Brown ball is a media creation

….it doesn’t exist. We have developed no new backline skills under this former AB. We still can’t construct a double wing attack….have a wrap around runner…..offload in a backline tackle…..use the blindside wing to create an overlap…use the skip pass at the right time….get our backs to run a line at speed (the Bargies do it better than us).

Get somebody else who is up to date or if this is all Dr Lucky refusing to change tactics, just admit we are a defense/turnover team (except our two incumbent flanks can’t make a turnover).

It’s still turnover ball not Brown ball.

Bullshit he showed exactly how it is meant to work in those first 20 min against Oz as Mallett correctly pointed out - we attacked more and kicked less in that match than any of the other sides in the RC

The goal is to strike a balance between Brown ball and our traditional strengths which is what we failed to do in that first Oz test thanks mainly to Manie still trying to play it wide when we were under pressure and getting backfoot ball

Had Pollard been on the bench to replace Manie that test would probably turned out differently.

Why Pollard was not on the bench is a mystery

Ive said it a few times now - I love Rassie as our coach - by some distance the best we have ever had but he makes some piss poor calls at times

No Pollard on the bench, the investment in useless Mostert, now preferring Reinach over Faf, the snubbing of Roos, du Preez twins, David Kriel and Ruben v Heerden, the faith in the dumbest player on the planet in v Staaden. His complete blind spot when it comes to lock - fuck me how the hell can he not start RG with Eben - fucking rugby sacrilege

Please….the first try was a simple overlap. The Aussie defense was out of position.

The second try by Esterhuizen showed some class. Kriel actually took the outside gap, of course he was being marked by the scrummie. Dud Toit was moonlighting on the wing and Kriel had to slow for him to catch up….but he passed to Esterhozen who backed up the move.

The third try was a Kolisi pick and go. …..so a scrummie marking an outside center and a defensive misalignment. There was far more backline deception and skill in the first Aussie try.

Joe Schmidt said that the Springboks played some of the best rugby he had seen from them in the opening 20 minutes of the first test, describing it as a period where his Wallabies side “couldn’t breathe” because of the South Africans’ relentless intensity and physicality. He noted, “I don’t think I’ve seen the Boks play as well as they did in the first 20 minutes last week. Gee, we couldn’t breathe – they were on us, and they got the first four kicks back. They didn’t quite have the same success today, so I thought that was the best window I’ve seen the Boks play for some time.” Schmidt also highlighted how South Africa’s aggressive defense and aerial game initially suffocated Australia, making it extremely difficult to create opportunities.

Schmidt’s Evaluation

1. Schmidt was impressed by the intensity and execution South Africa displayed, calling it the most ferocious start he had witnessed from the Boks in recent years.
2. He admitted that the early onslaught left his team scrambling to recover: “They were on us, and they got the first four kicks back. We couldn’t breathe – it was hard work to create space”.
3. Despite this, Schmidt found positives in his squad’s response, pointing to their resilience and ability to fight back later in the game.

Context from the Match

1. The Springboks surged to a 22-0 lead within the first 20 minutes, building that advantage through effective set-piece work, strong defense, and pressurizing kicks.
2. Schmidt acknowledged that the Wallabies were forced to “play catch-up and take a few risks” after the opening period.
3. He stated the physical nature of the Springboks’ tactics was not unexpected, but executing under that pressure was extremely challenging for the Wallabies.

Summary Table

Schmidt’s comments clearly show he regarded the Springboks’ early blitz as a benchmark for intensity and execution, describing it as an overwhelming opening that set the tone for the match.

Come now Moz for crying out loud - we were on fire in those first 20 min - if that kind of play orchestrated by Brown did not impress you then nothing will and your agenda is then clearly not rugby

Every time we disagree Dave, you claim I have some dark agenda. All that happened in the first 20 minutes was Oz wasn’t at the intensity level they should have been. They missed some tackles and we were all over them. But nothing in all that was particularly sophisticated…it was intense and enjoyable, but nothing new.

The way we played against England in the 2019 WC was more sophisticated….that Am offload for the Mapimpi try, the Kolbe bamboozling of Farrell…..every bit as good.

‘’The idea we have never played sophisticated rugby is nonsense..Go back and look at the try Habana scored against the ABs in 2013, with the brilliant Vermeulen offload in the 13 channel.

Brown has taught us nothing…..the Bargies handling and backline structures are far more advanced. Hell at times all our URC teams looked terrific.

Here’s the dilemma:

But going to New Zealand, the way to beat them is playing South African rugby the way we played last weekend, don’t give them anything, just smother them in their own half, kick those high balls in there, don’t give them space, use your set-piece."

That’s Victor Matfield expressing what I’m guessing 80% of our players are most comfortable with….in tough times, like the 2nd Aussie test we always go back to that formula.

Throw in Dud Allende the bottle neck at 12 and Brown ball is just a delusion.

Disagree Moz there has been plenty of evidence of a more attacking approach evidenced for instance with PSDT and Kolisi playing it wide

The art is striking a balance between the old and the new approaches. Manie and Sacha the architects of the new Pollard the old

Clearly not having Pollard on the bench meant we thought we would be executing Brown ball for 80 min, effectively disrespecting the Aussies.

So come Saturday we ditched Brown ball in total, effectively regressing the playing philosophy but it was a classic case of needs must

When a team has a purple patch (their best 15-20 minutes), they have to score points. I would like to see the Boks vary their game plan with old and new. When they are dominating rucks, that is the time to play it wide. When they are losing the rucks and the battle on the ground, then play it tighter and play a pressure game.

Manie's wild pass that was intercepted in the first test was when the Boks should have been playing it tighter - a territorial game to slow it down with more kicking up and unders and touch finders to pressure the opposition into mistakes playing the game in their own half.

That’s what Manie does - he does not know how to change down in gears

He still tries to play an expansive game when the pressure is on

That is when you need to pull the plug on him and send Pollard on

I get the value of Manie when we have front foot ball but hopefully Rassie has learnt, thanks to the Oz debacle, that regardless of who you are playing against you always need the security of a Pollard on board to steady the ship

Go play Brown ball with Sacha and Manie but when the tide turns send on Pollard

Its not like Rassie does not know this as he has yanked Manie prior to half time before - but against Oz he was so sure he could play Brown ball for 80 min he did not bother having Pollard on the bench - piss poor work by the coaches

Dave Dud Toit has been playing left wing for a long time:

MozartHall Of Famer

46,277 posts

May 30, 2018, 16:06

The tallest left wing in the world and probably the most popular player in the country is heading for the swamp. How do we interpret this move by Erasmus

Ja Du Toit has been edge forwarding for years and years. And I don't per se have a problem with it in some cases, he has played an important linking role there at times. Where it bugs the hell out of me is when he is bunched up on the inside of his wing against the touchline and receiving ball that should be going straight to the wing, as I explained in my thread about it a while back. It happened too often in the first game against Australia - instead of getting it to a fast man who can beat the defense with a little space, it goes to a big slow guy who just lumbers down the line a few yards before the defense catches him. I think I counted four times where he was the receiver of ball that should have gone straight to Arendse. He can much rather run the support line or follow the wing to protect the breakdown. Instead you have the big guy going down and the little wing having to fight for the ball at the tackle.

"Throw in Dud Allende the bottle neck at 12 and Brown ball is just a delusion."

I'd like to rephrase that...

"Throw in Dud Allende, the eye of a needle dipped in wax, at 12 and Brown ball is just a delusion.

Perhaps the ‘cul de sac’’?