Captain49,914 posts
04 Dec 2016, 00:23
#1
04 Dec 2016, 00:23#1
...is the penny beginning to drop?
Playing traditional Bok rugby the Poms take 14 in a row....
Started by Mozart49 REPLIES2,954 VIEWS· 04 Dec 2016, 00:23
Captain23,217 posts
04 Dec 2016, 01:47
#2
04 Dec 2016, 01:47#2
They are playing in a similar way to the Boks in the 2007 World Cup. Although this could be closer to 15 man rugby than traditional Bok rugby.
Ben Youngs up and under are excellent. It killed the Boks off in the first game vs England.
England knows when to go wide, and they have the game plan and passing skills to find space with their backs.
The breakdown for England is very traditional English Rugby- where they dominate more collisions than they lose.
Ben Youngs up and under are excellent. It killed the Boks off in the first game vs England.
England knows when to go wide, and they have the game plan and passing skills to find space with their backs.
The breakdown for England is very traditional English Rugby- where they dominate more collisions than they lose.
Coach57,555 posts
04 Dec 2016, 05:06
#3
04 Dec 2016, 05:06#3
Mozart
This story about playing traditional Bok Rugby that you constantly advocate raises a serious question as to what is in fact "Traditional Bok Rugby"?
Is it that the Springboks should be physically superior primarily in the Tight 5 and secondly amongst the loosies? If that is indeed the case it is a pipedream. Professional Rugby has developed way beyond that issue, If that is the objective then sight is lost of the fact that professional sport has developed through physical development and nutritional science and there is no reason why South Africans should be physically stronger than players from the rest of the rugby world.
That is way the statement of traditional Bok rugby is so ridiculous - fact is it is a phrase that was never traditional - it was developed over the past thirty years to justify the myth about Bulls rugby being traditional Bok rugby. If you go through the history of amateur rugby you would find that in reality there was a system where physical development did go hand in hand with hard physical labour - basically on farms - coupled to solid meals, which gave SA and NZ players physical superiority - but that era is long gone.
Today physical development starts on school level with nutritional and gym usage and continues subsequently, Sport is a highly scientific process - that is why world records are constantly broken. The same applies to rugby.
So forget about the "Traditional Bok Rugby" myth and start thinking about what really should be done to correct the present malaise. If you look at all rugby - bar the junk the Boks have been come up over the last 2 years in general and under Coetzee in particular - then the answer is not simple.
We have dropped behind drastically because we have been beaten by a superior mental and physical ability in rugby development. Other teams have moved beyond the physical aspect and is moving to the NZ idea of playing clever and smart rugby - we have stagnated and dropped down the rat hole with a theoretical argument about physicality only.
As long as we stagnate and stay behind world trends rugby in SA will regress and that is the issue to be addressed.
This story about playing traditional Bok Rugby that you constantly advocate raises a serious question as to what is in fact "Traditional Bok Rugby"?
Is it that the Springboks should be physically superior primarily in the Tight 5 and secondly amongst the loosies? If that is indeed the case it is a pipedream. Professional Rugby has developed way beyond that issue, If that is the objective then sight is lost of the fact that professional sport has developed through physical development and nutritional science and there is no reason why South Africans should be physically stronger than players from the rest of the rugby world.
That is way the statement of traditional Bok rugby is so ridiculous - fact is it is a phrase that was never traditional - it was developed over the past thirty years to justify the myth about Bulls rugby being traditional Bok rugby. If you go through the history of amateur rugby you would find that in reality there was a system where physical development did go hand in hand with hard physical labour - basically on farms - coupled to solid meals, which gave SA and NZ players physical superiority - but that era is long gone.
Today physical development starts on school level with nutritional and gym usage and continues subsequently, Sport is a highly scientific process - that is why world records are constantly broken. The same applies to rugby.
So forget about the "Traditional Bok Rugby" myth and start thinking about what really should be done to correct the present malaise. If you look at all rugby - bar the junk the Boks have been come up over the last 2 years in general and under Coetzee in particular - then the answer is not simple.
We have dropped behind drastically because we have been beaten by a superior mental and physical ability in rugby development. Other teams have moved beyond the physical aspect and is moving to the NZ idea of playing clever and smart rugby - we have stagnated and dropped down the rat hole with a theoretical argument about physicality only.
