Pathetic Super Rugby Pacifica

Just switched over to watch the Semi Finals between the Brumbies and Chiefs. Only to notice how empty the stands are. 

Looks like the the Kiwis are not showing up to fill the stands. Then, in the 1st semi between the crustaceans and blue bells. Ended up being a completely one sided game. 

Not to mention the poor reffing the countless amount of obstructive running that led to several tries. 

I really hate seeing what is happening to Super Rugby. This was my favourite league, even more so that test rugby. 

Yet, we have the big European money to blame for. With their over played, debt ridden, poor rugby administration. Trying to copy premier league football. 

Super Rugby also went the same way and only have themselves to blame. 

It should have always been 4 teams from each country. Ever since Australia went to 5 team from 3, their quality of rugby has slipped. 

New Zealand has the most teams with the best travel schedule. it should have been SA with 5 teams. 

But, the biggest problem is that the southern hemisphere failed in allowing players to move between countries but still be eligible to be picked. We see how many players get drafted in Europe from the Southern hemisphere. 

New Zealand and Australia doesn't have the crowds to fills stadiums anymore or even bump up the viewership numbers. 

As a result, the Southern Hemisphere teams have slipped to became 2nd rate teams. 

Super Rugby is the only sport where you can watch games from a Friday Morning until Later Saturday. 

Rest in peace super rugby, for you had a long and hard battle with greed and over expansion. 

I'm not surprised. The last few seasons of Super rugby, I don't think I ever saw a full stadium. Some of the biggest games had what appeared to be 10% of the stadium at best. Super rugby began to decline in 2008 with the changes in the laws. It nose-dived rather quicly. Over-expansion was another issue, but the changes severely regressed the quality, for cheap aesthetics. They wanted lots more tries to appeal to more casuals. I don't think it worked, and the refs, which were now more about policing style than infringements began to get out of hand with their own "interpretations". Super rugby favoured lesser line integrity, more reactive and passive, even lazy running. Less emphasis on the set pieces, less intensity at breakdowns, as they were more a means of feeding the next lazy run. Teams also became tactically more generic. Rugby as a whole has become more generic in that way. Every so often a tactical shift occurs, but it's more a change in emphasis to combat trends, such as Ireland's linear mobile style with the long range missile at the ready. This changed the profile of player we produce. We produce more runners than ever before, but they have generic, and often under-developed skill-sets, and with a limit tactical awareness. They excel best in games where they are faced with a passive defence that doesn't try to press them. Something to run at and set up the next phase. The Northern Hemisphere never did follow that trend, and that was one of the main reasons why I wanted us to go north for so long. However, I feel we really missed that boat, and the opportunity was most appealing and profitable (from a rugby perspective) about ten years ago. 

Lemur, I agree on the spectator number and the constant rule changes, ball in hand, more play time. At some point the refs were coaching the players on field before blowing the whistle. You hear constantly, hands of the ball, tackle, roll away. Players know what they are doing, it is well known that teams test players out. The 2003 England team that won the World Cup had a code word. Hit the beach, meaning, hold onto the ball in the tackle or don't roll away because they knew the ref won't blow it up. Probably why Rasputin blue a gasket. Hard to train meat heads to adjust to the reff when you can't scheme how to milk penalties. Which is his entire game plan. 

But I disagree with you on the Northern Hemisphere rugby. I remember sitting in the stands, watching how flat they stand, bash, bash bash. Lots of kicking and no skill or flair. 

Super rugby had all the elements, high skill level, flowing moves etc. But removing the touch kick from the game and trying to minimise set phases is what killed it. SA has always been good playing of set phases. So did Australia. 

But the main area that was disappointing was that in the original super rugby agreement was that teams had to field the best teams at all times. That is why a team in the 12th position could beat a team in the top. 

But now we see the crusaders and Leinster playing in the same backline shape with obstructive runners which leads to tries. Where as if you had a Cullen or Spencer that had enough space to beat the defender and the skills to link up and go coast to coast. That wasn't dumb rugby, that was very smart of knowing when it was on. 

Long range tries are the best, when teams kick poor, or to tired or trying to many phases and players are out of position. 

Not this constantly shuffle, ref coaching and endless TMO interference. 

Number 1 is player welfare, you get knock on the head, go for an HIA. If it is deliberately foul play, you're off and fined. If it is accidental, then penalty and play on.  

