I don't know how.....

true this is but a friend quoted me a stat saying the AB's score 95% of their tries from broken play. If so then it's fair to say that turnover ball from the ruck would be part of that percentage. But just going back to tries from broken play, can anyone remember any AB tries from set play apart from the Reiko Ioane try in the Wellington test? Interesting.

I think Bok coaches over the years have ignored the value of a dedicated Fetcher like a Pockok for example but that said we don't seem to produce that sort of player. Clearly the ruck is an all-important battleground, just imagine the effect it would have if we had a world class Fetcher, firstly the opposition sees less ball and in the case of the AB's it would create a huge knockout blow to their attack, secondly it means the Boks would be defending less and have more opportunity to launch their attack. 

Denny

What you wrote is 100%  correct.  South Africa did not produce any fetchers who could excel in that form of game - because especially Meyer selected players with a poor record of fetching.   There was no encouragement to players to specialize in that sphere of play.  Fact is the non-fetching loosies were preferred and the real fetchers ostracized.   That was no way to go.     

New Zealand average 3 seconds per recycle. They probe well from phase play and look for mismatches. There's a structure to their game, but the shape is generally different. What them during phase play, every runner has at least one option. They forwards can interplay amongst each other which expands their options. It's hard to defend 15 men who can each be a point of attack anywhere on the field. They also eliminate tendencies from their game as much as possible. Such as direction of kicks etc. They are less bound to a pattern than we are, but then, they are taught to identify what is happening in front of them, and how to attack it. There's a simplicity that we lack.

The ruck is their lifeblood. If you can take that away from them, they generally stall. That said, we bettered them. At the breakdown in the World Cup, and they still won. Field position is more important. Turnovers higher up the field are less dangerous, and they are not shy to kick you to death. I've also advocated a fetcher as well. The two best fetchers we've had were Reuben Kruger and Heinrich Brussow. Louw had a good patch under Meyer. That's almost it. Solly had a good 2006 though, very dominant in those back-to-back wins against Australia and New Zealand. South African coaches like their ball carriers. Peter learned the hard way in 2008 as we were cleaned up at the breakdown all year - aside from the first and last tests.

That said, fetchers can be blunted. Teams seldom attack in isolation. The forwards work in teams of two or three for the most part. That's one or two cleaners as soon as the ball carrier hits the deck. The backs can work similarly, and those wide attacks are supported by forwards out wide. If you look at Pocock's steals this year, the opposition were always slow to support the carrier. Esterhuizen had a good carry that was turned over because we were too slow to clean out the ruck. Then there were other instances where Pocock was washed away by a green tide. He became less effective as the game went on, though he was still a good ball carrier himself. 

It's in the NH that we will be tested most. The SH doesn't place much emphasis on contesting the breakdown, not like the NH. We're becoming more and more like rugby league, because apparently the ruck is an impediment to entertaining rugby (Rugby Australia and one of the IRB in 200 8 and 2009). 

"New Zealand average 3 seconds per recycle..."

Where did you get this stat??? For my money its one of the most important team stats and i swear this is the first time on this site, or anywhere else that i've actually seen a number put to it.

That one stat alone tells you an endless amount about how the team is doing. Off the top of my head, i can think of about eight different aspects of a team's play that are revealed by just that one number. Fitness, opportunity creation, defensive spread, speed of arrival to rucks, effectiveness of cleanouts, support, synergy with backs and side by side comparrison of ruck effectieness/dominance from start to finish of the game. I'm sure there are tons more but just taking the ones i've mentioned it should be rpetty clear that if your recycle time is poor then you're creating a bunch of issues for yourself and making it a lot easier for teams to dominate you.

And indeed, it has been the Boks glaring weakness this year. Even during the England series.

Its been the key to the Lions success though. That quick recycle was on display in the first half for the ABs against Arg on Saturday as well...and its devistating. I didnt see the second half.