As long as we stagnate and stay behind world trends rugby in SA will regress and that is the issue to be addressed.
Coach57,555 posts
04 Dec 2016, 05:10
#4
04 Dec 2016, 05:10#4
Incidentally - let e add something else. The Blitzbokke does not play any traditional SA Rugby - they are physically smaller than players representing countries, but they play smart rugby and frequently enough beat physical teams using only physical means to play.
Captain49,914 posts
04 Dec 2016, 06:16
#5
04 Dec 2016, 06:16#5
Piffle
Coach57,555 posts
04 Dec 2016, 07:36
#6
04 Dec 2016, 07:36#6
Mozart
This may be piffle - but your myth about Traditional Bok Rugby is utter BS.
This may be piffle - but your myth about Traditional Bok Rugby is utter BS.
Captain40,032 posts
04 Dec 2016, 10:03
#7
04 Dec 2016, 10:03#7
At bottom the issue arises from a failure to promote merit as the golden rule.Hence you have a racist inefficient corrupt government. Then you have a racist inefficient corrupt Rugby body etc etc.
How in the world do you expect smart rugby in such circumstances. It's a system doomed to be forever entrapped in mediocrity. Everything is a symptom of this overarching problem.It might be of interest to talk about this or that player but until there is the will to be the best we can be everything will fall flat.There are a host of this that need to change but no desire to move to wards these goals. EG cut down on the number of professional unions - but the gravy train stops that etc etc. Frankly its all a bore and the results we get rugby wise are all we deserve given the monumental stupidity it took to shatter SA Rugby.
I swear SA Rugby are reaching levels of stupidity only approached by dense denise, warped DUD and ab ASS!
How in the world do you expect smart rugby in such circumstances. It's a system doomed to be forever entrapped in mediocrity. Everything is a symptom of this overarching problem.It might be of interest to talk about this or that player but until there is the will to be the best we can be everything will fall flat.There are a host of this that need to change but no desire to move to wards these goals. EG cut down on the number of professional unions - but the gravy train stops that etc etc. Frankly its all a bore and the results we get rugby wise are all we deserve given the monumental stupidity it took to shatter SA Rugby.
I swear SA Rugby are reaching levels of stupidity only approached by dense denise, warped DUD and ab ASS!
Coach57,555 posts
04 Dec 2016, 11:53
#8
04 Dec 2016, 11:53#8
Beeno
There is no way SA Rugby will improve under he present regime - both in Government and in SARU.
Every time I looked at the on-line newspapers I am horrified by the amount of bribery and corruption allowed at present and the leading role that Zuma is playing in that respect. The country is in decline and I think Zuma wants to use the Zulus to keep power.
I think that we will see a major political bust-up soon - especially if Zuma fire the Ministers not in his corrupt set-up. I do hope that the ANC lose the 2019 elections and that the mess made by them can start to be cleaned up. One of Zuma's faithful supporters is our Minister of Sport - as useless as they come with his ideas about race selections.
One can only hope the courts deal with Zuma conclusively and soon.
I cannot see how the present crowd at SARU can survive either. The gravy train is miles long and the game suffer as a result. I am not optimistic about our rugby future and similarly not really optimistic about the future of SA as a country.
There is no way SA Rugby will improve under he present regime - both in Government and in SARU.
Every time I looked at the on-line newspapers I am horrified by the amount of bribery and corruption allowed at present and the leading role that Zuma is playing in that respect. The country is in decline and I think Zuma wants to use the Zulus to keep power.
I think that we will see a major political bust-up soon - especially if Zuma fire the Ministers not in his corrupt set-up. I do hope that the ANC lose the 2019 elections and that the mess made by them can start to be cleaned up. One of Zuma's faithful supporters is our Minister of Sport - as useless as they come with his ideas about race selections.
One can only hope the courts deal with Zuma conclusively and soon.
I cannot see how the present crowd at SARU can survive either. The gravy train is miles long and the game suffer as a result. I am not optimistic about our rugby future and similarly not really optimistic about the future of SA as a country.
Pro4,003 posts
04 Dec 2016, 14:51
#9
04 Dec 2016, 14:51#9
There is nothing like traditional SA rugby because rugby is not a tradition in SA.
There is however typical SA rugby, one based on the myth of stronger players.
