FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Morné's Bulls

Morné's Bulls

Started by Augenöffner51 REPLIES2,273 VIEWS· 26 Jul 2018, 15:56
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
AU
AugenöffnerPro6,974 posts
26 Jul 2018, 15:56
#1
26 Jul 2018, 15:56#1

Morné is often depicted as being purely a kicking flyhalf. That he can only play 10 man rugby. It's also been said that the Bull's teams he played for were kicking teams. This is a completely unbalanced and even one-sided perspective. Yes, the Bulls did kick well, it was part of theire territory game. This happens to be how the modern game is played. If you play further up the field in your opponents half, they will make their mistakes in striking range of their tryline if they turn the ball over. You'll also be in kicking distance for a shot at goal, a quick tap, or a kick into touch for a lineout. The power of all of your options are amplified. More than this, the power of your opponents options are diminished significantly. Turnovers by your team are less costly, missed tackles are less costly, and the opponent is out of range for scoring penalties. So, this aspect of the Bull's game is tactically sound and was well executed. Morné had a 77% retrieval rate of up and unders, which was by far the highest rate in Super rugby. I have yet to see anything like it, ever. If you can find an example of something similar or better, than please let me know. So, the Bulls could apply enormous pressure, because those fielded kicks mean they now have the defence on the backfoot, with a huge territorial gain, and have possession.

This is where the Bulls liked to play their rugby ball in hand, and where Morné shone as a leader, decision maker, communicator and passer. The Bulls sought to play in the opponents half, and where highly adept at creating linebreaks and converting opportunities. In their prime, they had approximately 60% conversation rate for linebreaks. One of the best in Super rugby, and what contributed to one of the deadliest attacking forces in Super rugby history. 

Where the Bulls did have a similarity to the Sharks and Boks was the use of their big forward pack and their power game. The Bulls organized their forwards into pods, and those pods would attack around the corner of the ruck, applying considerable pressure until they drew in or condensed the defensive line. Morné, like Cooper, would assess play and communicate which direction to play and when he wanted the ball. When there were gaps or overlaps he would call for it and would typically receive a pass from Du Preez (or whoever was available like Hougaard or Adams etc). Like I mentioned in a previous post a few days ago, this kind of game requires great decision makers, and fortunately for the Bulls, Du Preez and Morné were world class. Their brilliant distribution allowed the rest of the backs to shine. It's true that Morné was not known to run at the defence and isolate defenders that way, but that doesn't mean he never engaged the defence at all. I think that's a very unfair assessment that borders too close to deceit. He was, however, a good rugby brain that brought his teammates into the game, and he did that well. He would often use deft cut passes to release his outside backs, making use of what options were available. It's a fact, as verified by Verusco, that Morné was a key component of over 50% of all Bulls linebreaks. Here are a few plays that the formed the staple diet of the Bulls attack:


Another aspect of the Bulls game I'd like to highlight is the interaction between Morné and his 12. I mentioned in another thread that the Boks weakness is mostly at centre, or at least it was in terms of personnel and/or implementation. A lot of fans say that Morné stands too deep, or that he can't "get the backline going". That's absolutely nonsense. He had proven that he can function very successfully with his inside centre. For most of that period with Morné, that man was Olivier. Another upopular figure. You decide whether his success was on his own merit or predominantly because of the quality of his half-backs and how easy they made the game for him. There was a couple of years when Olivier had the highest line break rate of any centre in Super rugby. He was deadly from first phase possession where he'd apply pressure to the defence and get it on the backfoot. The Bulls were all about applying pressure immediately and exploiting it just as quickly, if not quicker! Olivier was also used from rucks in the middle of the field. This is something similar to what Meyer was doing with the Boks, and to what the All Blacks and Crusaders do too. Carter was magnificent at managing the game in these situations and dictating play. Morné did the same, and Olivier was his partner in crime as they formed a pretty formidable combination. Here are some illustrations of those common play concepts:

Flat Unders Line Pass

An unders line is one of the basic units of attacking rugby. It's opposite is an overs line. When running an unders line, the attacker runs a straight line towards the defender and then cuts sharply inside to the space behind the defender (inside shoulders). It requires a late and flat pass typically, and Morné did not fail in providing this.

