Without regard to Saffex's continuous drivel - there are some issues to be said about Francois Steyn. I watched him in games he played in France and must say he played the same style of rugby which he played for the Springboks last year and for the Sharks this year. Physically he was much like he was in the tests last year and my guess is on his return from France - he was obviously overweight and slowed down.
There has been a notable change in NH rugby - and that is that the faster running game is much more in evidence than it used to be say 2 years ago. One only have to watch the Toulon - Leicester game yesterday to realise that. In France Steyn's style did not provide the answer anymore and it is doubtful if he received a good enough offer from his club to be retained. However, the last is guessing - what is true is that he left France and came back to SA.
What was his physical condition like when he came back to SA.? Again we can only guess - but it was evident that he was overweight and slow. During the tests last year various posters made reference to him being overweight and slow - I was not the only member who mentioned it. I do not believe that he was less than 118 kgs last year in the tests as well. I do not believe his weight gain took place during the period he was off due to injury at all - but do believe that Steyn was slow and overweight even before he was injured. That brings me to the issue of his weight when he joined the Sharks in January this year. Plumtree later confirmed that when he joind the Sharks in January 2013 - he weighed 118 kgs. He was then put on a conditioning programme.
In early February I went to see the Sharks play in a match in Pietermaritzburg and seeing him from nearby he looked slimmer than he did in the tests last year and I said so loudly. A bloke from one of the local rugby clubs sitting near me said he at the time weighed 115 kgs. I expressed some doubt about it in the discussions that followed and even said the ideal weight for an active sportsman like Steyn shoud be 105 - 106 kgs. It s unlikely that he was much less than 114-115 kgs, when the Super 15 started 14 days later.
By the middle of March Steyn was down to 110 kgs and Plumtree emphasized that a month later his weight was down to 110 kgs.with the objectiv being to get him down to 105-106 kgs. Together with that his speed had to be upped considerably.
I for one believe that -
* his physical condition last year made it impossible for him to play a different playing style than he in fact did - he was too slow off the mark to have a positive impact on any potential backline attacking play; and
* even though he was not the ideal inside center his performances was what was expected from the Bulls inside centers and fitted into Meyer's requirements from an inside center.
A large proportion of balls were normally crashballed by the Bulls and the plan worked as long as there ws substantial forward dominance. It did not work out well for the Springboks - since Steyn was more often than not caught behind the gainline as a result of the slow speed factor. Mozart frequently mentioned the small gain made by Steyn when going forward with the ball in hand and it was dismally low. There was indeed the same tendency noticeble in his games for the Sharks this year. He was slow off the mark and his physical condition had a serious impact in both his passing and kicking game. His passing was slow and the recipients were often in a worst position than he was with defenders on top of them when they received the balls. His relieving kicks was totally erratic and was really poor - there were to clear about it in the second test against the English and in the game against the Brumbies.
Be it as it may - the question is whether Meyer's game plan was drilled into Steyn when he returned from France and was selected for the Springboks? Personally I think there was no real pressure put on by Meyer to play the style of rugby that fits into the Bulls game plan - it was exactly like Steyn played in France on club level. What was not clear is whether Meyer ever embarked on a conditioning programme insofar as Steyn is concerned.
Was it acceptable to Plumtree - it obviously was not. Even after the Cheetahs game - there were grumblings about the relatively poor performance of the Sharks backline comparative to last year. After the second game against the Stormers - the public grumblings - not only on this Board - became more noticeable and Plumtree was asked abut it in an interview given by him. He said there were indeed problems - giving no names - and said those problems are being attended to and they are moving to the stage of correcting them.
The correcting was not in evidence in the game of the Kings and the outcome resulted in fierce criticism of the backline performance. At that time it was clear that the problem centered around the performance of Steyn particularly - after he was subbed after about 60 minutes of play. There were clear signs that the backline performances improved after his departure and there were a few encouraging runs by the wings and Jordaan in the last 20 minutes of the Bulls game.