Myth that utterly destroyed when SA faced the likes of Wales and Italy, that also base their play on strength.
There is however typical SA rugby, one based on the myth of stronger players.
Myth that utterly destroyed when SA faced the likes of Wales and Italy, that also base their play on strength.
Pro4,003 posts
04 Dec 2016, 14:55
#10
04 Dec 2016, 14:55#10
Excellent men clinging to it up to the end.
What is shown today is the failure to reverse the consequences of racist policies. Ending something (even it is done actually) is more than often not enough to cope with the consequences of that something.
It will become more and more obvious that excellent men are unable to cope with the consequences of their past actions.
What is shown today is the failure to reverse the consequences of racist policies. Ending something (even it is done actually) is more than often not enough to cope with the consequences of that something.
It will become more and more obvious that excellent men are unable to cope with the consequences of their past actions.
Pro4,003 posts
04 Dec 2016, 15:14
#11
04 Dec 2016, 15:14#11
Among all the rugbys in the world, only one is healthy: NZ rugby.
The others are either in troubles or crisis.
England win streak means little as it is gained against troubled rugbys.
AUS lost his last game because of their trouble: a lack of player pool and the lack in depth squad that follows.
AUS are aware of this as they usually try to secure their win in the first half, managing as they can a lead in the second.
They failed to complete their effort in the last game so no surprise.
The only measure for England rugby will be regular performances against NZ.
It is known that NZ is not an economical powerhouse that can afford to hurt his partners' feelings and must compromize by dropping games here and there to keep the partners in the race.
In this regard, the win streak is an example.
NZ is going to lose some day and it is not in the interest of anyone (especially NZ) that a win streak record is set to 50 or 60.
This would not make of the record breaking a regular event to wait for.
Breaking a record is an event fans are greedy of. Polevault legend Sergey Bubka is a clean exemple of record breaking management, having beaten more than 30 times a record.
The key is simple: fail purposely. He knew he could jump way more than the bar height he asked (rumours had it that he jumped higher in training than the current WR). And kept asking for increases by a cm. He kept failing at lower heights than he could jump over in order to make breaking a record a regular event.
By setting the bar at 18, NZ did the same, they put the bar at a height that can be regularly challenged.
Already the fruits are here as England might get equal through the next six nations: it will add interests.
NZ will also be well advised to drop their next game against England as this would send an encouraging message to every one else.
If you focus, the ABs are not untouchable. Keep trying as England does etc
Of course, this wouldnt mean anything else than a team managing his own area of activity.
The others are either in troubles or crisis.
England win streak means little as it is gained against troubled rugbys.
AUS lost his last game because of their trouble: a lack of player pool and the lack in depth squad that follows.
AUS are aware of this as they usually try to secure their win in the first half, managing as they can a lead in the second.
They failed to complete their effort in the last game so no surprise.
The only measure for England rugby will be regular performances against NZ.
It is known that NZ is not an economical powerhouse that can afford to hurt his partners' feelings and must compromize by dropping games here and there to keep the partners in the race.
In this regard, the win streak is an example.
NZ is going to lose some day and it is not in the interest of anyone (especially NZ) that a win streak record is set to 50 or 60.
This would not make of the record breaking a regular event to wait for.
Breaking a record is an event fans are greedy of. Polevault legend Sergey Bubka is a clean exemple of record breaking management, having beaten more than 30 times a record.
The key is simple: fail purposely. He knew he could jump way more than the bar height he asked (rumours had it that he jumped higher in training than the current WR). And kept asking for increases by a cm. He kept failing at lower heights than he could jump over in order to make breaking a record a regular event.
By setting the bar at 18, NZ did the same, they put the bar at a height that can be regularly challenged.
Already the fruits are here as England might get equal through the next six nations: it will add interests.
NZ will also be well advised to drop their next game against England as this would send an encouraging message to every one else.
If you focus, the ABs are not untouchable. Keep trying as England does etc
Of course, this wouldnt mean anything else than a team managing his own area of activity.
Captain49,914 posts
05 Dec 2016, 00:49
#12
05 Dec 2016, 00:49#12
Lots of BS. There is almost no difference between the game White' Boks played in 07 winning the WC, and the way the Poms are playing now.
