Our losing ways continue.....and there is a simple reason

The lack of clean breaks on attack, and low try rate of SA teams is probably a bigger issue than the defence. 

SA teams were amongst the lowest number of tries scored. The backs once again struggled to catch and pass. 

The Sharks defence around the rucks was pathetic today. No flyhalf or fullback defence, or loosies to cover mistakes by the tight five. A clean break and it was a try..

I always regarded Mozart from a rugby perspective as a one-eyed genius dealing with only two topics.   The one is defending and the other is kicking the ball away,   He never realized what defense really entailed and came out with a story about that there are nothing lie aimless kickin handing over possession to the opposition.  

For the rest he is as flat as a pancake.   Ball skills is not a question and that is why he remained totally committed to having a game plan where he never mentioned a player makin 20 plus tackles and always concentrated on 1 missed tackle as the norm.  For him a player makin 20 tackles and missing 2 is less valuable than a player making 7 tackles missing 1.  

So his game remains that of the supporter of kicking as a norm and defense as a false norm.  

The Bulls had sIxty eight percent possession but only scored 1 try. All this is not solely about defence.

Te Brumbies had 32% and scored 5. Like to see our teams with 32% and outscoring their opponents 5 to 1.

The biggest factor to me is the inability to score tries whilst not down playing the crucial value of defence.

The ability of other teams to unlock defences as compared to ours is very apparent. We are way behind.

Beeno

What game have you been watching?   The Bulls scored four tries (one a penalty try).   So did the Hurricanes.   The Sharks played the Brumbies.    

Mozart

What the f#ck is a "process tackle"?   I asked you in the past and all you came up was your standard BS,    I got it  though -'

*    "Process Tackles"  are made by your pet hate pla yers:

*     Tackles are made  by your favourites.  -  rare as that may be.

Read my post Mike I was clearly referring to the Sharks game. 

Those stats are telling as Mallet pointed out. 

Sorry Mike that opening sentence should read Sharks. 

A routine (process) tackle is when a ball carrier runs into a tackle/r to set up the next phase from the ensuing ruck. The objective is to go to ground quickly to allow the ruck to be cleared quickly. 

Nice explanation by idiots as expected,

Super rugby doesn't prioritise defence like it once did. The foundation of the game is gone. A team with shambolic set pieces can still be viable for progressing deep into the competition. Rucks aren't as strongly contested as up north, so the ball is recycled quicker, which means defenders are more concerned with running back into the line for another rugby league type stop. 

As far as clean breaks are concerned, the Lions ranked 4th with 190. The Bulls 7th with 180. Then our sides drop off with the Sharks at 12th with 156 and the Stormers 16th (bottom) with 133. The Shark backs struggled for a platform most of the competition as a result of poor ball retention from the forwards. Their possession was too erratic with very little control. A lot of uncoordinated muscle. The Stormers were the complete opposite, as their forwards were extremely well drilled and moved around the field with precision, laying a very good platform for the backs. They were not able to use that platform. 

Most alarming is the style of play utilised by the Stormers, as it matches up very well with what Rassie implemented last season. An over-concentration of dead-end possession at 12. The patterns were very similar, although with much less kicking - in-spite of Damian kicking more than usual. It didn't work at Super rugby level, and as we saw on the EOYT, it won't work against the NH. I'll be interested to see what Rassie conjures up later this month. 

The forwards and the backs interlock. Traditional backline structure doesn't exist for the most part, in favour of rugby league shapes. Since the ELVs it's more about disguise behind screens. Pre-ELVs it was about angles of running and close quarter passing. Skills have regressed at an alarming rate over the past ten years. Our players tend to attack from too deep, with little momentum. We have almost no players who can pass with length off either hand. Our halfbacks are a 2/10 compared to what we had as far back as 2002. Our 9s excel at a short ball to a PO D runner who will give it to 10 or 12 or carry it up. That right there is the core repertoire of most of our ball movement. For the Boks, last season, the distribution chain was almost entirely 9-Kick, 9-7-Ruck, 9-F-10, 9-F-10-12-Ruck, 9-F-10-15 (run out of space or get caught deep). The teams with the most success getting past the edge of the defence concentrate possession at 13 more than 12 and have a higher percentage of possession at 11 and 14, who pass as well as run. They come into the line in more creative ways. At present, only Mapimpi offers this. To a lesser degree Kolbe and Hendricks. 

