Defence unfashionable in RSA is embraced by the Saders

Defence and counter attack won this game. This used to be the Bok blueprint under Jake. The most vulnerable moment is the transition from attack into defence. The Saders made the Lions look as though they were carrying a glass jaw on defence. I fancied the Lions to use their set pieces to build some kind of platform but they were stuffed the entire game. Not enough power to really play on their terms and the Saders expertly stifled Marx and Kwagga. The manner in which the Saders comfortably went through the phases before Crotty came back on summed up tue gulf between the two. Would the Lions be Super rugby champions with a Pollard? I think they might. Jantjies had some really awful moments. Like that attempted cross field kick standing flat and a rush in his face. Charge down. Some poor kicks. Not a bad effort by the Lions, but simply the lesser team overall. Great reffing, and congrats to the Saders. 

Unfortunately fans want aesthetic. They don't understand how a coach must think. It's as ignorant as those "park the bus" critics in soccer. Why give a team what they need to play in their own terms? The name of the game is to force them to beat you without their weapon(s) of choice. Make them uncomfortable, put them into positions they don't want. Deny them areas of the field they use most. Defence is always part of every moment in the game. Why ridicule it, why not laud great defence. The New Zealanders do. South Africans in particular want approval, like an insecure outcast at school longing to fit in. I prefer to dictate terms and enforce my strengths. They don't have to like what we do, merely take it. They can take it quietly, or crying, I really don't care. Find the weak point and expose it. Torture them until they break, then apply more pressure. None of this pat on the back carnival rugby. The Saders, like the All Blacks, value power up front. South Africa has, for too long, believed they have to abandon every aspect of rugby aside from blind, reckless and mindless running. Nobody plays the way the want the Boks to play. It can never work. Eddie Jones said it must be played on the moon, because nobody in world rugby plays that way. 

In 2008 the Boks won a tight game in NZ with excellent D and a sound kicking game.At the restart they would kick deep into the NZ 22 a meter or two from touch and 3 /4 times on the trot Hore was forced to take the ball negating the ABs 22 clearance drills.

Elton Johntjies  is too flaky to be trusted to play such a tightly scripted gameplan.

Another load of utter BS.   Not worth reading at all.  Both village idiots goes the same way.   

The Lions centers made 16 tackles and missed 3 for a missed tackle ratio of 15,8 - which is totally acceptable.   The really poor defenders were Jantjies and Cronje,    On the other side Mon'anga's defense was not good either,   However, because Jantjies and Coetzee is routinely poor in defense the Lurker idiot blames the whole backline for poor defense,   

Obviously the BS is to compare that with Jake's wonderful defensive organization - but then in the WC final dear Fransie missed three tackles out of 8 attempts - so what rubbish from the duo do we have to put up with,   Jake was the coach of the Sharks when the semi result against the Crusaders were 38-6 winners,   The Sharks scored no tries in that match and then his defensive strategy was so sound - unbelievable BS.     

The Sharks were became less effective as the season wore on because Frans was their only quality back. They had a substandard wing pretending to be a 9, a slow 10 with a short weak pass, a 13 who was barely a 13 at all, Mvovo who was just his limited self and an okay 15. Frans was the team's best 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15. Jake trusted Lambie with the 10 Jersey in spite of Frans excelling in his absence and it backfired. This was not a game of Jake playing purely negative rugby, but a limited Sharks side coming up short against a great team. Jordaan let in a crucial try at a critical moment. I bet you never mentioned that in any of your critiques.

Now onto your assessment of me. Did you even red what I wrote? Did you not notice the Saders plow through many of these "successful" tackles? They were marched back in contact. Clever Mike, I can see you plan to end the Super rugby season with a magnum opus of ineptitude but I seriously can't take the cringe as it is. 

Lurker

Frans the only effective back with an unbelievable poor tackle record missing 26% of attemoted tackles.   And he made 2 line breaks beating 9 defenders in 17 matches.   Wonderful record on the part of Fat Fransie.   He besides that broke the possession handover stats of any center in Super Rugby ever - 36 such handovers in the matches he played in.  