Blocker Line

A blocker play involves passing in behind another player, the blocker. You can call this a screen play. Australia used to get called for obstruction alot back in the early 00s trying to do this. In the example below, 13 (or 15) essentially ran a big unders line and crossed in front of 12. This kind of play is luring the defenders to expose their channel. You want the defender to bite on a false read and follow 13 and that leaves 12 free for an overs line beneath to attack the space exposed by the defender who moved with 13. Timing is everything, and Morné's ability to play in the face of the defence and release Olivier was highly successful. Of course, the defence doesn't always bite, and Morné had a good ability to make that read quickly and adjust accordingly.


Some Stats

In 2009 the Bulls scored 48 tries with 121 linebreaks (second highest in the competition). In 2010 they scored 47 tries in 82 linebreaks. That 2010 season was amazing. They had less linebreaks than the Sharks, but more than double the tries (by 1). They were joint top of the league for tries scored. This was a very efficient team at scoring tries, creating opportunities

JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
26 Jul 2018, 16:13
#2
26 Jul 2018, 16:13#2
Lurker, I cannot understand why SA rugby supporters don’t appreciate Morne & all he did for SA rugby. I do know However that you are pissing in the wind when you try & convince them how good he was. An ungrateful bunch they are for sure. You could try & convince them that victor Matefield was great- the man who put Vic in victory, lol
AU
AugenöffnerPro6,974 posts
26 Jul 2018, 16:26
#3
26 Jul 2018, 16:26#3

I don't get it either. The funny thing is, I'm not a particular fan. I felt quite neutral mostly. I appreciated what he did, but I didn't feel strongly about him. I could never understand why other guys did. Lambie was the same style player, so that made it even weirder. Especially when his big moment was winning an All Black test with a kick. I was like, "So Morné like". 

BL
bluebokPro3,977 posts
26 Jul 2018, 16:53
#4
26 Jul 2018, 16:53#4

As i said in another post, he was exceptionally good at certain aspects of rugby, with the right team strategy he was deadly. He did have some frailties in his game, but they we easily nullified by his strengths. Also, even his frailties weren't all that bad. His defense and his distribution weren't the greatest ever, but they were good enough. If you consider the number of tries the Bulls scored while he was at Fly half between 2007 and 2010, there is no way he could have been that poor at getting his backs going . He was not Daniel Carter, but he was incredibly effective none the less. 

sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,253 posts
26 Jul 2018, 16:58
#5
26 Jul 2018, 16:58#5
Morne was very effective behind a winning pack. He is like a chess player, that could kill the opposition with his territorial kicking, pole kicking and distribution game. He was better than Lambie at getting his backline running. 
Where he fell apart was behind a losing pack. While it is difficult for most fly-half behind a losing pack, a good runner could make more out of limited opportunity.  E.g taking the ball flatter, and running at the defence, or taking half gaps drawing players before passing etc, etc.
Morne behind a losing pack is a sad sight. He spent most of the game in the car park and put his whole team offside. He was scared... 
His defence was also atrocious. The funniest moment was when Retallack triped, and it appeared Morne tackled him.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 Jul 2018, 17:06
#6
26 Jul 2018, 17:06#6

Have fun - but Morne was a kicking flyhalf - who was -

*    dropped by Meyer in 2012;

*    dropped by Meyer twice in 2014; and 

*    turned out to be the Stade Francais bench flyhalf.

That says 100% what his abilities in reality were.   An average Super Rugby flyhalf and based on the Stade Francais record not even that.    

    


 

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 Jul 2018, 17:06
#7
26 Jul 2018, 17:06#7

Have fun - but Morne was a kicking flyhalf - who was -

*    dropped by Meyer in 2012;

*    dropped by Meyer twice in 2014; and 

*    turned out to be the Stade Francais bench flyhalf.

That says 100% what his abilities in reality were.   An average Super Rugby flyhalf and based on the Stade Francais record not even that.    

