Coetzee: Boks will 'give everything' for the Jersey

Coetzee: Boks will 'give everything' Johannesburg - Springbok coach Allister Coetzee has encouraged his players to play for the jersey in 2017. 
After a woeful 2016 that saw the Boks win just four of their 12 fixtures, Coetzee is under pressure to deliver results this year, starting with a three-match home series against France in June. 
While he is reluctant to give any guarantees in terms of results or playing style, one thing Coetzee can promise is passion from his players.
"What I can tell you is that whenever the Springbok team runs out, I would like the public of South Africa to see 
that they leave nothing out there and that they give everything," he said after a three-day training camp in Johannesburg this week."They must show how they respect the jersey and do it for their country."(is he saying that has not been the case so far, and if so why is this?)

On playing style, Coetzee said that his side needed to get the balance right between playing attractive and winning rugby.
"Test matches ... there is only one game plan and that's winning rugby. You've got to build pressure in Test match rugby," the coach said.(It sounds straight out the SA coach handbook. Expect lots of aimless kicking). Need a New Zealand coach- that understands the ruck and using the backline.
"I would like us to get that balance right. I love our Super Rugby teams now playing with ball-in-hand. It's great because heir attacking skills are developing. I will never discourage that. But in Test match rugby there has got to be the right mix."(And a good coach to help the players play the right mix in the right situation) A game plan that can be understood- ad well as develop 
The Boks play their first Test of the year against the French at Loftus on June 10.

Well in a sense Coetzee is right. No team has beaten the ABs playing pure running rugby since the 2012 WC to choose an arbitrary cutoff point. We tried on the highveldt in 2013 and got smacked. Then in 2014, playing a balanced game, we narrowly succeeded. The Irish playing a pragmatic blend of defence and advantaged attack did the same in 2016. There was no phase play deep in own territory in these victories, but there was committed offence when things opened up and limited up and unders. If that's what Coetzee means I'm all for it.....but I dpubt he can get a team morivated and prepated enough to execute that plan against the top teams. We need a new coach, new assistant coaches wont solve the problem.

 I have no faith in Coetzee - he is clueless about most facets pf play and he lost the dressing room last year - what will change.
Mozart - always had a wrong in whatever he wrote.   Where did the Hougaard try start in the 2014 AB test?  in the AB 22.   Because of Matfield and his loss of a crucial line-out on Springbok throw-in their own 22, the win was narrow.    
The kick and chase game - so admired by Meyer and his accolades (including Mozart) is not the answer.   The game should be balanced with due regard to the pertaining situations.   Ball-in-hand is the answer in near to 80% of the cases - don't hand over possession by aimless kicks.  Another definite no-no - don't use a forward as stand-in flyhalf like Meyer did in the WC - it just does not work.   
You have two essentials missing at this stage - a proper flyhalf that can read the game and take decisions properly.    I was hoping Pollard will be the answer - but his performance in the two games this year was seriously disappointing.   We might as well have the famous donkey-kickers Morne Steyn or Fat Fransie if he is selected and carries on like he did in his last two games.
And then there is the issue of ball protection and recovery during breakdown play that needs to be corrected.        

Acolytes you moron, not accolades. And the Hougaard try never came from phase play in the 22 it came from turnover ball......straighten up and fly right.

 Where was the turnover - dunce?  In the AB 22.   T hanks for the correction - but you remain the most rugby-ignorant dunce on this site.  

 The Lions have beaten NZ teams by running at them. 
We lost at Ellis Park because we suddenly tried to play very expansive rugby over night. 
We tried a tactical kicking game against NZ many times and came off second best on most occasions. Presently we don't have great 10s who can control the game well enough for us to even dream of beating the ABs with the boot.
The only logical solution is for Coetzee to do as he said at the end of last year. Transplant the Lion's team culture and tactics into the Bok dressing room and build from there.

 And yeah...Coetzee is already making excuses. 