The problem is, with huge lumbeing forwards you will never get that naumber very low. It's just not possible. That's why the Lions have been dominating all other conventional SA packs. It's also why they struggle a bit in the first 20 but make their opposition crumble in the last 30. As the game goes on, their ruck effectiveness either remains constant or imporves while the tiring opposition inevitably have their recylce time increase in a snowballing type fashion that causes a plethora of problems and sees them bleed points everywhere. 

Most on this board still believe that this only works at SR level. Which is rubbish. The ABs prove that it works at international level. How much more proof do we need? And by that logic, as you progress through different skill tiers, the game changes. It's the same game. A tactical advantage in school boy rugby is a tactical advantage at test level. A quick rucks puts pressure on any team at any level.

That's part of the problem in SA. We don't know how to analyse strategies properly and we invariably argue from tradition rather than from evidence.

Sharks = Massive pack + Slow recycle

Bulls = Massive Pack + Slow recycle

Stormers = Kinda Massive pack + Slightly quicker recyler

Lions = Smaller pack + Lightning fast recycle

The odd one out there is the Lions pack. Is it a conincidence that they've been wrecking the other three consistantly? I don't think it is. Their backs are nothing special. They just get way more opportunity. Way, way way waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more.

And its mainly because of that one number that you mentioned Aug. That number that nobody on here EVER talks about. Ever! We prefer to talk about our massive pack, our giant locks and scrum dominance...then we wonder why Pocock does so well against us and why the hell England make our lives so difficult when we're clearly the better side. We also wonder how it could ever be possible that we should lose to Argentiana.

Funny stuff.

For me the key difference is how we setup for attack. We followed the Aussie way, like the Lions, and generally find ourselves too narrow and deep. How do we best the edge of the defence? That's my biggest concern. The Lions approach would be to replicate the failed Wallaby approach. Even Cheika made concessions, though he is still persistent it's the Aussie way - it really isn't.

What I have been documenting is how team beat the edge of the defence, and what variance there is between each if the teams. I'll be picking apart the Rugby Championship until next June! 

You beat the edge defence by sucking in defenders in the middle and causing the outer players to shuffle inwards so as to not leave gaps in the middle. 

That is enabled by quick recycling in the first instance and then further quick recycling to get the ball to the backs, through the backs hands and to the edge before the defence can reset.

A slow ruck causes none of that to be possible unless there are linebreaks or mistakes in the opposition defence...which may happen today but not tomorrow.

The Lions have been scoring consistently in the corner, against all comers, for four years.

In instances where we have had quick ball, we still struggled to beat the edge. Remember, in the SH, rucks are not so fiercely contested. Watch the Brisbane test, quick ball, but the line was set quickly. If we try to go wide we end up being too lateral. These teams aren't stupid. The outside rush has been very good in the RC. 

I don't know if you watched the game, but the Aussie vs Puma test had some great first phase plays. Very ambitious play by both sides throughout. 

To your comment on Kolisi, I forgot to post about that. He has definitely improved his work rate. I'm still not sold on him though. He is no fetcher, but he has very good skills, speed and strength for his size. I often wondered what he would have been as a back. I still don't see any leadership. Who knows, maybe he grows more into the role. Maybe he grows more into the position too. Eben is already the natural leader of the team in my opinion. 

SA breed lots of good fetchers, but they tend to be hookers.

Ulli, Bullet, Bissie, Marx, Ackker...

Too true Draht, we produce outstanding hookers in general. 

The Lions can be kept at arms length by a good pack in general. Outside of the wendyball in Super rugby you'll get you backside besten. 

I wonder what all the drivel of AO and Mozart has to do with the problem of fetching - ball protection and recovery and possession turnover.

Mozart for years supported players who could not do the basic function as indicated and even denied the need for that for years and AO is so stupid he did not understand either. 

Not worth reading the drivel knowing the approach of the mentioned two. 