    


 

AU
AugenöffnerPro6,974 posts
26 Jul 2018, 18:57
#8
26 Jul 2018, 18:57#8

@Sharkbok: I agree he had limitations. Pollard really highlights some of those. Morne is not fast, and doesn't have great acceleration, not to the point of impeding his game, but he is not going to run at defenders and smash into them. He was strong, but not that forceful. Pollard literally bulldozed through several All Black forwards to score a try. It won't always workout, that kind of thing, but it highlights the different kind of threat he posed. Morne was not that kind of player. However, I won't go so far as to say he was scared or shrivelled away. He kept at it, and did what he had to do to compete. A big pack is essential to the way the Bulls and the Boks played. Without it, the backs were not going to get momentum. The backs, especially the centres will were not going to get the forwards moving forward, but stagnate. It's a particula r relationship that we don't get right, centres and half backs. The centres are too static and have poor spacial awareness most of the time. They need to give both half backs options. There are a variety of plays that can be used to try and generate momentum from stalled phase play and those are mostly from 9 and the loose forwards. It's much harder from 10 and 12. You end up having your midfield sucked into rucks and requiring subsequent phases to get your midfield free again. There are patterns of play to prevent that, and that was what the Bulls tried to do with their pods.

@CleverMike: That says 100% what his abilities were? He was the fastest player to 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 pints etc. He holds many records. Was the top points scorer in World Cup 2011. He has won 2 Currie Cups, 3 Super XVs, Junior World Cup, Tri Nations, Lions Tour and the French Championship. The critics says teams will never do well with him, but yet he does. Why not give the man his dues. Saying he is 100% garbage and the worst 10 in world rugby is absolutely insane! I just don't get why you are saying this at all? Did he refuse to give you an autograph? Get your favourite table at a restaurant? 

DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
26 Jul 2018, 19:48
#9
26 Jul 2018, 19:48#9

Only people on site who doesn't really rate Morné are Maaik, Saffex and CC.

I can't think of any othe posters having a major problem with him.

TT
The_TruthClub Pro471 posts
26 Jul 2018, 22:04
#10
26 Jul 2018, 22:04#10

Well, I for one prefer his win ration in his "worst" years (2013 - 2014 according to Mike) of 82.35% to the 50.00% win ratio of the Boks from 2015 up to now.

But then, I'm only giving facts and totally disregarding "what actually happened" !!!

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Jul 2018, 22:10
#11
26 Jul 2018, 22:10#11
Nah..... Swiel is a much greater player.....so fast.....and intelligent, rugby brains like Tokkie love intelligent players. Or Lambie.....and lets not forget the lion hearted Goosen, how great could he have been if he wasn't so homesick. Can't hold that against him, put him outside a Papier and watch the fireworks....high balls, tackling, smarts.....all voluntary, there are other players to take care of those mundane things. Seriously why does anybody pay any attention to Tokkie's player thoughts, the man is a moron. I mean really, thick as a brick.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
27 Jul 2018, 00:05
#12
27 Jul 2018, 00:05#12

Sure Mozart

When it comes to rugby nobody can ever be thicker than you.    Anybody reading trash you write on this site must realize that.   The total package of the flyhalf represents 90% the ability to kick the ball hence your love affair with what you call "Traditional SA Rugby" irrespective of how aimless and inaccurate the kicks are.   Hence your admiration for the best goalkicker and worst out-of-hand kicker at 10.

Poor old Lurker has the same attitude - he carried on about Meyer's non-existent game plan and when asked for details came up with the same BS as you.   The only function of backline players is to defend.

The funny part is I said Morne's ability to kick at goal was good and I gave examples of where he failed as a flyhalf,   He got dropped  three times by Meyer for failure in performance and Lurker ignored that and came up with a summary of his kicking points.   

Not good enough I credit Morne for his gioalkicking - but for the rest he was be low par as a flyhalf.- whether you like it or not.                    

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
27 Jul 2018, 01:15
#13
27 Jul 2018, 01:15#13
Traditional South African rugby won two world cups and three Super Rugby titles.....your 'modern' approach exemplified by Mitchell ended at the bottom of the South African log. I wont bother explaining why that happened, I have before and frankly you are too thick to get it. Just a constantly moving mouth parroting nonsense you heard from your drinking cronies.
AU
AugenöffnerPro6,974 posts
27 Jul 2018, 01:21
#14
27 Jul 2018, 01:21#14

Whether I like it or not? Since when did I say that rugby is just about defending? Since when did I say that all balls must be kicked away? I answered all your questions in far more detail than you deserve. You said Morné can't attack, stands too flat, and impedes backplay. I proved that this is not true. You said that Morné can't defend, Pakie tore your argument apart in a brief post. You literally say that Meyer had no game plan. You literally expect us to believe that a coach who built the Bulls, sent his Boks out onto the field with no plan whatsoever. How can you expect me to take that seriously? I've spoken a lot about what Meyer did with the Boks. I have spoken a lot about what Morné did. I ran away from nothing. I asked you questions and you refused to answer any of them, all but three. I get no details from you at all but you tell me I'm stupid and insinuate that I'm a coward who can't and/or won't debate. I have put forward a lot of information here, the ball was in your court, and you missed. 

