erasmus admits Boks current plan wont beat the All Blacks,,,

While not suggesting that the Springboks make massive changes, South African Rugby Union High Performance Director Rassie Erasmus has said that certain tactics, such as their kicking game, were not working against the All Blacks anymore.
  Erasmus, answering questions for South African rugby fans via sarugby.net, actually identified Joe Rokocoko and Sitiveni Sivivatu as former weak links, saying that the Springboks knew the All Blacks "couldn't really handle the kicking game."

Such kick heavy tactics in 2009 led to a shift in selection strategy for the All Blacks, leading to wingmen that had similar skills as fullbacks, and Erasmus said that the likes of Israel Dagg and Cory Jane meant that Springboks tactics would need to change, saying that head coach Heyneke Meyer was busy implementing some new plans.

The former Stormers director said that one aspect that didn't help the Springboks was that there wasn't complete co-operation between the national union and franchises.

"I think our biggest challenge is the fact that we don’t have central contracts like New Zealand," Erasmus said.

"Our franchises own the primary contract with the players and therefore control the amount of game time. Obviously we sometimes request that a player must be better managed, but one do have to understand that the franchise coaches are also under immense pressure to perform. Not an ideal situation but one of my first challenges I want to get right.

Erasmus said it was difficult considering the Springboks were rebuilding, but said that it didn't help when media speculated.

"Sometimes the media can make a rumour reality, I can assure you there was no plan to bring back Bakkies," he said in reference to rumour that Bakkies Botha was going to line up against the All Blacks.

"The challenge always for a new coach is to balance winning with rebuilding. I guess that’s where my new role come in to create some continuity when the one coach leave and the next coach take over. It should not always be a new beginning if all the correct structures are in place.

The Springboks High Performance Director also clarified why he was in the coaching box earlier in the season, but has been absent during The Investec Rugby Championship.

"The plan was always for me just to help and be hands on with the coaching until after the series against England," he said.

"The main reason for this was the fact that the Bulls’ coaches (van Graan, Mcfarland, Loubser, Carzis) were still involved in Super Rugby and Heyeneke needed some hands on deck. They all now just involved with Springboks. So I am back at the office running the HP Department.

the reality is theres no surpriese with rassies comments and the real question is will meyer change his plans for the Boks remaining two games.

Boks in SA should be a bit too high for the wallabies to climb, but its sill for any SANZAR team to underestimate the others anywhere and IMO the players in all three squads know that..

All Blacks toughest test of the year will be the Boks in soccer city and i for one cant wait, but first we got a pumas problem to take care of and IMHO if we dont win with a 4 try bonus pint i will be shocked.
the wellington test had conditions which really negated our ability to spread it out wide and the test became a battle of attrition of the All Blacks when the pumas really showed that they are capable of mixing it up.

speaking of soccer city, i think i will watch that 2010 test again, where McCaw was instrumental with that try near the end be fore daggy boy sealed it and nonu gave smit a present on his 100th test cap, his cinderella like glass rugby boot, lolz, :P

 Well I'm glad Erasmus is Meyer's righthand man. 

Bokkilla lern 2 spel.

@Beeno how you doing mate?, if the boks gameplan is to use tactical kicking to beat the ABs then why would you use goosen?  Employing goosen means a change in tac from the boks or to play catchup rugby in the last 20min of the game. I bet if the boks were leading on the scoreboard with 20 to go Steyn would not have been substituted.

Hnerynz09 - welcome to the Board. 

Your comrade in arms Sasue will tell you that I am criticl of all players not performing effectively and neither spare any "holy cows" - so you may expect criticism from me on all teams - in particular of the Springboks - but not sparing the teams of other countries either.   You may read some things that I say about even Carter and McCaw and not like it - but that is the main springboard for healthy debate and exchange of ideas.  

Kicking under some circumstances is necessary - normally the answer is under which circumstances it is to be used.   Relieving kicks within your 22 is an essential element.    In attack the only way kicking is effective  is in circumstances as the Habana try last weekend or even the kicks by Hougaard and De Villiers very early in the game  that very nearly let to a try.   Some high kicks and charge will work - even against the All Blacks - but success is limited, because of the fact that the All Blacks are very good in such cases - other teams less so.

There are very few circumstances where kicking as a ploy is successful - hence the problem with the perceived Meyer game plan.   I would add that kicking as an option outside of the 22 is to be discouraged and rarely used.

