Lessons of the Past

Some people would never, ever learn from past mistakes and keep on insisting that we must play what they call the "Traditional form of SA Rugby".
One can take any number of matches and look at the statistics ad everything else and then ask the question was t why the Springboks lost matches.   A classical example was the WC quarterfinal in 2011 against Australia.   The Springboks had 78% ball possession - yet they lost the game.   If it was not the only game that happened one would say it was an exception to the rule - but is it is not.   Although the percentage is normally between 60 and 70% the case in other tests, they regularly lost matches.  
There are three lessons to be learnt from the above:-
*   To win matches you must have strong and competitive Tight 5 that can poduce the goods and deliver good balls;

*   The team must have competitive loosies (and not pace-deficient ones) that can handle the ball and is competitive in defense and attack - with due regard to the need to be available to undertake ball protection and recovery;
*   Balls produced must be utilized properly and not wasted. 
Lets look at the above carefully and see what really went wrong with the loosie issue and with subsequent ball usage:-
Loose forward issue
The era of competitive loosies got lost in the process - the last Springbok loosie that really produced the goods on all fronts was Schalk Burger - but he is now in serious decline.
The loosies that was picked since 2008 got heavier and slower - and the need for them to follow and handle the ball became less and less,   They just do not get to breakdowns and they routinely missed tackles or ever got near enough to the ball to make tackles - while breakdown ball protection by loosies became a virtually never-happen situation.   Same with linking play with the backline to ensure optimum utilization of balls.
Loosies should ideally not be pace-deficient, but in the  case of the Springboks there could be allowance for at the utmost one slower loosies - provided the other two has sufficient pace to keep up with the game.   
In the recent past we consistently played low-paced loosies and expect from them to meet requirements.  Players like Alberts and even Louw was far to slow in pace to make a positive contribution to the game.  
The team should have at least two pacier loosies and the slower player can play at either 7 or 8.   The idea to use locks to play at 7 is a huge mistake and that is not what should be done.  
The usage of the ball produced by the forwards
The farce developed that -
*   balls are kicked away aimlessly and totally without benefit by either the scrummie or the flyhalf;
*   balls are passed back to the forwards - mostly the loose forwards; and
*   balls rarely goes beyond the flyhalf and if they did the inside center would crashball. 
The above is what is now described as traditional SA rugby - something which is so far away from what it should be that is really BS to even mention that "traditional SA Rugby" phrase.
The reality is that -
*   we need a thinking flyhalf able to read the game and take sound decisions - something seriously amiss since 2007;
*   depending on the game situation the game should be more ball-in-hand and utilized properly;
*   strategic kicking must always be an option - other pointless and inaccurate kicking should be avoided like the plague. 
Since re-admission we only had one coach who had any real idea of playing backline rugby and the problem is that even the assistant-coaches we had to deal with backline play were so poor that it became a joke.
Traditional Springbok rugby does not include only forward play - it also refers to proper ball usage by the backline.   As long as that does not happen we will ever really make the grade.      
       THE BASIC PRINCIPLE SHOULD ALWAYS BE NOT TO WASTE POSSESSION THOUGH PLAYING OF STUPID RUGBY    

"The Springboks had 78% ball possession - yet they lost the game.   If it was not the only game that happened one would say it was an exception to the rule - but is it is not.   Although the percentage is normally between 60 and 70% the case in other tests, they regularly lost matches."
There's no need to over analyze, it's quite simple, the Boks and our franchises don't know how to score tries...it's been that way since re-admission.

 Whaaaaaaaaaaat????????
Comb-Over's ventured yet another opinion ... 
Question ... did you ask Mozart for his help on this one or are these ignorant ramblings all your own work ... ??

Denny
There are basically three problems why the Springboks cannot score tries, namely -
*   deficient team selection;*   a self-destructive game plan; and*   inadequate backline coaching and strategy.    

Grow up little man. You're repeating after your alpha hero.....it's nauseating.

 Mike...I'll take this piecemeal...
*   deficient team selection; Yes and no.....we're starting at the point of readmission so please don't tell me that over a period lasting 22 years there's always been a deficiency in selection.
*   a self-destructive game plan; and The gameplan if there was a gameplan was to kick for territory, the reason for that is clear.....our blokes don't know how to do anything else.
*   inadequate backline coaching and strategy. Correct to a point, you're being polite....instead of inadequate I'd say we have the blind leading the blind....total ignorance...we have pretenders, they simply don't know.
For crying out loud, we have like you say 70% plus possession and we come up empty ....and that's after after camping in the opposition red zone.
Houston we have a problem.

 Haaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaa... !!!
That's really funny ... sorry I couldn't help myself ... Comb-Over's trying so hard not to come across as being stupid.
Oh well ... you know what they say ... "if at first you don't succeed ... try, try again ... "

 cc
What I wrote above is the exact opposite to what Mozart campaigns for.   He is the one that supported the dumb rugby of the past and his champions were all involv ed in the disastrous results.     

Haha another Tokkie string conceived with the sole purpose of attacking the person he is obsessed with...me. Tell you what Tokkie if our coaches have been so wrong in the past.....why is our Super Rugby record in 2016 playing more expansive rugby....worse than our record in 2015?

 I have seen many games where the team with the least possession and territorial advantage wins the game. To take the 2011 RWC QF against Aus as a yardstick for this argument is very flawed, to say the least. 
The fact that we lost that game had nothing to do with a Tight 4, 5, 6, 8 or whatever mystical number you want to attach to it. And no, I am not going to pull out the popular favourite of how and where Bryce Lawrence screwed us over. The simple fact is that we managed to overcome Lawrence's blunders and still stay in with a shot at winning the game right until the very end. The last moments of the game, to be precise. Be that as it may, we should not even have just been in the lead until Danie Rossouw's mistake in that line-out. We should actually have been in the lead by a more comfortable margin, at that point in time.
What cost us in that game was decision making and handling errors. Schalk Burger knocked the ball with a begging try line and IIRC he also knocked a vital ball in the 2015 RWC SF against NZ. 
Fourie du Preez, who has always been brilliant in surprising the opposition by taking a quick tap from a penalty, especially in the opposition 22m. On that day, he overdid it. He tried it a few times, from within kicking distance, and the Aussies were awake and it did not work. Had one of those penalties been converted into points, we would not have had this discussion, and hundreds of others, about that game.
In addition to FDP's constant quick taps, John Smit also decided to keep on going for the line-out when Aus were penalised within kicking distance.
And then, of course, there was Danie Rossouw's blunder in the last line-out that saw Aus converting a penalty into the three points that Aus needed to win the game.
Nothing to do with our tight five, six, seven, eight, etc. We ignored the golden rule of a rugby final...... Take the fecking points on offer, and secure the win, first.

 Don't blame Bryce Lawrence when the Springboks wasted ball possession - he could not help for that.    That loss was the result of predictability - under-usage of the backline and all the rubbish associated with rugby for years now.   Jake White tried to get Eddie Jones in to help with improvement of backline play - but that effort did not last.  
Part of the problem was in too many cases the reputation players Meyer selected was not only way past their sell-by date - but they were unable to a djust the way they played the game.           

 You poor sod. Read what I said about Lawrence and then we can carry this debate further, if you still want to, because you are missing the boat, once again.

 BS as er normal from Ceradunce

 Mozart
I have said before - you have no idea - compare apples with apples and not fruit salad.   No it was not aimed at you - it just look at why things went so badly wrong in the past -  but if you feel guilty - who am I to stop you.

 Ou Tokkie, you cannot even get past the Bryce Lawrence issue without egg on your face, let alone the rest of the argument. Tell me what in what way does ... ...And no, I am not going to pull out the popular favourite of how and where Bryce Lawrence screwed us over."... imply that I have been blaming Bryce Lawrence? I can with any fear of contradiction, declare that I am probably one of the few South African supporters who, immediately after that game, said that it was not all down to Bryce Lawrence. Ask Beeno. He is, to this day, convinced that I have been trying to exonerate Bryce Lawrence of any wrongdoing.

 Lets not sidetrack the issue - the normal strategy use by Ceradunce.   The rugby fact is that the Springboks had 78% ball possession and squandered it.  

 Stick to the point, ballas. Before we get to your "possession issues, let's first clear up the Bryce Lawrence one. That was, after all, your first knee-jerk when you responded to my post.
I have something up my sleeve, for the 78% possession story, but more of that later. First things first. Have you revisited what I said about Bryce Lawrence, "yes" or "no". And if so, are you ready to concede that I have not blamed Lawrence? Once we have that one out of the way, we can revisit the possession story.

 These things happen when you have a substandard team led by a dumbass as coach.
What you sow you reap.
No way should you expect champion results when all you've sown is losers.

 Can you read English dofdoos?   Start again and read what I wrote.  I mentioned the  test in the WC and then went on to say that it frequently happened in other tests as well.   You obviously do not understand what the topic is about - it is about the style of play where possession is wasted by poor utilization of ball possession.
You always try to sidetrack issues and never can find a way of logically discussing issues raised.  It is always something else that becomes the topic.   
Is it because of low intelligence level or a total ignorance about rugby issues - doffies?
 

It's actually pretty simple.

If you have 80% possession but the coach has given the team a mandate to never let the ball reach 1st center and never off-load then you have denied yourself the most basic route to scoring tires. Not only that but you have also made scoring tries via your chosen method a lot more difficult since now the opposition know exactly how to defend every attack you launch.