He was by some distance the worst backline player of the Sharks in 2014.

Are you nuts or something peculiarly stupid?   

How many tries did Frans create? If you understood rugby you'd discern the influence he had on the Sharks backs. At 12 they were able to bring the rest of the backline into the game. You can't sum up a players actual worth. Hence, you routinely back the losing horse, virtually every time. Frans was the best defensive back for the Sharks who was given significant responsibilities. Name one other centre in world rugby that can marshall the blindside on their won. Someone who can take down any opposition player from 1 to 15. 

I can remember 1 try he created and that was it,   He was piss-poor in all aspects of play.  He was the worst defensive back by some distance and that is a fact.  He took down every opposition member by missing more than 26% of attempted tackles.   You really are a joke - inventing attributes players they never showed in games. I can remember how he tried to tackle De Allende in 2014 and landed on his backside behind de Allende twice in one game.

I added something to the above.  How could he be responsible for a record number of possession handovers if he was any good?   And he was ball-hogging and created nothing of value.  He neutralized the whole backline as a result.        

Keep on in crediting players with imaginary attributes they never showed BSter - you really are a farce. 

Kingcorn, the Lions went for a wide wide game many years ago because of their micro pack. They couldn't overpower their opponents, so they had little choice but to work bigger packs around from side to side and attack quickly early in their phase play. When this game fails to gain momentum it fails miserably. The Saders reflected why this model doesn't work against physical packs who contest possession well. It'd be even worse up north. New Zealand have been the best team in the world for so long because they are well rounded. They don't always have breakdown superiority, they don't always win in the scrums and lineouts, they don't always have possession and territory but they always have an option. They have a tool for every job. Even if they aren't the best team in the world at a part of the game, they are functional. That's why they win more than we do. The Boks are flitting between two extremes and the Aussies are, apparently, too intelligent and sophisticated to play physical rugby. 

In 2014 De Allende spun around Frans and to the ground. In fact, he failed in all his tackles on Frans. In their 1 v 1s Frans had the forward momentum, Damian had none. 

Where you get these numbers is interesting, because you have been known to lie when spreading your fallacious little narratives. The worst defensive centres in South Africa have been Damian and JJ. Those are some facts. Damian was in fact statistically the worst defender in 2015's Super XV season. He was regularly run over, as seen in the Rebels game where he was run right over in the Stormer's 22 twice. Frans is one of only, maybe four, test quality centres South Africa have produced in the past twenty years, easily. 

The information is from reports on matches and from ESPB stats,    

Another lie - if De Allende  failed three tackles in De Allende it would have been reflected in the match stats - nothing of the sort happens,    What happened was that De Allende showed up Fat Fransie for the really poor center he was.

Your sweeping statements are total lies as per normal and  you have no prove of them anyway,       

He cost the Boks 3 tries against Australia and cost the Boks a shot a the World Cup, along with another fan hero, Lood van Stonehands. He actually nearly cost the Boks 4 tries against Australia, as he left the attacker, Giteau, free to run between him and Pollard and send Folau away for a free run to the try line. Folau miraculously fumbled the ball. 4 tries in one test. I challenge Michael to find one example of such a game from Frans. The only thing he can point to is the Tait miss, when he ducked into the Frans tackle. You've simply got to give Tait some credit for doing the unexpected as England were becoming desperate late in the game. However, pointing to that incident creates more problems for Clever Mike: Victor's heroic try saving tackle on the line. He certainly doesn't think these things through.

Now, onto the Sharks vs Stormers. I do indeed have that game info at hand! Keeping notes for a layer date is paying dividends these days. 

These were the two Damian tackle attempts of Frans:

33:44 - Frans attacks the inside shoulder of Damian. Damian takes Frans at chest level but slips off the tackle, spinning around him to his feet as Frans offloads to #6 who is sent into space.