Defence is the quickest way to improve a team as its predicated upon cohesive structures. Attack is all about breaking down a structure. You can't rely solely on patterns as context is key. Do we have the thinkers to find that context? For the New England Patriots in the NFL, their plays incorporate option routes. Receivers must make upwards of 4 decisions between 2 to 5 seconds. Brady averages 2.4 seconds per release, so they don't have much time. The team will choose a slightly lesser talent that is intelligent over a naturally talented player who isn't. Receivers must see the field the way Brady (the QB) does. It's the only way the offence maintains its flexibility and cohesion. The All Blacks train a repertoire of 2 and 3 man plays - all stemming from league - and teach them context: Attacking specific defensive shapes. I have noted in the past how our players, even after many years of playing the game, can't sense pressure. Time after time we saw Damian running into the teeth of the defence when he could have chosen a better line or passed. This shows an inability to recognise basic shapes and an inability of many of our players to see how those shapes can be attacked. This is what we have always lacked. As these players strain to compete against the murky picture in front of them, skills break down, because they are not coordinating their efforts. 

Mozart

If you did watch the game you would notice that the Hurricanes played a more effective game in the second half than they did in the first half,   The reason was obvious - much less aimless kicking in the second half.   Thy were just handing over possession in the first half.

Since you and are an expert i n center play I do take note of your comments as per normal. 

AO is back -welcome.

Nice quotes from rugby theorists again - but he is clueless as to what actually happened.  The sharks backline did not function well at all - matter of fact their problems started with their Tight 5 - but when the ball did go to their backline they buggered up badly.   They have had a serious problem at 10 and 12 (the latter being pace-deficient) and their backline defense was really poor,

Take for instance the Brumbies quarterfinal where the Sharks had 68% ball possession and their backline could not do anything constructive.   68% ball possession should have been better-utilized by their backline.     

The Stormers struggled throughout the series with injuries to key players like Etzebeth, Schickerling and Du Toit so their forwards were not without problems.   They basically have had a problem at 10 - for the rest their backline was effective.  Real stats will show that the backline players scored most of their tries,     

This is very interesting. Here are the missed tackle stats for the regular season. For backline players, of course: 

1. Bulls: 168
2. Sharks: 128
3. Stormers: 160
4. Lions 162

Welcome back Organhuffer!

What puzzles me is that we see kiwi and even Oz backlines operating on a weekly basis. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. 

All we have to do is what the Japs did. Copy. 

When you can't even copy well enough you have ask why. 

Are players simply are not good enough, including smart enough?

But then consider the dramatic improvement in the Bok backline when Jake brought in Eddie Jones. 

We do not have great coaches particularly backline or attack coaches. Next we are being ravaged  by player departures so we don't get the necessary continuity and lose great talent.

Solve these problems and things will improve dramatically. 

See the bigger picture oaks before getting into the minutia. 

That too will help. 

BUT why don't we learn fast enough regarding backline play we always are behind. 

I mentioned that even the Sunwolves looked sharper. 

Intellectually we are behind. 

Very much appreciated Moz and Herr Sitzsack. I'm sure Mike is just as happy. 

@Sitzsack: For the most part, Saffers will follow orders and work diligently, as we have seen in the past. They don't ask many questions. The Aussies on the other-hand, the most radical thinking attacking nation in world rugby, is more thoughtful about what they are doing. This is a cultural issue. South Africa doesn't produce many proactive thinkers, and those who do emerge are eventually chased away because they make the lesser minded folk feel uncomfortable about their mediocrity. Listen to how they speak, it's all about positive mindsets, believing, giving everything, pride etc. All emotive bluster. The nations who are developing have an appreciation for detail and an honesty in recognising their shortcomings. You don't see New Zealand lambaste their players with the callousness of Bok "fans", but they don't reward failure either. They also work on their players, retooling them. We don't see very much of that in SA. Andre had to go to Japan to develop skills and the confidence to utilise those skills. Monty was a better player for his Welsh stint, where he finally realised his potential. Fleck said he only learned to offload in Wales. One of the reason why I prefer that our players go abroad is that they are being developed for free, and better than what South Africa can do. When Jake attempted to rebuild the Sharks, the board gave in to the powder-puffs who didn't like to get out of bed in the mornings. Low standards, taking the easy way out, no accountability, no vision, no honesty, passivity, stubbornness. 