There's no rocket science here.

I think we are all idiots actually. If not, then why they fk are we debating ideas that came from an idiots mind?

Fk Meyer. I hear he has a game farm. I am gonna book a weekend there and take a kak on his bed.

Just watch the Crusties...the perfect team through the smooth and the rough and they will be the ones to beat.

As hulle se...die staatmakers... of the super series not from the beginning but to the end...they set the standards and are the best side even when adversity strikes...a side with character with a winners attitude...I wish the Sharks had half the character of these guys. Gaining momentum, learning from mistakes and fixing them.

Just watch the Crusties...the perfect team through the smooth and the rough and they will be the ones to beat.

As hulle se...die staatmakers... of the super series not from the beginning but to the end...they set the standards and are the best side even when adversity strikes...a side with character with a winners attitude...I wish the Sharks had half the character of these guys. Gaining momentum, learning from mistakes and fixing them.

It seems like SA teams repeat mistakes and never fix them...suckers for punishment...NZ would NEVER lose to Japan even on an off day or Scotland... France yes, anybody can lose to them when they finally get it right but that is once in a blue moon. We have lost to 8 countries, NZ, Arg, Oz, Scotland,England,Japan,Wales and Ireland...and will oneday be beaten by either Samoa, Georgia and perhaps USA (forbid it not) and maybe Japan once again the way we are going.

 " Can you read English dofdoos?   Start again and read what I wrote.  I mentioned the  test in the WC and then went on to say that it frequently happened in other tests as well. "
Look who is talking. There are a few things at play here.

1. You specifically mentioned the 2011 RWC QF against Oz as an example of a losing a game when you are seemingly in full control. Granted, you did not say that that is the one and only and the best example.
   
2. Be that as it may. I only said that that specific game is not a good example to argue your case because, IMO, there were other factors playing a role in that game. That, of course, set off all the triggers in that vacuum between your ears again. I did not even get to arguing your points in your OP because you were off on your own mission as usual. Just because I did not immediately bow down and agreed with everything you said.
   
3. I only mentioned Bryce Lawrence to make sure that he does not come up as the usual popular excuse for losing the game.
   
4. You then decided that I was blaming Lawrence because you clearly did not read what I said about it. Get your head out of your arse for a change.
   

Talking about side-tracking. Why did you not debate the points that I made, instead of starting the Bryce Lawrence side-track BS?

 Please comment on the posting and not sidetrack it as per normal with you.  

Ag p1ss off, you arrogant doos. Why was I even thinking that you would accept when you got something wrong? Gaan order jou donnerse brandsiek kuikens rond wat daar in jou agterplaas stront skrop.

  Do I have it wrong that the ball possession by the Springboks was routinely wasted by backline players?  That is the issue dofdoos,   

  Do I have it wrong that the ball possession by the Springboks was routinely wasted by backline players?  That is the issue dofdoos,   

 Yes, because you are simplifying the reasons for the losses. It is much more complex than juts trying to nail "teh problem" on one aspect. 
Your problem, like that of many others, are the constant playing of the blame game. Whenever a team, that you are supporting in a specific situation, loses, your first port of call (just like many others) is always to find someone to blame. You just cannot,ever, accept that sometimes you get beaten by a better team. 
Take the game between the Stormers and the Bulls last weekend. The Stormers had similar kinds of possession and territorial advantage. What happened there? Why did the Stormers lose? Even, why did the Bulls only win by such a small margin?
What I cannot understand is that you are still troubled about the Boks and that you are still trying to solve "all the Bok" issues. Haven't you told us that you are no longer a Bok supporter? Shouldn't you be rejoicing in the "woes of the Boks"?

 Dofdoos
"Your problem, like that of many others, are the constant playing of the blame game.   Whenever a team, that you are supporting in a specific situation, loses, your first port of call (just like many others) is always to find someone to blame".
Has my name being changed to Mozart who is addicted to one-incident illusions.

"Take the game between the Stormers and the Bulls last weekend. The Stormers had similar kinds of possession and territorial advantage. What happened there? Why did the Stormers lose? Even, why did the Bulls only win by such a small margin?"
The Stormers lost because they buggered up their possession by constant presence of loosies in their backline - who buggered up the possession benefit.    Very much the same s happened  in the Springboks games with similar ball  possession.  The rest was aimless and inaccurate kicking handing ovr possession to the position - same with the Springboks. 
This is another attempt at clueless response by a clueless idiot.   However, what can one expect from a Bulls supporter - who like Mozart believes that the backline is only there to defend and passing of the ball  by backline players is a mortal sin.        


 

Aag gaan slaap man. J ou kinderagtige ou doos.

Lol Ceradyne