Captain12,893 posts
05 Dec 2016, 02:39
#13
05 Dec 2016, 02:39#13
What is shown today is the failure to reverse the consequences of racist policies.
Well said.
Well said.
Coach57,555 posts
05 Dec 2016, 06:16
#14
05 Dec 2016, 06:16#14
Mozart
Are you dilly or not - there is a huge difference which you never realized and when a team wins according to you they are playing the so-called "traditional Bok Rugby" - which all experts (Naas inclu ded) regard as a BS concept.
The English played comprehensive rugby - and they won - just the idea of Jones being confined to that BS is ludicrous. Remember Japan - where he trumped Meyer's BS playing game plan what you always describe as traditional SA Rugby - played by the most capped Springbok team ever.
Are you dilly or not - there is a huge difference which you never realized and when a team wins according to you they are playing the so-called "traditional Bok Rugby" - which all experts (Naas inclu ded) regard as a BS concept.
The English played comprehensive rugby - and they won - just the idea of Jones being confined to that BS is ludicrous. Remember Japan - where he trumped Meyer's BS playing game plan what you always describe as traditional SA Rugby - played by the most capped Springbok team ever.
Club Pro421 posts
05 Dec 2016, 10:32
#15
05 Dec 2016, 10:32#15
The game they played on Sat was taken from the blue print of the 07 Boks. The commentators in the UK said as much. The forwards dominating the collisions and the 9 controlling the game. Youngs read the game playing a typical FDP role using accurate chips, box kicking and passing. All they did was play simple rugby. If you can do the above maintaining the skills you win a lot more than you loose.
Pro9,374 posts
05 Dec 2016, 11:40
#16
05 Dec 2016, 11:40#16
"The commentators in the UK said as much."
Those commentators have obviously not consulted with ComradeMike before they started talking k@k. Had they done so, they would have known better..........
Those commentators have obviously not consulted with ComradeMike before they started talking k@k. Had they done so, they would have known better..........
Captain18,570 posts
05 Dec 2016, 13:56
#17
05 Dec 2016, 13:56#17
Have we found the much missed mighty Boks of old? It appears they are wearing white jerseys & play under the Union Jack Some might call them the "bloody Poms" but we know better, under those white jerseys the green shirts shine with that sprightly springbok emblazoned on the chest.
While we wait for the Boks to get their act together we will have to make do with these pretenders. The build up to the AB vs the pretenders will keep the rugby world engaged & ol' Eddy will be stoking the fires for sure
While we wait for the Boks to get their act together we will have to make do with these pretenders. The build up to the AB vs the pretenders will keep the rugby world engaged & ol' Eddy will be stoking the fires for sure
Captain23,217 posts
05 Dec 2016, 13:58
#18
05 Dec 2016, 13:58#18
I think the commentators commented on the fact that Youngs is playing like Fourie Dupreez- a scrum half that controls the pattern of play.
Unlike in the New Zealand where the 10 makes most of the decisions.
Unlike in the New Zealand where the 10 makes most of the decisions.
Coach57,555 posts
05 Dec 2016, 14:03
#19
05 Dec 2016, 14:03#19
I do not think that the Springboks in the 2007 final played the same as the rest of the tournament - they failed to even came near to scoring of a try.
That is where I differ - Eddie helped them in the round robin game against England and they played comprehensive rugby - also in the other round robin games and even in the play-offs.
However, the final was not similar in nature and Jones advice was obviously disregarded in the 2007 final. So there is some truth to the statement of Mozart - but that is not the full story. Unlike in the 2007 final the English played comprehensive rugby on Saturday and that was what I had in mind.
However, what you BSters do not ever state is what is the so-called "Traditional Springbok Rugby." Apparently what Mozart and others confirm through their postings are to play 10 man rugby - with the rest of the plyers in the backline there for defense only. Even to score a try by any backline player is a deadly sin. I can quote dozens of Mozart's and his side-kicks contributions to this site to support their line of BS thinking.
So please - BSters - tell us what the so-called "traditional Springbok Rugby" is and why real thinkers - inclusive of Mallett and Naas Botha think it is a load of KAK and a reason not to have a comprehensive game plan.
That is where I differ - Eddie helped them in the round robin game against England and they played comprehensive rugby - also in the other round robin games and even in the play-offs.