After that game I openly said that I do not expect him to be selected at 12 for the Brumbies game - and the resultant outcry from certain quaters was unbelievable. Steyn's performance in the Brumbies game was abysmal. In the first 20 minutes he missed three crucial tackles - two missed ones after a sequal of subsequent plays (with the Sharks defenders on the back foot) let to tries by the Brumbies. A disastrous relieving kick went straight down the middle of the field of play - was gathered by Mogg and also let to a try being scored. It all was too much for Plumtree to accept and he once again subbed him at minute 60. In the last 20 minutes of the Brumbies game - the Sharks team played better and again the backline became more threatening. At least the Sharks scored a converted try during that period. However, it was whilst Steyn was on the field of play that a rare attacking move was made by the Sharks was the effective killing of the attack by Steyn by chip kickig the ball straight into Mogg's hands and the attack died as a result. In one attacking move by Lambie he was caught in possession - because there was nobody to pass the ball to. One would have expected that Steyn at inside center would be on his shoulder - but he was not and I think it was largely due to the defective speed factor of Steyn.
The public outcry - not only by some membersof this site, but the public in general - became really problematic for Plumtree. In a radio talk Plumtree was hammered on this issue and he had two choices and that were either not to confirm that something was wrong with Steyn and try and paper it over. Plumtree knew what was going on and that he public was aware of the problem and then admitted that Steyn was problematic as a center. He then went on and discussed the conditioning process aimed at helping Seyn to overcome his problems and said that some progress was made in respect of it - but that there need to be further progress. He went on to say that he in future tends to use Steyn at full back - no mention made of the ultimate objective as to the usage of Steyn on successful completion of the conditioning process. Steyn was consequently put on the bench for the Rebels game. During the Rebels game it came out that Plumtree said to one of the commentators that he does not intend to use Steyn at 12 in future anymore and that is where the situation stands at present.
The Rebels game was a strange type of game. Lambie and Bosman both found it more advantageous to pass balls back to the forwards who scored most of the ten tries scored or made the advances across the gain line and once the ball came out from resultant mauls - tries followed. On the whole the outside backs was rarely used in that game.
This was followed up by the game against the Crusaders - where Steyn was brought in at full back. He really showed up badly in that game. He was chronically out of position and made no catches of high balls kicked at the Sharks - he never made a single tackle and was nowhere near the field when the Crusader try was scored. He obviously was very slow speedwise and there was no indication that the conditioning programme started in January had any further positive results after the March statement by Plumtree. The four times he got the ball - ran quite a distance and then was tackled in a vey upright position was seen by some people as effective - but was it really so since in the process he spilled the balls twice and the result was opposition scrums.
Be it as it may the question remains - how effective was the conditioning programme started in January? At center Steyn was less obvious than at full back. Being exposed to the camera more often at full back - it was very obvious that little progress was in fact made after the after the March statement of Plumtree and he was still slow and overwieght - probably still around the 110 kgs mark mentioned by Plumtree three weeks ago. Is he making progress and getting matchfit to function at full back in future?
Th quetion is now - with the Ludick injury - what is Plumtree going to do as to the full back berth? I think he is going to play Viljoen at fullb ack and with some luck Steyn may be on the bench.
Anothr interesting question is - how much info has been passed back to Meyer about the situation. I doubt not that Plumtree fully briefed Meyer on the issue, since the first tests to be played by the Springboks is only two motnhs away. It would be interesting to know what Meyer is going to do about the situation. My own guess is if Plumtree found usage of Steyn at 12 to be to the disadvantage of the Sharks team and stopped using him in that position - Meyer would not use him there at all.
I find it necessaary to give the above summary - most of which was actually based on public observation of the situation or on facts stated by Plumtree himself. I quess that Saffex will have a seizure about the issue - but that would not in any way change or affect the real situation on the ground.
