If ever there was a time for perspective, it would be after a defeat to Ireland in Dublin.
In medical terms, a one-off event is referred to as an anomaly and Saturday’s performance fits the mould in that respect. I believe that whatever you do, whether as a general practitioner or a rugby aficionado, you simply cannot base your decisions upon anomalies.
After one game, for ‘expert’ pundits to announce that the set-piece is no longer of worth, because the Springboks bossed that facet of play but still lost the match, is totally absurd.(OF COURSE ITS ABSURD!!!)
I’d encourage the public(OAKS) to look at the game more deeply and back their own opinion more.
To read something into everything is dangerous, and that’s why coaches end up going down 12 different routes and following false leads when they don’t know what they’re looking for.
The fact of the matter is that the Springboks weren’t as bad as the scoreline suggests. I believe that, had the Boks taken their kicks for goal and scored when the opportunity presented itself, then they would have proved comfortable victors this past weekend.(THANKS BRENDON I DI TELL THE OAKS THIS BUT THEY WERE CRYING SO LOUDLY THEY DIDNT HEAR)
Springbok supporters out there will say, “Well, we didn’t”, and my riposte is simple: that’s the nature of professional sport. In my book, the beauty of sport is its unpredictability.
Reminiscent of the quarterfinal defeat to Australia at the 2011 Rugby World Cup, South Africa dominated most all facets of the game and still came up short on the scoreboard. (THANKS TO BRYCE LAWRENCE)
Sir Clive Woodward’s comment this week basically implies that the Springboks were not up for it against Ireland, which is simply not true. The Springboks never lost the collisions, the set-piece duel and, despite public perception, the Boks didn’t lose the tactical battle either.
The only tactical mistake made was not to kick at goal, most notably in the first stanza. I don’t believe that the concept of being more up for it or less up for it comes into play.
I must stress that it doesn’t come down to effort but rather execution (AGREE EG HANDLING). We must remember that rugby is a dynamic sport which happens quickly. A heightened level of accuracy doesn’t stem from a team talk where the coach says, “Boys, this week we must make less errors.”
Of course Francois Hougaard would not have wanted to knock on those two balls behind the scrum. If you get into the 22 or are three meters from the line, for that matter, and don’t even come away with three points that is more of a pressing issue, in my opinion.
A LACK OF AWARENESS RATHER THAN EFFORT
Sometimes we try to read more into a result than we actually should and emotion clouds our better judgement . If you examine the game in the cold light of day it tends to take on a different complexion. I believe the Boks’ failing was a lack of awareness rather than effort.
As coaches, we often get it wrong when we offer comment immediately after the game. I maintain that we did not lack intensity against Ireland, we rather lacked execution.
If I was to address the Springbok side ahead of Saturday, I would say to the players that we need more set-piece dominance, more physical defence, more territory and possession and more attacking situations in the opposition 22, because we know that statistically that culminates into points.
In the game against Ireland, it didn’t prove to be the case but generally we know that it does. Therefore let’s endeavour to execute more effectively on match day.
As outlined last week, Ireland were always going to be a well-organised team who would prove hard to beat. And in England, the Springboks are faced with a similar challenge.
However, England will bring a greater ball-carrying threat on attack, a better set-piece and a line speed-driven defence, which relies on creating turn-overs.
In actual fact, England is a more accomplished side than Ireland and, if the Springboks don’t capitalise upon their opportunities against their hosts at Twickenham, they will lose again.
When pundits offer an opinion on television, for example, are you able to weigh up their arguments and form your own opinion or are you prone to regurgitate their points of view?
BEENO AND DR VENTER CLEARLY ON THE SAME PAGE. GREAT MINDS ETC