The need to come up with a simple formula to judge foul play vs accidental. Is the player knee bent, did they deliberately lead with the shoulder, were they moving up in the tackle. 

Then, ruck area, this running in and smashing the player has always been dangerous. Don't forget all the rucking they use to do. Mark Andrews once said he thought he was going to die playing his first test against the All Blacks, since that day he just wanted to kill them. 

One big rule change is needed. Go back to the side going foward gets advantage. This pills in the loose forwards and matfields from living in the backline. Means it's more often backs against backs.

These days the backline are so crowded is very hard to break a line. 

As I predicted the wee kiwis and Oz have lost the goose that laid the golden egg - SA Rugby. Without us they crumble. If course their Crooked reffing and get the Jarpue philosophy contributed to their demise. 

How often didn't I warn the kiwis about this! If only the hapless kiwis had listened! 

I think another issue is the lack of tours. There is no space for the Boks to say tour NZ. Those tours build up tremendous interest. 

Super rugby had all the elements up until 2008. That was the turning point, and the shift was as quick as it was extreme. Our base fitness levels increased, but that was the only advantage it brought us. Moving to the NH earlier would have forced us to preserve the fundamentals of the game, which are no longer strengths as they once were. Having to contest for the ball, to fight harder in the set pieces, and having to defend against more stressful phases. We used to be a good defensive team in that our defensive players were good defenders in isolation. We haven't really had that since 2013. Under Erasputin, the team appeared to be better defensively than under Coetzee, but that was all smoke and mirrors. It was the scheme that concealed the soft underbelly that was still being exposed, but in different areas of the field. Fortunately weakening adversaries and very, very fortuitous reffing turned the tide in what would have otherwise been further defeats. 

As per the NH and skills? They haven't lacked skills, they lacked tactical acumen. They have restructured their teams to play a more sophisticated game in line with the current rules. As you said, they were playing flatter, as one would expect before the ELVs. That is an old attacking structure that cannot exist anymore. That's why I laugh when people talk about the 12 and 13 being a partnership, when they very seldom connect with one another. The traditional structure on attack no longer exists. We have a series of mini-units, connected by a lone playmaker sometimes, with screens. As the defence is so far ahead of the line of engagement, angles of running don't work anymore, so we have these laborious screens connecting forwards and backs to create a little bit of deception or uncertainty. Ours are the least sophisticated, least effective in all of the top 20 teams in world rugby. Ireland has refined a streamlined version of this which is fluid, fast-moving, and a dual-threat at all times, and rewards speed, decision making, and accuracy. From 2016 onwards the trend for defensive dominance in the game changed. Defences became much less dominant, and that allowed NZ to keep going for a little bit, as opponents started to implement and adapt to these new structures - structures which were invented in league by Australians decades ago. 

Interestingly, Meyer was the first Bok coach to really implement these concepts. He had very, very sophisticated schemes that empowered talented players. I recommend watching the Aussie test of 2015 and seeing how the Boks were structured. That, or any All Black test from 2013 to 2015. What I also liked about Meyer was that he borrowed concepts, plays, and patterns from certain player's unions when he made them a focal point. He asked them to basically do what they did for their unions, melding it into the Bok scheme. He was and still is the most cerebral and talented Bok coach of all time. It made it all the more damning when a player like Damian failed! However, he crafted a role for him nonetheless and that became the blueprint for Damian ever since! Sadly we lost Jean in the 2015 WC, which was bolstering the team in spite of Damian. 

Meyer coached the last great attacking allround Bok side. All Erasputin had was a very fortuitous WC draw and double ranking points, and a year of hiding to prolong the myth. WC 2019, comfortable defeat to NZ, and we drop to 6th. These uncomfortable truths for Saddex. And to top it off, the players he says shouldn't have been selected are the heroes who saved that campaign! 

Crashball? Quite the contrary. His Boks were a fluid attacking side. The likes of Willie and Pollard have never reached that level of play since Meyer. The only bashing Bok side of the past 23 years were Strauli and Erasputin. 

What a clown you are Saddex. Did you know that in just 3 games of the 2015 season, Meyer's Boks outproduced the Boks of 2021 for most of the season? Likewise, they outproduced the 2018, and 2019 sides. You would do well to do a little research before you open your mouth. I'm not one of your little ja brus who hang on your every word! 

