Mozart's myth about Rugby

According to Mozart -

*   the changes to the laws of rugby  has had no impact on the way rugby is being played word wide; and

*    we must play our game which is  to be  the tough, take no prisoners knock out rugby.

The latter may sound wonderful - but can it hold water?   The answer is no - there is no fault with the Mozart way suggested - but it is clear that there are other factors and elements that must be added to the game if we ever want to hold our own in world rugby.

Basically world rugby has changed since 2007 from the celebrated kick-and-chase-game of that time to a more comprehensive form of rugby.   Mozart and others always say that we must not play the NZ and Australian brand of rugby - we will not beat them that way. However - looking at the many games shown on TV it is not only those two countries who play the comprehensive game.   They may have taken the lead in the comprehensive game - but the NH brand of rugby has also changed and they are nowadays also playing a more comprehensive game than they used to play.   Unfortunately SA is falling behind the rest of the world in rugby development and  the reason is we are becoming less competitive - as shown by the tests over the last two years.

What is this comprehensive game implying?  It implies  that -

*   countries must be able to play tough, take no prisoners knock out rugby; plus

*    they must also play "clever rugby" using all 15 players on the field of play.

The second element is missing in our game before even Meyer found deficiencies and start to make changes to our game plan.   So what did the SA game plan essentially contain?   The basic plan allows for the playing of 10 man rugby -  the forwards to get the ball followed by the kick-and-chase game.     The chief exponent of that format was a  heavy reliance on a player like Morne Steyn or a similar player at flyhalf.    There is one simple example to be quoted here - when Morne left South Africa to play for Stade Francais - he was found wanting and is nowadays the back up flyhalf for the Club - his game is just not acceptable in the NH environment anymore.

Realising the fact that we cannot compete by using one component and playing ten-man rugby anymore - Meyer started to make different selections with the emphasis on a more comprehensive game plan and that issue became a hot topic in the media.   The latest article on that score is by Wynand Claassem and is part of another thread on this site.   Unfortunately there was isine he changed heart - 

*   serious inconsistencies in Meyer's selection of players and the fact is that he was wavering in the process of selection;; and

*   the change environment and game pla at times was inadequate because some players just was not ready for changes in their own game - further complicated by the out-of-date style of game practised by some coaches on lower level - such as Super 15..    

There is one thing clear in the whole scenario - we cannot look at the pre- 2008 scenario - we must look at how we progressed since Meyer started a different approach in his game plan.    So lets see what happened since Meyer's change of heart:-

*   The first game where the change became evident was in the Ellis Park test in 2013.   It looked like we could win that test - but there was serious deficiencies in defense and Morne Steyn on his own cost us dearly by not being able to take critical decisions at given times.   

*    That was followed by the first test in June 2014 against Wales - where a more comprehensive game played by the Springboks let to a runaway victory.

Since then the Springboks struggled in games played.   The opponents decided to play their own brand of tough forward play - and our forwards - weakened by certain selections - struggled in most games and we lost critical games.   Two typical examples of games can be quoted:-

*    In the Ellis Park test last year - our forwards held their own in the first half and some seriously good tries was scored by backline players.   However, in the second half our forwards faded out and the AB's came back to score some good tries - taking the lead in the game.    It was only the slotting of a long distance penalty conversion by the much-maligned Lambie that gave us victory.

*    The end of year tour again showed the same problem - as long as our forwards remain competitive - the team was competitive - when the forwards ran out of steam  - we lso momentum and lost games - or in the game against England we did manage a win.  

So while we showed some improvement in backline play - there is a long way to go though - by the removal of Morne Steyn at flyhalf and bringing on board of Willie le Roux, there was a critical backward situation in forward play.   this could be attributed to -

*    the aging of the majority of our forwards and a dwindling capacity to be competitive as games go on; and

*     the dubious selections of players like Matfield and Mohoje.

The only way we can be competitive in the upcoming WC is to have a team that  is competitive up front and remains competitive in that department for 80 minutes -  playing   the tough, take no prisoners knock out rugby.   Added to that is the fact that we must fine-tune our backline play to ensure that we maintain a high level of competitiveness i the whole 15 man game.       

Coetzee hardly ever makes a true fetcher's turnover. Strauss does, Bismarck does.....not Coetzee. Louw does....he is not Hooper, but he adds a lot on the deck. coetzee is very much a third loosie, he doesn't add strength, pace or skills on the deck. He shines in lesser matches because of his work rate....but in the RWC where everybody plays at max effort he will be very ordinary.

And Mike you  miss the point. Aggressive attack compromises defensive structure....they are related.

By far our best chance of scoring tries, apart from the boring maul nonsense I wish they would stop, is from a potent defence that provides turnover ball.

Wrong, Coetzee has learnt the art of the turnover and has effected a good number this year.....as many as Louw did per game when he played. Coetzee adds far more value with ball in hand and defensively.....just a far more productive player.

No contest, Louw is solid, Coetzee is a class act  

Coetzee is not better than Louw Dave......and he has supposedly been taught how to make a turnover....but he just doesn't. Even when he is positioned over the tackled player he doesn't seem to have the ability to lift the pill. He falls between several stools....not powerful enough or good enough in the lineouts to play a Juan Smith role.....not clever enough to play a Schalk link role....not skilled enough to play a Brussouw role on the deck. He gives us his admirable effort, nothing more.

He is not the stuff of which RWC wins are made.

Moz, I have seen him effect turnovers all season. He is without doubt better than Louw who lets face it, is hardly an openside......never was going to make a good openside weighing in at 114kg.

A solid player who puts in the odd good performance. Coetzee on the otherhand, makes an impression every game. He was one of the few standout players this year.