BL
bluebokPro3,977 posts
27 Jul 2018, 08:28
#15
27 Jul 2018, 08:28#15

Ag Mike, you are so predictable! Listen Mike, do you know you can have eye surgery to fix your eyes. Believe it or not, the world actually exists in colour, not just black and white. 

Mike, I have a question for you. Between 2007 and 2010, were the other 14 Bull and Bok players the best ever, in the history of rugby, from any country? The reason I ask the question, if Morne was such a monumentally kak fly half, the other fourteen players must have been spectacularly great, to compensate for his kakness in such a pivotal position... and still win 3 Super Rugby titles, a Tri nations and a World cup!  

CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
27 Jul 2018, 09:31
#16
27 Jul 2018, 09:31#16
On another forum a good old friend of ours posted this six years ago: “Bullshit? - ?Morne lacks rugby skill - we play rugby to run with the ball and score tries - Morne is limited in this department - with ball in hand he never looks comfortable, its not his thing.......the ONLY reason he has ever played first c?la?ss rugby is thanks to his boot - FACT??” Someone who is has been actively and very successfully involved in rugby coaching for years replied the following: “Well your "FACT" was proven to be a "FALLACY" by none other? than Heyneke Meyer and Morne Steyn in quite a few interview?s with the both/either of them. The FACT is that he was already playing first class rugby, but his kicking was extremely crap... So, that takes care of your OPINION. Heyneke Meyer then told him that he needed to IMPROVE his kicking, which he then did and suddenly he became a "kicking only flyhalf" (general OPINION), despite the FACT that he was already playing fi?rst class rugby without the necessary kicking skills... The only FACT regarding your statement is that it is in FACT an OPINION. An OPINION that is disproved by the FACTS. The FACT that something is YOUR OPINION does not make it a FACT, even if you say that it is a FACT in capital letters. Even if you truly believe ?it to be FACT, there are others that disagree with that OPINION and while both OPINIONS may be either right or wrong, they remain merely OPINIONS, until they are proven either correct or wrong.????????? A FACT is som?ething that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of FACT is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. The FACT that your OPINION is in actual FACT the exact o?pposite of the verifiable experience (FACT), therefore? proves that your OPINION is in FACT not FACT...?”
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
27 Jul 2018, 12:23
#17
27 Jul 2018, 12:23#17
I’ll keep it simple Morne was absolutely useless. Had very little rugby talent other than being able to put boot to ball. Had no creativity, was defensively weak - would not have made my provincial side. The fact he played so many tests is insulting. Anyone who supports Morne as a player is an advocate of the conservative out dated approach to the game
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
27 Jul 2018, 14:01
#18
27 Jul 2018, 14:01#18

Mozart

Don't be so dim when it comes to rugby.   The BS as to Traditional SA Rugby" was discussed in detail many times over and what you said about it is absolute BS.   What you said it was is as funny combination of -

*   ten man rugby with the other five players there to defend only;

*   that scoring of tries is not important and goal kicking is:

*    that effectively loosies should in essence be part of the Tight 5 and not function separately from the Tight 5.

A whole combination of BS in capital letters.    

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
27 Jul 2018, 14:17
#19
27 Jul 2018, 14:17#19
I have two letters for you Dave....JJ.
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
27 Jul 2018, 14:20
#20
27 Jul 2018, 14:20#20
Tell me Clever, which modern SAFlyhalf had the best try scoring stats.....aside to self......it shouldn't be this easy!
AU
AugenöffnerPro6,974 posts
27 Jul 2018, 14:57
#21
27 Jul 2018, 14:57#21

I love this contradiction:

Meyer implemented dinosaur "traditional" 10 man rugby. That means the loose forwards were only treated as part of the tight 5. Yet Schalk was officially in the "flay half position" and Victor was "moonlighting" in the backline. The other backs were just used for tackling, yet none of the new centres could tackle and the fullback was used as an extra 10 and an extension of the actual 10. This is so hilariously warped I'm going to laugh myself unconscious.

