smashing players off the ball ensures that the possession is better for the Boks.....and while our opponents struggle to score, Morne keeps our score ticking.

We got away from our game in the Ellis Park test and paid the price. But when we stuck to script including in Orcland, we were formidable.

Don't play their game, play our game.  Don't emphasize their strengths, emphasize our strengths. Don't lose....win.

We will never be able to beat the AB's unless we can neutralize heir attacking weapons.   We are at present getting nowhere near that and selecting slow and heavy players to counter them is like trying to use the Maginot Line as a defence against the Germans in WW2.  They simply run around the iron pack players an that is the end pfo our dreams

It did not work out - our forwards really achieved very little against the AB's at Ellis Park.   We scored 4 backline tries against them - they countered by three tries by the loosies.   All their tries stemmed from poor defence by some of Meyer's key players - the worst being Steyn, Alberts and Engelbrecht.

The Maginot Line issue is illustrated in detail by the way Read ran around the slow and clumsy Sloth Alberts.   The first Messam try - by the same Sloth falling over his own two feet - when he should have recovered the ball from a breakdown situation.

The Iron Pack would fail again like they failed since 2010 -  since Meyer's idea is to strengthen the pack by recycling  the same players who caused us to lose games then - how anybody can think they will be better now than they used to be is beyond logic and beats me hollow.  

. 

Ceradyne

I am proud to be called a jerk  by you - because you know nothing about rugby and when the obvious is pointed out - you fail to recognise it as truth - so you must find a way out and the only way for you is very poor efforts to make personal insults.   Really what a stupid prick you are.     

 Pine

No comment - still waiting for some rugby-related comment from you - but a dud like you do not know how to make those - since you know nothing about the game.

What I was trying to say is that you cannot have 6 tight forwards and two strong  - but fairly slow loosies and hope to match the AB's.  They would "smash"  there way forward, but by how much?   During the whole of the EOYT the loosie-lock players smashed their way forward 111 times and the gain per meter per "smash" was 1,43 meters.   And the "smashers" did not beat a single defender - so in every case they were tackled by the first defender opposite them.

Other than on a  limited number of cases - the ball carriers never passed the ball.   Sloth Alberts for instance carried the ball 22 times without passing the ball once to another player.

If the above stats is the best we can expect from our Iron Pack - then we are in deeper trouble than we think and our Iron Men - virtually all in the 2010-2011 failing teams - are not going to be better this time around.

The example I gave about the Maginot Line is typical.   The Iron Men can be outplayed by a very easy strategy - just don't run straight at them - take a gap 2 meters from them and they will miss their tackles  or fail to even attempt tackles.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO STRUCTURE YOUR PLAY LIKE THE AB"s - YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO COUNTER THEIR STRATEGIES AND PLAY YOUR OWN GAME.   AT PRESENT WE ARE UNBLE TO DO JUST THAT.

Saffex

Remember we are dealing here with the Flat Earth Society - with inputs from the believers that the Moon is made of green cheese.   They think that age improve players and if the truth hi t them straight in the eye - they refuse to recognize it.

Despite a completely half-baked game against the Scots - Mozart came up with the news that Botha played well against the Scots - something completely contradicted by facts.   After the Ellis Park test Mozart wrote a praise song for Morne Steyn.   Despite the facts subsequently discussed on this site Mozart keeps on with his praise singing about the players who failed badly in that test.      

I believe the crowd who support absurd selections by Meyer are stooges and cannot see how we can win the RC next year with those players.

 Now there is a word you will never use when referring to JJ..Iron on defence..So with JJ we have lace on attack and lace on defence..

I know who I would rather have!

 Wow, brainfreekiwi, never have I read a passage full of as much shit as you just wrote..Did you not see the way the Boks breezed past teams on the YE tour. AB's didn't do the same now did they.

Meyer is forming a squad for NH conditions. If the WC was being hosted in the SH, the team migh look much different.

