Oom Rugby makes some very interesting points

https://www.sarugbymag.co.za/oom-rugby-breaks-down-the-moments-that-mattered

Read this article, it's perhaps the best description of some of the micro things the Boks did to succeed. I commented elsewhere on Stephanie's rush defence onto Ford. Interesting because Rassie himself used exactly the same tactic onto Larkham in the early 2000 period. The Aussies became so frustrated they put Matt Cockbain on the field who punched Erasmus into oblivion on the deck.

It's cool that this tactic was resurrected for the big game....but it's so disruptive one wonders why every team doesn't do it.

The point on the 3 on 2 running pods echo stuff Augie has written and the double tackles was another interesting observation. This starts to make sense of the English malaise.

Very true..in that move where Kolbe smothers Lawes, I think Faf tackles Vunipola. He was a disruptive force the whole game. But if you haven't had a chance, read the article.....lots of interesting points, eg the 7s defence rotation.

I commented elsewhere on Stephanie's rush defence onto Ford.

Very similar to the way we used Esterhuizen against Foley in the Australia game in JHB earlier this year.

Excellent article.

Indeed, put some things into perspective...this whole RWC was planned in the finest of detail. 

The amazing thing about Erasmus coaching is how in the space of a week he transformed a rubbish kicking game(Wales) into a near clinical demolition of England. That takes some coaching. It can be done......but in the space of a week!!!?

Denny

There is one thing that was clear from the article was that the  Springboks play is more related to variation.   Swys de Bruin said that Erasmus in a meeting in May 2018 outlined the way the game should be played,    There were never any changes to the plan.  The plan allows for variation - but  one has to look what happened in the Welsh game.  The only problem for 2018 was to test players to see how they perform and fit into the plan and make sure that this year you end up with a team that could be the best players to execute strategies.   That is why a number of players missed the boat.   

Before the game the players were fully informed how the game would be played,   Some players had an off day at work and there were indeed problems.   Erasmus told he players that in all previous tests over the last 4 years SA tried to beat Wales by pace and it did not work out.   So he instructed De Klerk to kick the leather off the ball.  

The long term plan of Erasmus aimed at getting SA out of a mess was always consistent - hence the higher number of tries scored compared to  tries given away,  I think the key with Erasmus is to study the games of opposition countries and then determine where they have weaknesses and how to exploit those. 

I think Erasmus is a type of coach Australia would pay a fortune for. 

Only an Ozzie can coach an Ozzie team. There are reasons why. Don't get carried away.

Just a joke!!!!!!!!!!!

That would be rather difficult,   The senior coach is from the Melbourne Rebels - a South African. Next in Seniority is the Brumbies - an Australian, then the Queensland Reds - a New Zealander - finally the Waratahs,   I do not think there is a multitude of Australian coaches working in the NH or even outside Australia,   

Mike, tx for the invite but my stay will be for short(10 days)......next time.

Thanks, Oom's on the ball, with his analysis up there with our Pakie. Yo, & now I know why Stick's on the payroll.

No wonder Rassie used to be on the stadium roof for the Cheetas.

So, what happened to the argument that the only way forward for SA was to get an overseas coach?

There was no argument after the return of Erasmus - other than from some members who nearly ha a seizure about the appointment with deriding posts flooding the site,

Now that there is the fact that the Chief Coach vacancy will be filled the ideas are flooding in again,  If Nienaber does not want the post - to my mind it should go to a foreign coach.  Who else is available?   

There was no argument after the return of Erasmus - other than from some members who nearly ha a seizure about the appointment with deriding posts flooding the site,

Now that there is the fact that the Chief Coach vacancy will be filled the ideas are flooding in again,  If Nienaber does not want the post - to my mind it should go to a foreign coach.  Who else is available?   

What notable thing did Brits say about his retirement and that may stop some of the things written under this thread:-

“It was a season of sacrifice, but it was worth it. When we saw Rassie’s plan – and everyone bought in – we knew what we could achieve and all of us worked towards that goal.