@Dave : Well, teams scored a hell of a lot of tries with his boot. I mean, if he never passes, he must have kicked all those balls to his outside backs. That makes him the most unique and inventive 10 of all time! It is a fact that Morné had teams with extremely powerful attacks with him as one of the two most important pieces to the puzzle. That's a fact, as proved above. Do you know what is outdated? Playing in your own half. New Zealand gave up on that in late 2009. They also kick a lot up north. However, it was called "tact smart" by a few pundits and seen as visionary. Interesting. One eyed people with forked tongues abound. 

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
27 Jul 2018, 15:02
#22
27 Jul 2018, 15:02#22
Yep and Stephanie never moonlights on the left wing.....haha.
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
27 Jul 2018, 21:32
#23
27 Jul 2018, 21:32#23
Huhhhh? @DaveS???? Bloody hell. That name goes back to the old Suportsport forum. Hahaha.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
28 Jul 2018, 11:40
#24
28 Jul 2018, 11:40#24

Dimness

Du Toit does not feature in the backline when he is playing at LOCK,   LMAO  

BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
28 Jul 2018, 11:48
#25
28 Jul 2018, 11:48#25

Alucard = A lucar = Lurker



BINGO

CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
28 Jul 2018, 11:56
#26
28 Jul 2018, 11:56#26
@Blob. Why the fixation on the guy’s identity? What does it matter if he is Dan Carter, Winston Churchill or Pielietjies Pap from Brackenfell. Comment on and/or counter his arguments, ......... if you can. That is what debate is, after all.
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,253 posts
28 Jul 2018, 12:40
#27
28 Jul 2018, 12:40#27
@Ceradyne, comment or counter his their arguments... That is what debating with a schizophreniac is after all. If you can...


AU
AugenöffnerPro6,974 posts
28 Jul 2018, 16:41
#28
28 Jul 2018, 16:41#28

A schizophrenic? Nice. A great way to grow a forum. A little less of that and little more rugby acumen and this place might actually resemble a rugby forum. 

@CleverMike : Being in the backline is a fluid concept. Think spacing and connection between units. The width of the field can be used in a lot of different ways and this is what I mean by patterns (not to be confused with pays). Where are you going to place your pods? Which directions are you going to play. Something that I laugh about Was how Matfield was ridiculed for " playing in the backline", but he was alot like a New Zealand lock. He was a mobile player and could be used as a link in play. This is where All Black rugby becomes overwhelming, having forwards that can be used ball-in-hand. So, this is another example of fans not knowing how New Zealand actually plays. You talk about comprehensive rugby, buy you ridicule two players for offering the Boks a capacity for All Black attacking rugby. Schalk and Matfield. Du Toit was another Matfield but not as good. I had hoped he would come good, but he keeps flitting between lock and flank. 

CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
28 Jul 2018, 16:43
#29
28 Jul 2018, 16:43#29
“That is what debating with a schizophreniac is after all. If you can...” Shouldn’t that make it easy to refute his (“their”) arguments, then?
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
28 Jul 2018, 17:39
#30
28 Jul 2018, 17:39#30

I am sorry - but some players can fit into attacks - some cannot.   Matfield prior to 2009 and Burger before he had the neck injury was also vey good.    But as they got older the abilities  vanished and by 2015 both of them were passengers,

When you get a lock who plays a roving game he must also fop his job as a lock in Tight 6 play and not only in line-outs - that is where Mayfield failed badly.    That is where if the two played at the same time I would pick Du Toit ahead of Matfield all the time - he did both tasks better.

Mozart at one stage came with a  classic - because Matfield was deficient as a Tight 5 player they had to pick Alberts at 7 so that he could off-set the Matfield de4ficiency as a Tight 5 player.  Things started to go haywire in 2014 because tat theory did not work out and the Springboks started to go backwards at yet speed under Meyer and his fool equivalent Coetzee. .   

    .      

AU
AugenöffnerPro6,974 posts
28 Jul 2018, 18:54
#31
28 Jul 2018, 18:54#31

Matfield was an excellent tight 5 player. He was still very good in his final year. Schalk was very, very good in 2015. In the World Cup he was ranked 4th overall for tackles made at 75. The other three (in order) Louw 77, Lood 77, Eben 75. So, Schalk was a defensive powerhouse. He lead the tournament with carries at 96. He was #3 for Offloads at 8. Schalk was a great generator of play, bringing a great dimension to their game.