 Just to add - the Springboks did not lead by 20 points basically because Morne Steyn had a disaster and Kirchner was worse.   Morne is so badly out of form - he should not have been in the team at all.  Kirchner is a joke in bad tatse insofar as ball passing and positional play is concerned.   That is why I was sceptical about Cruden's performance.   I would have applied pressure by high kicks on Kirchner supplemented by by good follow-up.   The AB's fail to test Kirchner properly.   However, the Dagg try was a direct result of Kirchner being totally out of position  as well as a useless defender and the Smith one because he again was out of position and he is a clueless defender as well.  Both those came without much or in fact any involvement by Cruden.

I down-graded the potential victory of the All Blacks in Johannesburg drastically.   They must hope that Meyer retains Steyn and Kirchner in the team and  then exploit their weaknesses better - and they will have a better chance to win.   That may not happen though and the AB's is most likely to lose if the two players mentioned is not in the squad and if there  is no Greyling - who in the Dunedin test played effectively for New Zealand as well.

Lets see what happens two weeks from now - and then do a assessment again - would be interesting though.

Gday clevermike, thanks for the welcome,  I have been a benchwarmer for quite sometime on this site.  Some comments  I find very constructive and informative like yours, some comments from others not so. Indeed, there is  nothing wrong with healthy debates and exchange of ideas with a bitta banter now and then.

I understand that kicking is an essential part of the bok gameplan especially when Morne is in the game.   He is a specialist  kicker.  When to implement and what type of kick is key.  I guess the last game against the ABs some decisions he made in terms of kicking were wrong.  As you mentioned kicking outside the 22 you disagree with.  There are a number of reasons why I think Meyer chooses this type of game. 

1) Give nothing to the opposition,  we play attacking rugby in their half only,  if we try to play in our half of the field we risk giving away possession or a penalty and the territorial advantage.

2) It halts the flow of the game, especially when the opposition likes to up the tempo of the game

3) Let the ball do the work, playing all out attacking rugby in our half will only drain the tanks of our forwards.

4) Rely on defence when a kick is put in place.

If this is the game that meyer will rely on.  How does Goosen fit into this game plan?     
 

Henry

Meyer in some respects is an enigma - but as I mentioned elsewhere in a discussion with his coaching role - I think he is a realist as well.   His basic instincts as to game planning is to use the Bulls plan of play - which with both Steyn and Fourie Du Preez was successful in the Super 14 series at the time.   However, I am beginning to think that he realizes that the system is not working anymore and that the system is in reality falling apart.   I think he does want to introduce a different type of approach - but that is beeing hampered by his deficient backline knowledge and the fact that he has a nonentity as backline coach.   

Many people in SA are shouting and screaming about the deficiency in the Meyer approach and that may just have an effect on him and his approach to the game.   That is the main reason why Meyer is contemplating the change to Goosen as a flyhalf.   The main reason is that Goosen is a different kind of player altogether from Morne - in general despite his youth he is a better reader of the game and has the instincts to play a different game.   Unlike Steyn he stands much flatter in attacking play and a good ball carrier himself.    He is more incl9ined to attack personally and is good in off-loading of the ball in tackle situations - thus allowing for space for outside players.   His service to the backline is faster and allows for similar play by the inside center and further out.

The latter is an important issue - with Steyn around his first instinct drilled into him by years of cioaching is to kick in the first instance and to consider other options only thereafter.  For that reason he stands too far back in the pocket and never really move forward to attack the gainline at all - the result being that his outside players are even further behind the gain line and cannot really attack and get over that line.   Because of that it is easier for opposing teams to get defensive players in line for defence or to the breakdown point - which in fact is normally behind the gain line.

The latter is not the case with Goosen - standing flatter - receiving the ball on the run and with a tendency to attack the line himself as well - makes cover defence much more difficult and that is why he in fact has shown already in the few minutes he played from the bench that he can make effective breaks over the gain line.   From tht perspective it in itself creates problems for both the opposing team and the Springboks themselves.   

Let me deal with the issue from the Springbok perspective as well.   There is malady in SA rrugby insofar as attacking backline play is concerned - namely backline play has become so static that even those players that was brilliant in their youth insofar as ball handling is concerned have lost the art of ball handling and off-loading.   Playing with Goosen as flyhalf would mean that they have to adjust ttheir thinking about their own style as well - which will take some time and a different backline coach that could deal more effectively with such a "new" approach themselves.  