Listen dimness

You are talking KAK again.   Fransie came on and there was a kick downfield which he tried to chase - ending up completely out of breath.  For the rest he did ZERO when he came on.

Hell you are too dim to discuss anything with.   You imagine things happening and build cloud 9 stories around it.  

As to the rest - the Coaches were either incompetent or petty tyrants.  I class de Villiers, Coetzee and Meyer as being incompetent for a variety of reasons.  

We need proper coaches that can allow players to use their real abilities and not the duds we have to put up at present.      

Wow, Mozart. Aren't you the analyst.

So to sum up your insightful analysis.

We don't win matches because we ... um ... let me see ...

1. Can't score

2. Can't defend.

3. Can't pass or offload.

4. Don't see an overlap and so waste opportunities that present themselves.

5. Leave gaping holes for the opposition to claim unchallenged clean breaks.

6. Can no longer dominate the set piece.

7. and finally our kick chase is non existent.

Gasp!!!! Really?

You saw all that ... and think that the rest of us didn't?

You are stating the obvious, Mozart ... as usual.

Uh-duh!!

Well ... you have forgotten to include the issues we have at the break down.

Confusing tactical kicking with aimlessly kicking the ball away.

Non existent leadership.

Poor selections and the inclusion of sub standard quotas.

The mass exodus of all our talented white boys.

Coaches like Swyss, Fleck and Robert Du Preez.

All of these issues leave a scar.

There is no quick fix. It will take us decades to undo this mess. A mess that started with Meyer and his integrity ... and then followed by the utter stupidity of Quota Alice Coetzee 

That too is painfully obvious.

Frans came on when the Boks were deep in their 22. He sparked a breakout deep into Samoan territory, releasing JP. That was the tuning point in the game. From there the Boks ran rampant. A stark contrast to the team that was hanging on by a thread for over 40 minutes. 

Nice to see your raw nerves have healed. 

When was that happening?  In 2007?   Since 2012 he became more and more useless by the hour,  

And that coach is who?

Dr Moz you know how Rassie has proven you wrong more than once!

Frans' 2012 test season is better than any year of Damian's career. Include his domestic rugby and it's as one-sided as can be. That's what this was always about, Frans versus your blue-eyed boy. I see another season of frustration for you. 

AO

Cloud in the sky BS does not count when evaluating players.  Remember those two relieving kicks from the Springbok 22 that rolled along the ground  - which  cost the Springbok points on the june tests against England and the Argentinians.   He was so fat he could not see his feet when trying to make kicks.

That was the only memorable things he did in the 2012 tests,   Since 2012 he was never selected to start for the Springboks and serious good reasons for that.   He was on the bench in one of the Coetzee test and did squat in that test too.   

Your assessment of players are as stupid as you are when I comes to rugby.      

I remember Frans' excellent defence covering of Jean. I remember him salvaging the Puma test. I should go back to those games and produce a video. There was also his cut back against the grain and long pass which sent Mvovo free out wide against Australia. There were many good things. His 2012 season surpasses Damian's entire body of work. In short: You can't splice the entirety of Damian's season and end up with a quality showing like Frans' 2012 test or domestic season. It's that simple.

As for Frans being a has been? The videos I saw last August to September of Frans were hugely impressive. Will that translate over to test rugby? Is he going to be fatigued at this point? I don't know. I can say that aside from Pollard and Andre, there isn't another option I'd like to turn to. At worst he is a utility back with immense test pedigree. Will Damian better his limp 2015 showings? Not likely. A wasted roster spot.