Plum I'm not advocating a tactical kicking game....I'm advocating real rugby as played by the NH, who have player pools more like ours. It's ball in hand from 60 metres out, not ball in hand in the 22......we saw Jantjies setting up a Tahs try with that tactic last week. It's suicide running in your 22 against a lined up defence.....running from a turnover against a disorganized defence is fine. But we have always done that....recall the brilliant Habana 90 metre strike against Oz when Schalk scooped up the loose ball and let him fly. ....... Fast attack from turnovers remains the most productive source of tries, especially if you have some pace....which is why I would certainly take a look at Senatla.

 Plum
The problem was not with tactical kicking - the problem was aimless kicking and handover of possession to the opposition.   Then they can run at us and the defense falters.
That has been the problem with SA teams for years.  The constant hand-over of possession to the opposition as a result of aimless kicking.
The other myth is the story that NZ only play ball-in-hand games - they kick balls even more often than SA Teams do - but their kicking is strategic and on the dot - forcing mistakes by recipients or be where the resultant breakdowns occur and frequently make possession turnovers in that case.
It is not kicking that really is the problem - it is poor kicking that really is problematic.  
Mozart also refer to the NH teams - but none of them play the same rugby they played five years ago.   He lives in cloud cuckoo land and does not know the present rugby scenario and always hark back to the era before professional rugby was introduced in SA and especially before the rule changes of 2008.
The answer remains - thinking rugby and decision-making by key players like the half-backs and above all variation in tactics to surprise the opposi tion.       

 
Coetzee is a gravy trainer. He is deluded and thinks he can string us along with his usual ignorance.

The players will obviously give it their all for the jersey.

Duh!!!!!! That has never been the problem. His inability to coach at any level is the sole cause of our demise.

He doesn't even know who the talented players are. It's all a matter of flipping a coin for him. Whoever gets heads is alloted to the match 23. That and getting the right colour mix on the park ... no matter their competency.   

He should be shot at dawn.

I have no time for this racist mor0n.
 

 I don't think kicking is pointless. Unless its done aimlessly.

What i do think is pointless is being to predictable.

Mike everybody and his dog knows that the ABs kick a lot. But the other thing that everybody knows is that the ABs will always always run at space and have a man on their shoulder. In their 22 or not.

What everybody knows about the Boks is that when we are in our "red zone", heaven forbid, we will always give you an attacking lineout at or within our 10m line. IE get in our 22 and you can keep us pinned down for a good amount of time without really having to do anything special. This exact scenario has occurred over and over again, and we never learn. Wingers and fullback can sit nice and deep, wait for our rushed ten to fluff something and run at us until the cows come home.

You know all those games where nobody can figure out why the Boks just can't get out of their half? This is a big part of the reason.

Attack from your 22 occasionally and suddenly those three backs can't just hang about waiting to catch a high one because they now have to cover wide runners. Suddenly your 10's job also becomes a lot easier because he has a) better angles to work his kicks from and b) can clear balls beyond retreating defenders. That's tactical kicking. But it's less about a kick itself and more about the work that has been done around it to set it up.

And here is partly why Jantjies probably appears to be better than he really is. Because his clearance setups don't just involve a defensive ruck, a long ball to the back and then a punt. Granted the Lions have started the season looking a tad shaky in their.

Responding to being on the ropes by raising your guard, dropping your head and shoving your opponent backward will work only so long as your opponent fears the odd right cross or counter. As soon as he knows that you you'll never strike from that position then you are well and truly fu.cked*. You'll spend exponentially more time on the ropes than you need to. It's pretty obvious that the more you allow your self to be in that position the more risk you have of being struck. So why do we do it?

Moz i agree that we should counter more productively, but i cant agree that it should only happen from within the 10m line after turnovers. Every ten minutes spent defending is not only 10 minutes of risk but it's also ten minutes devoid of scoring opportunity. IE 20 negative minutes.

Knowing exactly what your opponent will do at any given time is exactly what will help a lesser team beat a better one. Everybody knows about the amount of talent in SA. There's a veritable conveyor belt year in a year out of young strong lads coming through the ranks itching to turn pro. And many of them have what it takes and more.