However, there is a bigger problem for the opposing teams and that is that they would have to change their defending as well.   It would be problematic - because Goosen as a better reader of the game is going to use various methods against them - when they - and especially the wings themselves stand flatter in defence they are going to have to fall back to cover attacking kicks - since they can never  really predict what line of play is going to be used in attacking play.   Simultaneously with Steyn around - the loosies knew in advance what to expect, the wings fell back in adance to receive kicked balls  - with Goosen around they won't be able to decide on certain plays in advance - because he would find ways and means to quickly change the scenario - requiring much different and more complicated defensive strategies.

Goosen has already on Super series level and in Juinor rugbny shown he is a more complicated player to contend with by the opposition - and I believe Meyer is slowly warming to the idea of a different flyhalf approach - but he also realizes that such a different approach requires a fundamental  change by all affected team members.   Meyer's first instinct is to try and get other players in the team to get used to a new playing a fundamentally different style of play - and that is the reason for Meyer's presentc appraoch of  playing Goosen from the bench.

However, without considering the broader impact themselves - the general supporters are clamouring for immediate change - without looking at potential hick-ups in such a move..    It would be interesting toi see what happens with player selection in the forthcoming games against Ausstralia and the All Blacks.   If Meyer follows the generally popular approach and put Goosen in at 10 and Lambie at 15 - matters could be far more complicated for the opposing teams.   But as previously indicated Meyer may still cling to out-dated concepts - which in the event of  a no-change approach - could be even a career-threatening problem for Meyer if there are further losses during the Championship.    So in a way a new approach is being forced down Meyer's throat.

I think this article for me clarify why there is no evidence anymore of any signs of co-operation between Meyer and Erasmus anyore.   We often asked what happens - why did Erasmus vanish from the scene?   Erasmus may have been very diplomatic in dealing with the issue - but the fact that he apparently told Meyer that the game plan is deficient is more likely the reason for parting of the ways. 

Insightful and right on the money as always Mike.  Moulding a team around 2 flyhalves with 2 contrasting styles is a very tough task indeed.  Which one will Meyer pick in the up and comming games will be very interesting.  Will he please the masses with picking Goosen?  Or decide to stick with Steyn?

As for the ABs we have our own problems to contend with.  Even though we won on the scoreboard we were well beaten in the tackle area.  Im hoping we up our game in this area.   As you suggested, targeting Kirchner as a potential weakness under the high ball is something we also need to do.  Short inside ball or a chip kick over the top I hope we employ to break the "up in your face" Bok D line, this is where Carter has the edge over Cruden.  Just hoping the ABs have done their homework.  

Goosen no doubt has some serious skills.  Though as you also pointed out the rest of the backline need to be insync with his style of play, with tweaks made to the backline in terms of running lines and backline depth etc...  The opposition need to be aware and change their defence strategies accordingly.   In saying that its a game the ABs are well aware of and a game where flow and pace is much suited to the ABs.  I cannot imagine a Bok team going with an all out attack strategy.  The big bok forwards can only do so much, can they handle the pace? I dont know.   Therefore, going against all,  I believe Steyns kicking game and the the Meyer bull game plan, if done with precision poses more of a threat to the ABs than goosens attacking game will.  That was almost the case a couple of weekends ago.

Insightful and right on the money as always Mike.  Moulding a team around 2 flyhalves with 2 contrasting styles is a very tough task indeed.  Which one will Meyer pick in the up and comming games will be very interesting.  Will he please the masses with picking Goosen?  Or decide to stick with Steyn?

As for the ABs we have our own problems to contend with.  Even though we won on the scoreboard we were well beaten in the tackle area.  Im hoping we up our game in this area.   As you suggested, targeting Kirchner as a potential weakness under the high ball is something we also need to do.  Short inside ball or a chip kick over the top I hope we employ to break the "up in your face" Bok D line, this is where Carter has the edge over Cruden.  Just hoping the ABs have done their homework.  

Goosen no doubt has some serious skills.  Though as you also pointed out the rest of the backline need to be insync with his style of play, with tweaks made to the backline in terms of running lines and backline depth etc...  The opposition need to be aware and change their defence strategies accordingly.   In saying that its a game the ABs are well aware of and a game where flow and pace is much suited to the ABs.  I cannot imagine a Bok team going with an all out attack strategy.  The big bok forwards can only do so much, can they handle the pace? I dont know.   Therefore, going against all,  I believe Steyns kicking game and the the Meyer bull game plan, if done with precision poses more of a threat to the ABs than goosens attacking game will.  That was almost the case a couple of weekends ago.