However, the final was not similar in nature and Jones advice was obviously disregarded in the 2007 final. So there is some truth to the statement of Mozart - but that is not the full story. Unlike in the 2007 final the English played comprehensive rugby on Saturday and that was what I had in mind.
However, what you BSters do not ever state is what is the so-called "Traditional Springbok Rugby." Apparently what Mozart and others confirm through their postings are to play 10 man rugby - with the rest of the plyers in the backline there for defense only. Even to score a try by any backline player is a deadly sin. I can quote dozens of Mozart's and his side-kicks contributions to this site to support their line of BS thinking.
So please - BSters - tell us what the so-called "traditional Springbok Rugby" is and why real thinkers - inclusive of Mallett and Naas Botha think it is a load of KAK and a reason not to have a comprehensive game plan.
Captain30,741 posts
05 Dec 2016, 14:54
#20
05 Dec 2016, 14:54#20
Moz what rugby have you been watching......catch a wake up man....England are playing the modern expansive way, they score tries by running the ball......they create space, they attack space
Has stuff all to do with boring 10 man rugby advocated by the Boks
Coach57,555 posts
05 Dec 2016, 16:16
#21
05 Dec 2016, 16:16#21
Dave
Mozart has a norm - if any team wins, they have played "Traditional Bok Rugby". If they lose they are not playing "Traditional Bok Rugby". So I am really not surprised at his above statement.
However, what I have never got out of Mozart is what is Traditional Bok Rugby. From his postings it is evident that it is 10 man rugby without any game plan whatsoever. The other task of backline players is to defend only. Any backline player scoring a try or even assisting in scoring of a try is according to Mozart committing a mortal sin - according to him they should be dropped from the team immediately.
I do not think Eddie Jones would coach any team to play according to that BS fable. After all he knew how to neutralize the BS the most experienced team in Springbok history dished up in the Japan game last year. There the flyhalf role was taken over by Burger or other forwards and the whole backline neutralized. That did not happen in the game on Saturday.
Mozart has a norm - if any team wins, they have played "Traditional Bok Rugby". If they lose they are not playing "Traditional Bok Rugby". So I am really not surprised at his above statement.
However, what I have never got out of Mozart is what is Traditional Bok Rugby. From his postings it is evident that it is 10 man rugby without any game plan whatsoever. The other task of backline players is to defend only. Any backline player scoring a try or even assisting in scoring of a try is according to Mozart committing a mortal sin - according to him they should be dropped from the team immediately.
I do not think Eddie Jones would coach any team to play according to that BS fable. After all he knew how to neutralize the BS the most experienced team in Springbok history dished up in the Japan game last year. There the flyhalf role was taken over by Burger or other forwards and the whole backline neutralized. That did not happen in the game on Saturday.
Captain49,914 posts
05 Dec 2016, 18:25
#22
05 Dec 2016, 18:25#22
The commentators saw exactly what I saw.....we scored the second most tries in the 2007 WC. Long range tries from way out by Habana, we ran the Poms and the Bargies ragged. Then in the final we simply had to win the game.....and given we dominated the Poms up front, we simply ground out the win. Very smart, limiting risks and ensuring a WC win.
Bok fans who run down our tactics at the WC07are fools.
Coach57,555 posts
06 Dec 2016, 02:09
#23
06 Dec 2016, 02:09#23
Sure and who contributed to that running ragged - which did not happen in the Final? The answer is simple - Eddie Jones.
But I am still waiting for your description of "Traditional Bok rugby". What does it entail? Still depending on a donkey-kicking flyhalf at 10 and for players to be assessed purely on defense and that scoring of tries is to be discarded totally.
2007 is nine years ago and rugby moved on - but some people stay stuck in the past. Mozart unfortunately is one of those - Coetzee another.
When are you going to start talking about giving credit to scoring of tries as part of your criteria for assessing players? Have not seen that for the past 4 years - so I am looking forward to your comments on that one.
But I am still waiting for your description of "Traditional Bok rugby". What does it entail? Still depending on a donkey-kicking flyhalf at 10 and for players to be assessed purely on defense and that scoring of tries is to be discarded totally.
2007 is nine years ago and rugby moved on - but some people stay stuck in the past. Mozart unfortunately is one of those - Coetzee another.