So why have we been losing to Italy, Argentina, Ireland, Wales and and and? Because we have been way too predictable. We've become the mindless predictable plodders of the Test scene.

Jus t my opinion.

 
Um ... Coetzee ... that why?

I guarantee you that this fiasco would never have seen the light of day had Jones been selected as coach.

Jantjies isn't suited to pressure rugby. The bigger the occassion ... the quicker he cracks. No BMT.

Lambie is our best 10.
 

It's Friday and i'm bored so i shall bore who ever reads this.

Allow me to bore the hell out of you with an example that comes from a ridiculously large sample rate and a rather mundane seemingly irrelevant source.

The video game series called Street Fighter.

In the mid nineties the first version of the game was released and was an immediate success because it made use of a a very old manual kids game but put it into digital terms. Rock Paper Scissors.

Since then and as we all know the internet has become a thing and people have started playing video games against each other online.

Street Fighter itself has been brought up to date with current computing technology and is almost unrecognizable from its first version. Aside from one important thing. The Rock Paper Scissors aspect.

There have been millions upon millions of individual matches played online between players from all over the world and ultimately, just like in the 1990s you will never do well at this game unless you have what's called a good "mix-up" game.

A mix up is basically a situation where you are either defending or attacking and you manage to create a 50/50 situation where you opponent has one of two options.

This is how it works.

Rock = Block
Paper = Attack
Scissors = Throw

If you block i can throw you. Throws also do damage.
If you attack i can block.
If you throw i can attack you.

So here is a common sequence that would occur during the game...

1) I attack, opponent blocks.
2) Opponent thinks i'll attack again, so he blocks again, but this time i throw him him to the ground.
3) The opponent is now on the ground.
4) I jump in on him and time it so that i land on him for a strike just as he stands up.
5) He is now in a 50/50 and has to react with either a block or an attack depending on which action he thinks i will take. He doesn't know if i will attack or throw him and he has to decide quickly.

The vast majority of the time, even though it is a 50/50 decision, the fact that the opponent is under pressure to decide what to do, i am able to know which of the 50/50 decision he will take and thus pre-empting him and choosing the correct option.

Totally ridiculous example i know.

But lets put this into rugby terms.

The opponent being knocked down would be the equivalent of a team being inside it's own 22mm line. More damage/points will follow unless the correct choice is made.

If on every occasion the opponent blocks(kicks to clear) when faced with this decision, then the simple and obvious solution is to keep throwing(running at him) him over and over again until he dies(a try is scored). The obvious solution for him is thus to "mix-up" his defensive strategy so as to not allow his attacker an easy "guess" as to what he'll do. He's has totally handed over his 50/50 and given his attacker a sure "thing thing" option.

For years now the Boks have been simply blocking, and blocking and blocking and waiting for an error in the opponents timing to be able to get out of the defensive phase of play. And time and time again the opponent has simply known exactly what we will do IE no "mix-up"  and no 50/50 and thus easily been able to counter our defense, pinning us inside our own half.

Yes it is a ridiculous example and yes there are tons of other variables involved. But the point is that when ever there is an attack and defense situation happening, the ability to attack from a defensive position is what adds the third aspect to something that otherwise only has two facets IE attack or defend. That third aspect is what turns any situation into a 50/50, no matter how dire.

Teams like the ABs and others play this "mix-up' game very well and as such their kicks are generally much more successful than other teams and their defense is also much more successful because they simply spend less time defending.

Maybe in rugby the sample rate is too small. But it's guaranteed that if you ever played Street Fighter online and you did not have a good 50/50 game on both attack and defense you'll probably never win a single match.

Moral of the story: Ignore the sample size of Street Fighter at your own peril haha.

