Bulls v Sharks [Stat Attack]

Looking at the stats I noticed something interesting. The Bull's halfbacks were actually more effective ball in hand.

(Runs/Metres Run)
Looking at the stats I noticed something interesting. The Bull's halfbacks were actually more effective ball in hand.

Blue Bulls

09.Francois Hougaard
Kick/Pass/Run: 9-49-9
Metres Run: 74
Clean Breaks: 2
Defenders Beaten: 5
Offloads: 3

10.Morne Steyn
Kick/Pass/Run: 13-14-4
Metres Run: 25
Clean Breaks: 0
Defenders Beaten: 0
Offloads: 0

Natal Sharks

09.Frederick Michalak
Kick/Pass/Run: 1-26-1
Metres Run: 0
Clean Breaks: 0
Defenders Beaten: 0
Offloads: 0

10.Patrick Lambie
Kick/Pass/Run: 5-21-5
Metres Run: 13
Clean Breaks: 0
Defenders Beaten: 1
Offloads: 0

09.Charl McLeod [Substitute]
Kick/Pass/Run: 1-26-3
Metres Run: 8
Clean Breaks: 1
Defenders Beaten: 0
Offloads: 0

This I believe is their poblem. Their half backs are not engaging the defensive line enough. I noted in the past that Lambie in particular likes to shovel the ball on at every opportunity. This was very much the case of the weekend with 21 passes as opposed to 5 kicks. It was also evident that Whitehead did not provide the go forward to truly open things up. Lets take a look at the Crusader's and Cheetah's half backs to see what the trend is for better backplay.

Crusaders

09.Ellis
Kick/Pass/Run: 13-44-5
Metres Run: 17
Clean Breaks: 1
Defenders Beaten: 1
Offloads: 1

10.Bleyenhdal
Kick/Pass/Run: 10-16-6
Metres Run: 32
Clean Breaks: 1
Defenders Beaten: 3
Offloads: 2

Freestate Cheetahs

09.Tewis de Bruyn
Kick/Pass/Run: 4-64-4
Metres Run: 15
Clean Breaks: 0
Defenders Beaten: 0
Offloads: 0

10.Johan Goosen
Kick/Pass/Run: 11-12-8
Metres Run: 75
Clean Breaks: 2
Defenders Beaten: 3
Offloads: 1

An interesting look here is that the more successful backlines show more variation. This is not exclusive to these two examples either. Along with that variation in kicking and running and passing is the fact that they are more involved in testing defences. In fact, the Saders would in all likelihood have won comfortably had they displayed more production from 12. Crotty was utterly anonymous which blunted their attack somewhat. So what of the so called running game that everyone in South Africa is craving? It isn't quite working out as anticipated! The Lions are supposedly the flagship running side in SA but their propensity to almost exclusively from half back, like the Sharks, yeilded very little. This intent on shifting it wide and working the outside backs early is not how successful sides are operating. Attack close in, have an inside centre who can straighten and penetrate the defensive line and THEN open up with the outside backs. It's surprising that the two New Zealand coaches we have are not doing this; one of them an ex-all Black headcoach!!

So, it appears that the media is wrong yet again! Morne and Goosen definitely the best of the bunch. More specifically in this game, Lambie received a harsh lesson in flyhalf play. His lack of feel for the position and the game were again exposed. I don't see the Sharks changing how they play, as Plumtree has expressed a willingness to persist with this plan, but I don't see their fortune changing any time soon. Likewise the Lions.


 

As I said Goosen looks to hav ethe most potential. Don' t blame lambie though for passing - the sharks want to play a running game so he was playing to the plan.

Lambie missed a few kicks at goal to start like Morne and then slotted all his kicks as did Morne. MIchlak was very poor at scrum half and they need to start with McCloed  -this will also help Lambie and an attack orientated game.

The match could have been won by either side. Morne played to instructions re the aerial bombardment and Lambie more the running game - as instructed. Whitehead was no great shakes here so not surprised he is no great shakes at the sharks.

NIce stats and post.

Lambie does need to come under scrutiny. If the Sharks want to play running rugby, then they are doing it wrong. If Lambie is so talented as a flyhalf, and so effective, then why can't he have the sense of mind to vary according to the game? Morne changes his approach often, particularly against differing opposition and has the tactical nous to adjust if things are not going according to plan. That behaviour has all the hallmarks of a real and good flyhalf. Not once have I ever seen this from Lambie, not even Jantjies.

You cite McLeod as the better 9 but he did not have the desired impact! The fact of the matter is that the Bull's halfbacks were vastly superio to that of the Shark's. Where the Bulls struggled were the centres. Neither of the two privided the impetus on attack to really trouble the Sharks. As I have stated before, the power of your attack is in your centres. Morne and Hougaard were well on top, but the centres were effectively spectators. Having Olivier back will help tremendously, but they still require a real 13. I have to say though that Whitehead was the more effective 12 on the day and much better than ou Lambie. JP was suspect on defence but offered much on attack. All in all the Sharks move it wide without straightening up the attack and fixing their man. The same ailments as last here. I call the Shark attack 'shuffle ball'.

In conclusion, Lambie was again highly exposed. I don't think the Bull's kicks were the result of a premeditated plan as much as Morne being aware of the lack of quality outside of him. Despite this he still measured his game thus neither preferred kicking more than passing. The media perception is thisly exposed, they over dramatised the extent of his kicking when they should have pointed to the impact it had alone.
 

I am unashamedly a big Lambie fan. I admire his skill, his courage and the type of person he is (I know his dad and have met him personally). I am still undecided as to whether his best postion is 10, 15 or even 12. I  however am not one of those idiotic fans who see him as the best thing since sliced bread.

You make some very good and thought provoking points above which I respect and will keep an eye out for in future.