What your boy Hansen is doing is forming a formiddable attacking team with weak defence. He has totally not taken into account the conditions the WC will be played in. We all saw how well you did in 2007..

Meyer is on a much better track than ou Hansen let me tell you that. Mentioning our old forwards..Yeah Nuke because Du Plessis, Oosthuizen, the Beast, Etzebeth, PSDT, Louw, Vermuelen and Alberts are all geriatrics hey..

I hope you take some comfort in the shit you just wrote above but you are dreaming!

 Sun Tzu

Sorry - but I want to refer you to the following statement of yours:-

" The key has always been beating them at the breakdown. It was key in 1998, 2004, 2009 and we nearly had it last year and this year in Dunedin but for ref interference. Defence is not a problem, neutralizing them in all other facets has never been a problem."

Even though I agree with you about breakdown ball recovery - there is a problem with that aspect of the game.   Breakdown ball recovery is only really beneficial if the recovery is quick and efficient and form part of a continuous attack mechanism.   If the recovery is slow it gives the opposition a chance to re-organise their defences.   Wider out the function is carried out by backline players.    If the breakdown occurs within a 15 meter range - it is basically the function of the loosies.

This is where there is a problem at present.   There is at present deficient ball protection to ensure that there is at breakdowns no ball turnovers in possession and even if there is no turnovers the recovery is slow and non-productive.    With rare exceptions the recovery is also cumbersome.   In fact Tomas - a lock going to play for the Chiefs and who have already played for Argentina - wrote on this site that our loosies are clumsy and inefficient in that component of the game.  

So our breakdown ball recovery may be acceptable - but it is slow and ineffective in the broader context of the game.   This is my point entirely on the loosie issue.   You cannot play our present loosies and expect to optimize the rapid ball recovery that impacts negatively on the opposition - with very rare exceptions it just does not happen.    The breakdown play of Louw and Vermeulen is acceptable - the play of Alberts is totally devoid in contributing anything of value in that facet of the game.

So we have a situation where Meyer has identified the problem and took action about it with the result that we do not lose many balls at breakdowns anymore - but we have not gone through with the second part of the project namely to speed up the recovery process as part and parcel of an attacking mechanism.   This is where the AB's beat us wholesale.   Their ball recovery is quick and efficient and their loosies play a major role in it.

The second issue with regard to ball recovery relates to the ability of your back row players to be able to link up with other players and to run and pass the ball.   Vermeulen and Louw has done it - albeit on very few occasions - and where they did the said action for example led to two tries scored by Habana in the Ellis Park test.   Alberts never pass the ball to other players - not even to his fellow forwards and where he did try to do that he knocked on balls.   His ball handling skills is in fact grossly deficient.  

In summary - sure there was some improvement in the breakdown ball recovery this year - but since the recoveries are still slow and ineffective - we are still 50% short on where it should ultimately be.  

There was one serious deficiency in the performance of the Springboks as is illustrated by the Ellis Park test and that is our defence went to pieces.   Meyer punished one player (Engelbrecht)  who let through one try - but took no action against Morne who missed tackles like he was paid to do so and Alberts - even though their deficiencies let to tries being scored by the All Blacks - so despite your comments to the contrary - defence is not up to standard as yet.

What makes it laughable is that Meyer replaced Engelbrecht with Fourie.   Fourie was run around at least twice by Davies in the first ten minutes of the Wales game - but Davies got injured and left the field of play and the problem was solved.   Fourie made all the tackles subsequently and he also made his tackles in the other two matches played.   However, the replacement had two negatives -

*   Fourie made no impression in attacking play at all; and

*   he leaked more penalties than all the other backline players combined did.

 So the problem at 13 was not solved as many on this Board imply  and there is a lot of work to be done as to breakdown ball recovery - the fact is our back row remains unbalanced and cannot produce fully the goods in that department of the game.       

Pine

I would rather write long and factual accounts - than have friends in arseholes like you.

Any real rugby contributions on your part coming???????