“Everyone knew their roles and how much hard work it would take, and we got stuck in. As a squad, we spent a lot of time together and it was unbelievable being part of this experience.”

 SO THE PLAN SOME MEMBERS CLAIMED DID NOT EXIST - WAS ALWAYS USED - WITH SOME VARIATION.   EVERY PLAYER KNEW HIS  ROLE AND OB VIOUSLY HOW TO ASSIST OTHER PLAYERS AS WELL,     

And yet this was what Muck said in March 2019:

Anybody referring to  "The Bok coach believes the Boks are at their best if they play their traditional power game where they smash their opponents into submission rather than using skill and guile to outsmart their opponents. "  is a total nut case.   That approach was dead and buried  fifty years ago when modern dietary and training techniques resulted in a more equal situation as to forward play - there is no way that that was not total BS.   

......... 

'That approach was dead and buried'.....except that's exactly what the Boks did to win the WC. Allende smashed it up, with 2 offloads against the pasta eaters. For the rest we never had one planned backline movement in the playoffs....a few tries from turnover ball.

And in the WC final we saw the opposite of expansive rugby, the traditional Bokgame of subdue and penetrate.

The  big news,  and it's directly contrary to the Muck doctrine, is that Traditional Bok Rugby elevates us to leadership in the game and is very effective at the WC. My guess is faced with that Pom opposition even HM's newbie handicapped Boks would have won the WC.

Are you referring to what Brits said?  Does not seem so since you were disparaging  of Erasmus from the word go/

Never Mozart

Meyer could not compile a game plan if it hit him in the face.  He was recently fired by Stade Francais because of exactly his coaching incapability,   To come u with that is in fact a real joke

I am referring to your confident assertion that physical dominance was dead....in the aftermath of a WC won by physical dominance.

This would be a good moment to admit you were dead wrong.

Can you read English or are you just plain ignorant.   Planning technique and counter-measures are nowadays needed.   Do you understand  what that means?

Are you still ducking and diving about Erasmus coaching and still think the same as a month ago? .    

The only ducking and diving bellyflops are coming from you ou  groot  pens. You said physical dominance is dead, but fortunately they never gave the Beast the message.

Mozart

I said what is real in rugby and that is that players are getting stronger and bigger in the Tight 5 situations - so technique is to be a major consideration in getting the upper hand.   

The fact is that a lot is being said about Nienaber and defense and nothing yet about Proudfoot insofar as improved scrumming is concerned,   Beast was not so good in 2017 and showed huge improvement in 2018 and 2019 .   

But you are ducking in diving about the real issue under discussion and in particular the coaching that you have previously being attacking Erasmus on.   So no amount of personal attacks would help you  out here.  I asked some real questions and you really are just causing your normal  clueless methods in response..  

Come on Moz. Give Ou Maaikie some credit. We all know that Beast is not particularly strong and that it is all about technique. Just check out his superior technique in this picture. 

Ceradunce

You are losing it again - I me an that little brain cell of yours is malfunctioning again.   I never said anything about Beast's strength - I merely said technique allows for improvement of his scrumming performance since 2018.

So the total collapse in thinking ability came to the fore again in your case.         

Oh come now, Draad.

The Goats don't have the brainpower to play an intelligent game.

Take a good look at Frans Steyn ... how confident are you that he can even count to 5 without the use of his fingers?

How about Malherbe?

No my friend ... the Goats were guided by some exterior force. A total fluke. It will never happen again.

CC

I am a close friend of the Malherbe family and Frans is not at all stupid as alleged,   Fact is he is investing his money well in property and already amongst others own tw o luxury homes in the Cape Town area.   He also knows his rugby well and that counts for a lot.  Is studying part time as well. 

A humble and great person to know.     

My apologies, Mike. I'm sure he's a great guy.

Let me be clear about the coaching:

1 Nienaber did a WC winning job with the defence.

2 Proudfoot  did a credible job with our scrums. But let's be honest we never really dominated until the final and that had more to do with Coles than Proudfoot.

3 Our lineout was reliable, but not really aggressive.....apart from Etzebeth at the front. Given our physical resources I would say the coaching there was adequate, no better.