62:34 - Lambie passes very flat to Frans. Damian charges into Frans and is bounced, but dislodges the ball, which is gathered by Sharks' #15.

Needless to say, these were not very impactful in physically overcoming the "weak" Frans, but at least he kamikaze tackled the spot where the ball was, so I'll give him credit for that.

Here are Frans' tackle attempts:

07:07 - Sharks #11 chips high, which is gathered by Damian out wide. Frans comes in quick but takes Damian too high and loses grip of Damian. Takes position quickly on openside ruck.

11:14 - From a Stormers lineout, Damian attacks the space between Frans and Jordaan. Frans brings Damian to ground. Damian Offloads as he goes to ground, but the ball is lost in transition between Damian and de Jongh.

13:55 - Frans closes down Damian. Damian attempts to move away from him with a hand out to try and break away from Frans. He breaks free but is swarmed by Lambie and Jordaan. 

54:49 - Another Stormers lineout. They hit up twice through their pods. Damian is lurking behind one of these pods and attacks the outside shoulder of Frans. Frans immediately grabs hold of Damian and begins attacking the ball. Reinach joins in. Stormers #2 drives in behind Damian to give him forward momentum.

Oh, and Clever Mike, I know you hate aimless kicking. So I need to mention Damian's bizarre kick to Lambie which caught the Stormers so off guard that half the field was exposed for the Sharks. Lambie scored a try. 

Lurker 

It is no use trying to correct the imagining BS you spout on the site - so keep up - it is interesting to see what junk you come up next.  

You need to calm down Clever Mike. You must be bloodshot by now. It's easier to flow the way of truth. Don't resist, just let it carry you along it's gentle course. T he jagged rock of anger and bitterness you cleave to, that dashes you, it is your enemy. 

The tackle was made by De Allende and you lied about it.   Pakie's pics are BS ans your argument the same - be ashamed for keeping on lying. 

The tackle was made by De Allende and you lied about it.

Pakie

What a load of crap.  Mozart claimed the tackle was not made and the fact is that Nonu off-loaded the ball while the tackle was taking place.  The poor defense in fact was by Pietersen who did not cover Barrett.   The normal BS flows in buckets from a deluded and prejudiced BSters.  

No. But suit yourself.

Listen doffies - use your sense if you have any and not a theory based on prejudice.  No evidence the photo is useless since it was one after the fact that Nonu off-loaded the ball whule the tackle was in progress.           

If Clever Mike is correct, this is more disturbing than we initially thought! Think about it, the ball has been in the air for a while. Look where Damian's arms are. If he was in the process of making a tackle while Nonu still had possession, he could not have applied any more contact. So, he must have been in a very awkward and prolonged state of hugging Nonu before he got an offload out. I think Clever Mike's assertion paints Damian in a much worse light.

The Saders won it because they play the most balanced rugby in both defence and attack but they get it right when it counts most...they use both at the correct times, they defend and close down the oppositions strengths at crucial moments and attack without handling errors when  the opportunity arises and they do that very well...they don't waste energy crashballing but create gaps and space and go through them. They are by far the best team in Super rugby and deserve their dominance...they are a complete side and have been champions 9 times and will be there next year again...they are thinking players and cannot be steriotyped...they carry game plans in their heads and abilities.

I see Mike is as committed as ever to dragging everything to back to kindergarten level.

Here is the moment the ball leaves Nonu's hands. DA has not even touched him yet. The offload was BEFORE the tackle, not in the tackle. I'm not sure why it matters anyway. It's the least important part of this entire situation.

And now I'm done with this. We're not flogging a dead horse anymore, we're kicking around its scattered pieces. If Mike refuses to get it, then let him not get it.

I see the BS coming through in streams.  By the way what was Pietersen doing in this case?

By the way this matter was discussed 50 times on site and followed a story of Mozart in an effort to blame De Allende for the try.   Not a single reporter or commentator - or for a matter of fact no expert ever suggested that.   They realized that there was no way that it was possible to cut off Nonu running across the field trying to get away from De Allende.  