Meyer, the last great Bok coach. Maybe the last ever at this rate. Fact. 

The Boks were 2nd most of Meyer's tenure. He went around 22 games where only New Zealand could defeat the Boks, aside from one Aussie loss. He also swept the NH twice. He came unstuck when he selected the likes of Damian, Reinach (he was atrocious in 2014, Steph, Lood, Kriel, Lambie, Coetzee (I know it was due to Albert's injury, but still). These players really severely hurt the Boks. 

Meyer's Boks were the most dynamic of the professional era. As per Rassie? He had the luxury of the worst All Black and Wallaby sides of all time. Meyer had one of the strongest All Black sides, and the last good Wallaby sides. Meyer's Bok's consistently out-produce every season of Erasputin's Boks. Meyer's Boks only kicked a lot in their first few games, as he had to rebuild the entire team after the loss of many legends of Bok rugby! He also had two meetings with the players before the England series, so they never even had the luxury of properly training together. I'm not going to allow lazy posters to let the facts slide. Compare Willie's and Pollard's numbers from 2014 to any Erasputin season and you'll see, the Boks have been anaemic. 

Are you seriously saying the Boks are better? Erasmus cannot even compare to what Meyer had to face, and the quality of performance was vastly superior. What performance by Erasputin has been great against New Zealand? We had a very odd Wellington win, when our actual loss was better, aside from the Erasputin backfire later in the game. There hasn't been any other "good" showing against New Zealand. 

Meyer's Boks were a fast moving, fluid attacking side, with more sound defensive structures. The shapes, plays, patterns, and tactics were on another level. What have we had from Erasputing? The dour two three man pods screening awful predictable shuffle balls. There was the gimmick late in 2021 of loading up the tramlines with four man units, which Scotland did not adapt to, but England punished severely. Then what? The three man slide beneath a pod that never got around the outside edge. No, Meyer was far better, but was far less supported because of his Bulls connection. Erasputin's Boks are so dour, I can't for the first time ever stand reviewing games. I don't even feel like watching them. It's a horror show, but Erasputin has that kak praat ability to bedazzle the casuals with nonsense, and manipulate people. Using the race card, and creating an us versus them perception, when really it was him letting the team down. This Bok side is actually functionally worse than that of 2002 and 2003. 

As always, I am more than willing to do a breakdown of any test, and segment of play and review any statistic. I know very well how things have been, and am armed to dismantle any nonsense. To assert that Meyer's Boks were one-dimensional is plainly ignorant, especially when compared with the wonky kicking of Erasputin's Boks with the most linear attacking game of any Bok side! 

Losses against Japan...and Argie at home nogal...

Another way of looking at this is…..Meyer’s team lost by 2 points against NZ in the WC semis. Harrassmiss’ team lost by 10 points to a much lesser NZ team in the pools.

The only difference was Meyer’s much smaller loss came in the knockouts.

Would HM’s team have beaten Oz in the final if Dud Allende  tackled Nonu as he should have done? Probably the Boks led Oz 4/3 over HM’s tenure and led the series by 187 points to 112.

By contrast Harrassmiss’ record against Oz is 3 wins and 4 losses with a narrow points lead of 160 to 143.

The truth is the chips fell for Harrassmiss when the ABs folded against a very ordinary Pom team.

I have to agree on Meyer being boring, he completely nullified the Boks backline. We had Jean de Villiers, probably one the best inside centres we ever produced and was world class. The guys size, ball skills and pace was phenomenal but he end up just being turned into a battering ram. The amount of times I had to watch Jean go into contact, he even end up running with his arse backwards to minimise contact or damage. You'd swear he was offering his bum up for pleasure. 

Not to mention how predictable he became in his substations. Willem Alberts, who was a great 8 got moved to 7 and just end up running strange angles with no gains. There was no deception. Where as before the guy could get over the advantage line. That is not the player, it is the coach. 

If you listen to the World Cup Winning Boks from 2007 how Eddie helped them. The would say they wanted to play like the Brumbies, then Eddie just showed them how to run those angles to get over the advantage line. That makes a big difference, but in SA and dumb coaches like Meyer, you hold the tackle bags and try to hit the bag as hard as possible as a ball carrier.