You it takes bravery to click the "submit comment" button after writing this. I'll admit i am in two minds about it <---see what i did there


 

Maybe I'm missing something, but your basic point appears to be unpredictability. What I am arguing is running slow phase plays with forwards.....4, 5, 6 or more.....is simply setting up the turnover. It's so predictable the tackler/fetcher pods are lined up with receivers. To our teams this is ball in hand. .... Far better to kick than do that. So the key becomes your point that the ABs attack space......that's done by quick ball, not settling into routine phase play. And that starts with the very first phase you have in the 22 when the defence is not a wall across the field.....whether that first phase is gathering a kick or a set play.....if it's a turnover you have an unsettled defence by definition. ...... Somebody should an.alyze a few games and see what the net effect of running in your own 22 is vs simply clearing the decks. I'm convinced it's negative if you exclude turnover ball.....mostly because almost no tries are scored starting with phase play in the 22, and plenty of penalties and turnovers are conceded.

 This is the same drivel we have fro Mozart.   He does not believe in variation of play and is constantly in favour of absolute game plans with no variation in play.
No wonder he admires Meyer and his donkey-kicking half-back heroes.    

Irrespective of who is managing the Boks they will never ever become #1 in world rugby if they do not select the best players currently.
I am not knocking any player because they are selected to meet the ANC mandate as I would support any Bok team selected on merit.
But u cannot play against a test team selected on merit when you have political interference dictating who and why u must include in a Bok side.
It is a case of 15 skilled players taking on 12 or 13 Bok players (being very generous here) in a test who might be considered as international standard players.
Honestly, with the state of rugby in RSA I am convinced that the best days of Springbok rugby are gone.
The exodus of younger talented players will increase and the standard of the national side will decline due to financial and transformational pressures.
With the standard declining so will the support and eventually, the Bok side will have earned the right to be called the "GOATS".
Pity.

 One thing the ABs have is an efficient [not flashy mind you]  clearance regime from their own 22.When they havent stuck with that even they have come undone at crucial moments like in 2003 when playing Oz in the semis and Carlos Spencer had a freaking brain snap .

 I doubt whether Coetzee has the rugby nous to be a successful coach & with that wispy, lisping voice he won't crack it as the motivational guru either.

 
Hey Mike ... I enjoyed his "rucking over the top with the ball popping out like newly laid eggs" strategy last year.

That still cracks me up.

 That is another classic of Mozart - when he was told that Alberts when he eventually get to breakdown points contributed zero to ball protection and recovery.    

 
Mkie ... Would you EVER in your life have thought of that fat prop playing as an openside flank?

Huh??

The only thing that could ever have topped that ... is if someone actually supported the absurdity of such a selection ...

Hmmmm??? Wait a moment ... we both know of such a person. He even posted his Counter Ruck 101 FOR ALL TO ENJOY.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaaa!!!

Talk about a truck load of "egg" splatted over his face ... 

 CC
Mozart has blinkers and he has prejudice - so one can have fun with him pointing that out.
What, however, worries me is his constant misrepresentations as to what happens on the field of play and outright lies in a lot of cases.   He does not ever give a full disclosure and hide facts about his favourite players.  He would attack some players about unacceptable poor tackling - but would never include his favourites who have even worse records than the players he attacks.   He will also hide away positives of players like scoring and making of tries and ball carries, etc.
There is as a result no comprehensive assessment of players and he also falsifies what actually happen in games - to support his comments.   That type of thing calls for ignoring his japping - but I get a  lot of amusement to see to what level he would descend when caught out.
The man is a total rugby illiterate.           

With reference to Coetzee, will a single player respect him as a coach after last years record - NO Therein lies the greatest issue It is beyond comprehension that the utterly toothless rugby board have retained him. I despair

When solving problems, dig at the roots instead of just hacking at the leaves.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/anthonyjd105339.htmlTrue Saffex...(therein lies the GREATEST issue) the priorities are arse about face.

When solving problems (rugby in this case)...dig at the roots (rugby administrators and coach) instead of hacking at the leaves (the players).

Blaming the individual players is a red herring.

The cart before the horse scenario.