4 Our general tactics were classical Bok strategy.....defence, fast wings to exploit turnover ball.....if in doubt, kick. I'm absolutely delighted we went back to that formula.

5 The head coach gets credit for the defensive coach, reverting to Bok traditions and executing them very well. He gets credit technical changes like 3 man pods and double tackles.

6 The head coach gets credit  for having a happy team and motivating them well. He also gets credit for the best public relations effort in all our WCs. The Kolisi story....the for the people narrative. It all built unprecedented good will, so even our stodgy tactics weren't dumped on as in 99 for example.

7 The main disappointment was the lack of progress in simple forward handling and  backline play. This team did very little with huge quantities of good ball. That could have hurt us in terms of chasing a lead, as in the ABs pool game. But we were never in that position, for which I give him credit for  being lucky....luckiest guy to ever coach the Boks. And that's not a bad thing.

Moz, there is one slight, but very significant difference...and I'm going to compare Rassie to Meyer here.

I'm not a Meyer hater and think he is a good coach, but IMO he gambled too much on his older players like Jean, Matfield and FdP...but I can live with that too. 

The difference: Under Heineke there was a strict game plan and players had no autonomy to make decisions that deviated from that plan.

Under Rassie the game plan is basically the same, but players are given the freedom to express themselves if they see opportunities, hence the slight variation in our game...and the odd try more. He brought a bit of fun back for the players and some team culture...like Razor did for the Saders. I think the stress of the job got to Meyer and he and the players lost the "fun". Rugby should by fun...it's a game after all. 

That's how I connect the dots. 

Sure - but the ball handling story is tommyrot,  The team had the highest try-scoring record in the WC and of the 50 tries scored in 2019, 37 was scored by backline players and only 13 by forwards,  A lot of backline tries involve forwards in the attack  - two typical examples was in the two tries in the final.  

Then about the kicking story - fac t is the kicking was in the main strategic - not the madness we had in the Meyer era and under Coetzee.   There were some mistakes made - but not a constant stream like under previous coaches. 

In essence  I disagree about the scrumming in all WC tests,   In the AB test the situation was not as good as it was in all other tests and the fact is that the scrumming improved when De Jager replaced  Mostert as a lock in the major tests.     Even in the final the same level of scrumming remained while Beast and Malherbe was on the field - thereafter it weakened substantially.

Scoring of tries by backs and forwards doesn't indicate style of play Lügnerin. In fact, a lack of participation by the forwards would tend to indicate a lack of involvement or inadequacy of those forwards. 

You are from a bygone era, a time when rugby was played in such black and white terms. The structures you think of don't exist today. The game has changed a lot. It's best you try and catch-up. 

But you said the same things about Vermeulen, Louw and the Beast in 2019 and they were crucial to our wins. F du Preez won the Welsh test in 2015.

Your arguments dont hold water. The old guys never lost the WC in 2015 Lomp, Allende and Kriel did. 

Ceradyne

I always struggled to find a game plan when Meyer was coach.   There were cases where he instructed  players to play a ball-in-hand game such as the 2013 Johannesburg test, but it took the wind totally out of Morne's sails - he did not know when to kick and when not to.  The result was for example the second try of Messam in that test,

For the rest one could never identify what the Springbok test game plan really was and even if there was one it was not clear on what the plan was actually based and why the plan was decided on.   Maybe it was only me who was unable to identify a plan as a result of the  repetitive mess the Springboks always used in tests.

For  instance I noted that in the 2015 WC the plan used was to pass the ball in the main back to forwards - much as it was in the case where Meyer was the Bulls coach in 2004.   It obviously did not work out in the WC matches against Japan and the AB's because of the repetitive nature of the game played in those two tests.

In essence Baard is correct.   It was openly stated f or instance that the winning try of Du Preez in the Wales test in the 2015 WC quarterfinal was practiced during the Captains Run and never discussed with Meyer at all, indicating that the players were not prepared to even discuss deviations as a possible alternative with Meyer.