Insightful and right on the money as always Mike. Moulding a team around 2 flyhalves with 2 contrasting styles is a very tough task indeed. Which one will Meyer pick in the up and comming games will be very interesting. Will he please the masses with picking Goosen? Or decide to stick with Steyn?

As for the ABs we have our own problems to contend with. Even though we won on the scoreboard we were well beaten in the tackle area. Im hoping we up our game in this area. As you suggested, targeting Kirchner as a potential weakness under the high ball is something we also need to do. Short inside ball or a chip kick over the top I hope we employ to break the "up in your face" Bok D line, this is where Carter has the edge over Cruden. Just hoping the ABs have done their homework.

Goosen no doubt has some serious skills. Though as you also pointed out the rest of the backline need to be insync with his style of play, with tweaks made to the backline in terms of running lines and backline depth etc... The opposition need to be aware and change their defence strategies accordingly. In saying that its a game the ABs are well aware of and a game where flow and pace is much suited to the ABs. I cannot imagine a Bok team going with an all out attack strategy. The big bok forwards can only do so much, can they handle the pace? I dont know. Therefore, going against all, I believe Steyns kicking game and the the Meyer bull game plan, if done with precision poses more of a threat to the ABs than goosens attacking game will. That was almost the case a couple of weekends ago.

Somewhere in a lofty tower,  Raasie is thinking High Performance Centre thoughts. Meyer simply thinks.....nice to be shut of him. There is no chemistry there....how can anybody have a working relationship with a self centered robot?

Mozart

You obviously do not like Erasmus.   I also do not really think the fellow is up to standard - but I have to say he is right in what he says here about the kicking game issue.   Howeer, the reaction of Erasmus in this case is not his own idea - but has been widely said by many South Africans - so there was relly nothing substantial coming outof Erasmus in any event.

Please mike and Moz, no more nonsese about Rassie - rated by many as one of the foremost rugby brains in the world. I f meyer dosnt want to listen tha tis Meyers bad choice but I do not think tha tis the case - you are specualting widely here.

Hi to Henrynz09  I am battling here to get some folk to have  a reasonable perpspective. Moz counted 31 points tossed away and I added 9 re other missed penalties making 40 points wasted last Saturday. So why the pessimism one has to ask.

I hope Goosen and Frans are not out. 

THise thinking the Bok game -lan wont work also need to consider Van Graan'scomments

Ex Sport 24

The Boks go into their home game under pressure, thanks to mixed results and a public disillusionment with both team selections and the style of rugby the team is playing at the moment.

But Van Graan, who also is the team’s attack coach, believes the Boks have shown much progression since they started in June, and after their dominant performance in Dunedin against the World Champions New Zealand, need to be more clinical in finishing off the chances they create.

In Dunedin the Boks dominated all the stats, and made more opportunities against the All Blacks than many teams do in an entire test series. But their lack of finishing, both with the boot in kickable penalties, and with the try-scoring opportunities they had, ultimately cost them the game. (Exactly so!!!!)

While much has been said about their game plan, the Bok management insists it is more about option-taking, which at times has not been good. Players need to make the right decisions on the field, with Van Graan again reminding all that the team needs to make better decisions in situations to convert pressure into points.

“I don’t think you can pinpoint it on one thing, we are creating opportunities, all four teams in the competition are creating quite a few opportunities,” Van Graan said.

“Defensively teams are getting a lot better, teams are scrambling quite well, we can only control what we can control and that is converting more opportunities into points.

“We had quite a few opportunities in Dunedin and in Perth that should have been points; we had a good look at it. It’s about the team gelling and making better decisions. We are working hard on it and hopefully it will come right over the weekend.”

I will remind all that not kicking your goal kicks and butchering tries is NOT part of the game plan.

Beeno

I have no problem with the general concepts raised in the article quoted by you - but there is one major issue and that is that Meyer refuses to recognise that the players "not kicking your goal kicks and butchering tries"  are the same ones that cannot make constructive decisions on the field of play.   He keeps on finding excuses for them and keep telling us tat they would overcome their deficiencies  in the next test - consequently keeping them in the team.   That promised improvement never seems to happen and in that way the management themselves sabotahe their own game plan