If any reputable person came up with the story it would carry some weight and I would not dispute is.   Fact is we have a statement here by a prejudiced fool - supported by two other prejudiced fools that is supposed to be the truth.

So BO - I will not comment on this BS again -  because what it is is utter BS.   If you believe people will believe the BS you are welcome to it.  I criticize De Allende as player as well - but I base my criticism on correct information - not prejudiced BS invented by the three of you.

Ol' Maaikie....LOL..."So BO - I will not comment on this BS again -  because what it is is utter BS."

Whose BO...Bahahahahahahaha...do you mean body odour....

Your mispellings are very funny sometimes

Another day, another tale.

The NZ side dominated by the attack. It is effective up to the point of being able to score 14 vs 15 just after taking one try (that is during a time the team that has just scored expected a strong reaction)

That is the situation. Defence is what this NZ side fill time with when they do not attack.

Winning a rugby game is not demanding: the team takes the score lead and keeps it until the end. That is a win. A margin might be used to avoid unpleasing surprises.

The NZ side took the lead from 19' (the SA side had a 3 point lead from 13') and from that point, they kept building up on it.

20 6 half time

37 18 end time

Quite comfortable margin. Obviously, the attack between each half was as efficient (20 to 17) while defence was not.

A side with such attack quality must not attack all the time. Especially as their playing partners are SA who think of themselves as the best rugby in the world and take poorly an evidence of the opposite.

NZ sides walk on a hot ground, they must win diplomatically. This side would have attacked all the time, the score would be too heavy for SAns to digest. They would throw a tantrum, threatened to leave SR, blame quota players which SR teams do not have etc

SA is one sour defeat away from one guy taking up one bus, filling up with locals, locking up everyone in and put the bus on fire, just like in the good old days.

NZ must be very cautious when they keep inflicting defeats on SA. They can come with big consequences.

The NZ side is based on attack. They attacked what it took to win without humiliating too much SA.

Which meant they had to defend the rest of the time.

The thing is SA rugby are as clueless as before when it comes to attacking. So reading the NZ side as one based on defence is a relieving thought.

Defence is what NZ sides fill their games with when they do not attack.

Attack is what SA sides fill their games with when they do not defend.

Now Clever Mike blames JP! Nice. Do you have a crush on Damian? I can't think of any other reason why you'll defend him to such extremes. 

Perhaps if Clever Mike knew how defensive systems worked, he'd understand why Damian is a nightmare for his teammates. 

I just asked what he was doing - he was not covering Nonu and not covering Barrett = so what was he doing?

What was wrong with the defense system BSter?   

Pakie - why was he covering Nonu when he made no effort whatsoever to tackle him.

I am not obtuse, because I dio not accept Mozart's crap and you supported him.  There was nopt a single commentator or rugby writer or expert who blamed De Allende for the Barrett try - but Mozart invented a reason and obviously you and Lurker supported him.

Obviously the hole story is utter BS.   Nonu was running across the field and De Allende could not cut him off.   Maybe a player outside of him could - but none did.   This is the kind of crap written on this site which is really sickening,   I said if you can find any reporter, commentator or expert who blamed De Allende for the try - I will relent and agree with you three.   If not it will just be another example of prejudiced BS spread by you three.

However,  there is another aspect that I must emphasized - I actually wrote earlier this year that De Allende should not be selected at center and I gave real and not imagined reasons for it.   However, he did have a good SR season and was one of the top 5 centers in the series and he did very well in the June tests.   I do not denigrate a player falsely on dubious grounds like the three "experts"  on the site does.            

You are obtuse, and deliberately so. Last time we discussed this you asked what Pietersen was doing, and we explained it to you with more patience than you deserved. I even think one of the NZ posters chimed in as well. Now you're asking the exact same thing again. Perhaps one of the others have the patience to indulge you in your childish little games, I don't.