Before Schalk's injury he was a basher. Getting you good stable possession in phase play. He was unsophisticated and would have had a short career if he carried on like that. He definitely would not have been an all time great Bok. He got better after his injury. Much, much better! His distribution was really good. He was used in more useful ways. He was never a great breakdown player like McCaw, but a great carrier and defender and lineout option.

Meyer's Boks didn't go backwards rapidly. They lacked a few key pieces. Albert's was the strongest carrier by far. He generated lots of momentum. In 2014 the Boks could not replace him and that was a problem that affected the game plan. Meyer worked around it and got a winning formula together. It didn't work up north though because they could not establish a platform. Some half back decisions were questionable. Meyer was clearly at two minds and felt the pressure of the fans. 

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
28 Jul 2018, 19:32
#32
28 Jul 2018, 19:32#32

Fine stats for Burger in the WC - but not very effective - since Me4yer used him as stand-in flyhalf.   He was one of the main reasons for the Japanese disaster in 2015 - having had worse butter-fingers than the Du Preez twins.   

I agree with you he and Matfield were great players in their prime - but by 2014 that prime was gone and in 2015 Matfield was a serious liability.  Matfield never contributed to Tight 5 play - he was physically to weak for that.   

I wonder what rugby you are watching.   How strong a ball carriermwhose average ball carries per carry was 2.2 meters in tests and 1.8 meters in Super Rugby?  What forward momentum did he provide?  Sure you are free to think in your dreams there were forward momentum = so dream on. 

OK - Meyer's Boks went backwards and only the totally prejudiced will say t did not happen.   I t started in the EOYT in 2014 and the record up to the WC was as follows:-

EOYT                              -    2 wins    2  losses

RC                                   -    3 losses out of 3 played

Argentina "B"team         -     1  win

WC  Round Robin         -     3 win   - 1 lost (Japan)

Play-offs                        -     1 win   - 1 loss

Bronze medal               -      1 win (Argentinian "B" team)

If that does not show th e team was on the skids = nothing else will.

     

AU
AugenöffnerPro6,974 posts
28 Jul 2018, 20:32
#33
28 Jul 2018, 20:32#33

This is the difference between you and me: I don't gravitate towards emotional extremes. Either Meyer was the very best or the very worst. Either the team was the very best or the very worst. There are many degrees of nuance to flesh out that irrational way of thinking. Meyer's Boks were built around key players. We have very little depth at certain positions and without these key players, we struggle to get anything going. In 2014, we struggled to get forward momentum. Meyer worked around that, but came unstuck up north. Matfield and Schalk were not the big problems though. Matfield had a good EOYT that year and was heavily involved in rucks and on defence. He was successful in doing these things.

Meters gained is not as black and white and white as you think. A great example of that is Beast. He gets some flack from a lot of people because they don't understand the value of what he does. You can give the ball to Beast and have one cleaner in there so you don't have to use so many resources to secure possession. There are times when he feeds the ball directly to the scrum half. Not all phases are aimed at making linebreaks etc. A lot of times the team is trying to work the ball to a specific part of the field to create space and/or reload the backs. Beast and Alberts did this very well, but Alberts was much, much more dangerous because he could literally bust your line right open. If you defend him with one man he would likely run over him. So, you have a guy that needs to be gang tackled, but he still gets the line on the back foot. He was used in screens in front of the backs to create deception. Schalk worked in tandem with these two, sometimes in a different pod, usually the one who was going to use the ball more. Schalk's carries were very secure too. A guy who can pass well, offload and genuinely have guys play off him. A more dynamic McCaw in a lot of ways. You don't think modern rugby Clever Mike. You keep harping on about "the fly half position". First receiver is not the fly half position, its just first receiver. There are so many reasons why Schalk was amazing for Meyer and I'm bored trying to relay the same message over and over again. 

You're talking so much nonsense but you don't want to listen to anything that doesn't come from your own mouth. So, from the past few weeks, you have attacked Morné, Du Preez, Schalk, Matfield, Alberts, Frans, Steenkamp. These are all players who have do ne great, great things for the Boks. You're straining hard to pin everything on a small group of players who you don't like for some very strange and mysterious reason. 