Incidentally - Plum is 100% correct - on test level there should be players that can do ball protection and recovery.  There should be an off=set of what the different franchises produced as well

Lügnerin, how can one player dominate as you say when players are structure to attack in units with dedicated cleaners?

What happened to Pocock after the first 20 minutes? 

Who turned it into a discussion of "structured play" something neither you or AO knows anything about.  That is why BS about players like Alberts raised its ugly head.   Alberts was a rea l flop as a ball-carrier averaging 2,2 meters per carry - clumsy and very-very slow with less ball sense than my Jack Russell.   

Jack Russell. 

Like owner, like pet. 

Indeed Mos, they lose in the final. Albeit one of those losses was down to a red card and another was away from home, in shit conditions with jet lag. 

One does have to remember the Lions players are relative nobodies. They are not the best we have. What happens when we select from our best and take their approach. 

If it's that easy to keep them at arms length then why is nobody but the team they play in the final able to do it? Surely if that is true, then every SR coach knows it and would easily fend them off. Clearly, it's not nearly that easy.

The point is not the Lions. It's the focus on quick ruck ball. Getting there first means you have a better chance of stealing and slowing down opposition ball as well as making it much easier to secure your own ball. 

The fast recycle is what gets you tries. On top of that, it also gasses the opposition. Which leads into more.

The Lions pack is too weak. The All Black Pack is extremely physical all the way through. Big men with good hands and reading of play. The Crusaders were easily able to manhandle the Lions, demolishing its maul each and every time. In the first Bledisloe test, they reverted to forwards around the corner immediately in the second half. They completely pulverised Australia, breaking them, and turning the game entirely in their favour. The All Blacks will never field a micro pack and will never play Cheikaball. This is a pack with a 100% record in the scrums throughout the RC. The micro pack relies on wide attacks to change the point of emphasis, against a team like New Zealand who can pack a punch, they cannot make a dent. That leaves the backs running laterally like crabs straining to get over the gainline. 

Just one second longer can get your D reset ,one second quicker can see blokes out of alignment ,backs turned and gaps appearing .

And as Plum said what works in SR certainly works in test rugby ,its the whole point of the ABs having a say in our SR teams .

The wide attacks with thinly spread resources has yet to succeed at test level. This is not the way the All Blacks play test rugby. What the South Africans want is almost identical to what Cheika had envisioned. New Zealand, if anything, has proved at all levels that it doesn't work. To compound matters, it's seen the NH teams dominate both South Africa and Australia for many years now. In fact, since 2004, Australia's away record hasn't been very good. The better teams will simply overpower you and derail your entire game. The micro forwards will then be forced to pool together to fight for slow ball and their backs will be hit well behind the gainline. Take a look at the All Black pack, who among them could be considered a micro forward? They have big strong men. I can't recall the last time they've fielded a forward like Kolisi or any of the microlighties of Wallaroo Town. The All Blacks play a hard nosed game with finesse to finish you off. It's Australia with the fanciful candyfloss rugby that the South Africans are emulating. We use many of the same structures and patterns. That includes the Lions. Until someone does it at test level I'll never believe in it. Watch it cost Cheika his job this November. 

Aug you're confusing this. 

I'm advocating quick ruck ball at the expense of some size. 

Your talking about how SA want to emulate what's in Cheika's pip.

The question is, is fast rucking valuable. If so, then how much should be sacrificed in favor of it.

Also, it's not like one suddenly has to play with skinny dwarfs to get fast ruck ball. 

It just means selecting for pace and stamina ahead of pure size. And the variance might only be a few KGs. 

That in itself is not a necessarily a loss either since the heavier guys will be worth less in the second half as they inevitably slow down more than the slightly smaller guys.

"You beat the edge defence by sucking in defenders in the middle and causing the outer players to shuffle inwards so as to not leave gaps in the middle."

It's called "compressing" the defence, Ozzie teams are well practised in the art....have been doing it for yonks. South African teams still don't know how and when it's done.