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
28 Jul 2018, 22:17
#34
28 Jul 2018, 22:17#34
I have not attacked players - I merely indicated how hollow and without substance your ravings about some players were,    Most of the once great players were by the time the Meyer era came along well past their sell-by dates and no more of real value in games and they should never have been considered for selection.   Some have been never-has-beens and no way dud they contributed what you claimed they did.
It is one thing to write what the players should have contributed and then wrote on site that they in fact did - when objective assessment actually indicated that there were near to zero such performances.    Stay factual and everything would be fine/   
AU
AugenöffnerPro6,974 posts
28 Jul 2018, 22:38
#35
28 Jul 2018, 22:38#35

Hollow and without substance? Hilarious! Clever Mike, you have been entirely outgunned. Everything I said they did, is exactly what they did. I have provided an enormous amount of info. You haven't brought anything to the table. Absolutely zip. You've been debunked by others too. The belt of truth, it keeps the pants up 

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
29 Jul 2018, 06:10
#36
29 Jul 2018, 06:10#36
Lurker
Keep on dreaming - and in future watch games objectively and you may yet find out what really happens in games.    Maybe - just maybe - you may find out why your theories and dreams are not supported by coaches and other experts.   
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
29 Jul 2018, 07:08
#37
29 Jul 2018, 07:08#37
Oh, so du Toit only plays left wing when he plays flank....and that works for you? Tell us though Tokkie what did you think of Plumtree's Cane forwards. This is the man you thought exemplified the skills a Bok coach should have.....I hate to say it but Plumtree's forwards looked almost as badly coached as your man Venter's defenders. You sure know how to pick them....LMAOFY!
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
29 Jul 2018, 13:34
#38
29 Jul 2018, 13:34#38

Listen Mozart

You saw Du Toit once in  an outside position and now he plays at left wing - are you stup id or what?

AU
AugenöffnerPro6,974 posts
29 Jul 2018, 14:15
#39
29 Jul 2018, 14:15#39

Clever Mike, I can see you are about to cry so I'll be gentle with you. The things you say are not found in game footage. Nobody plays the way you say. In this thread I exposed your "facts" about Morné and by extension the Bulls and Meyer. I also exposed your lack of understanding about Schalk and how he was used. I exposed your lack of understanding about Damian. I exposed your lack of understanding about tactical kicking by using Meyer's tactics against "the best" fullback in the world, twice. I exposed your lack of understanding about game plans implemented by Meyer. I exposed your lack of understanding about phase play and various elements of attacking play. I exposed your lack of understanding about positional play and how those are implemented. It was funny how New Zealand and every other team fail to heed your wisdom about "the fly half position".

I'll say this, you are too arrogant for your own good. Like to have your own way. You sound like you were spoiled as a child. This has all been too easy for me, and others. Pakie has done some great work showing where you have erred. Frankly, I don't know how it's possible to get so much so wrong. I don't believe you've watched most of these games. A person who literally watches these games should pick up some of these trends, they should learn at least a little about the shape of the game. There's definitely something very wrong here. A person that has played the game should understanding even more then that. 

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
29 Jul 2018, 16:56
#40
29 Jul 2018, 16:56#40

Listen Lurker

You have exposed nothing bar theories and those were not in evidence on the field to play.   Your claims on Morne is particularly useless.   Let m explain something to you - not that it would help.  

A useful flyhalf will vary play and at times also attack the game line.   What would not happen is that a useful flyhalf will not stand dead still until he gets the ball.    He would already moving forward and be ready to pass the ball or kick it,   Morne extremely rarely take contact and he never try and create space for players outside of him.   He also was a defense liability as a result of poor tackling.   The latter reason and poor kicking why Meyer gave up on him.

As to Burger - sure pass the ball to him as a variation - but in the WC semi the ball was passed by Du Preez  to him or one of the other forwards 66% of the time and only passed the bball to Pollard if the ball is to be kicked as a relieving kick.   There was no chance that the non-game plan of Meyer could work.   Because of the above I said Burger became the stand0in flyhalf - a ball carrier he was not successful in that semi and the whole process neutralized the backline totally.   

It was one of the worst games I ever watched.  You in your wisdom said that the centers in the game were useless - yet how could they be of any use if they virtually never saw the ball.   I get it - you think that centers  are defending dummies with no other job to do.   

I read your comments on rugby and always think about what knowledgeable people say and write - by that I mean top class coaches - about the game and about players and am amazed by the contrast in what you write and wat they say and write.   Either a person must believe the experts and not listen to the  prejudiced garbage you come up with,            

    

↓ LOAD MORE (page 2 of 2)

More from Rugby

More news