When are you going to start talking about giving credit to scoring of tries as part of your criteria for assessing players? Have not seen that for the past 4 years - so I am looking forward to your comments on that one.
Captain49,914 posts
06 Dec 2016, 03:41
#24
06 Dec 2016, 03:41#24
Traditional Bok rugby is the game that has made us Bok supporters over the years, thrilled by the power, pace and ferocity of the direct hame. And has garnered 2 WCs and dominance over most countries. It's the game of Danie Gerber, Ray Mordt, HO de Villiers, Joost van der Westhuizen, Bryan Habana and Jean de Villiers.....the game of Frik, Os, Jan Ellis, Skinstad and Schalk.
Sadly now being unravelled by those who want instead to play AB rugby with backline players who wouldn't make the top 3 NZ S15 teams. Stupid, it goes without saying....but widespread.
Coach57,555 posts
06 Dec 2016, 05:57
#25
06 Dec 2016, 05:57#25
There is nobody on this site which wants the Springboks to play AB rugby - so the answer given is simplistic and false in that respect,
However, naming a list of players from bygone days is not an answer - especially since it also include backline players and you generally prefer according to your own statements on site - a game plan where 90% of the functions of a flyhalf is to kick balls and you deal with backline players only based on their defense.
So lets go back to the era when most of the backline players you listed played. The players mentioned by you were ball sense players - not duds and they did not play what is advocated by you as "Traditional Springbok Rugby" - they played clever rugby, not the junk originating from players like Morne and Fat Fransie Steyn - players you constantly support.
What you fail to realize is that with those players vanishing from sight - the whole game plan of the Springboks turned to the Bulls 10 man game plan and the backline situation deteriorated massively. There are no decent backline coaches in SA - the last two (Mitchell and Plumtree) left the SA scene and the backline play collapsed. By the way it was Plumtree who said your hero Fat Fransie is not a center and definitely avoided him like the plague when it came to flyhalf usage.
What we need is a proper coach that knows how to develop and maximize usage of players - all 15 players - and who has a comprehensive game plan - not the junk that White dished up at the Sharks and Meyer and Coetzee at the Springboks.
What game plan is used by all the top teams today? It is a comprehensive 15 man game with solid forwards and good backline players with a game plan that is not entirely based on predictability. There is really no game plan since the SA coaches lost it totally and especially Meyer and Coetzee dragged us down the drain in that regard.
However, naming a list of players from bygone days is not an answer - especially since it also include backline players and you generally prefer according to your own statements on site - a game plan where 90% of the functions of a flyhalf is to kick balls and you deal with backline players only based on their defense.
So lets go back to the era when most of the backline players you listed played. The players mentioned by you were ball sense players - not duds and they did not play what is advocated by you as "Traditional Springbok Rugby" - they played clever rugby, not the junk originating from players like Morne and Fat Fransie Steyn - players you constantly support.
What you fail to realize is that with those players vanishing from sight - the whole game plan of the Springboks turned to the Bulls 10 man game plan and the backline situation deteriorated massively. There are no decent backline coaches in SA - the last two (Mitchell and Plumtree) left the SA scene and the backline play collapsed. By the way it was Plumtree who said your hero Fat Fransie is not a center and definitely avoided him like the plague when it came to flyhalf usage.
What we need is a proper coach that knows how to develop and maximize usage of players - all 15 players - and who has a comprehensive game plan - not the junk that White dished up at the Sharks and Meyer and Coetzee at the Springboks.
What game plan is used by all the top teams today? It is a comprehensive 15 man game with solid forwards and good backline players with a game plan that is not entirely based on predictability. There is really no game plan since the SA coaches lost it totally and especially Meyer and Coetzee dragged us down the drain in that regard.
Captain30,741 posts
06 Dec 2016, 09:30
#26
06 Dec 2016, 09:30#26
But your take that England are playing traditional Bok rugby is bullshit. They are playing the Kiwi way....match their opponents physically and create space to score tries...they ripped us to shreds using simple decoy runners to create space and targeted our donkey loosies to attack....most their tries have come from May, Yarde, Brown and Joseph - their outside backs.
Lancaster had England playing boring traditional Bok rugby....Jones has liberated them
Lancaster had England playing boring traditional Bok rugby....Jones has liberated them
Pro3,164 posts
06 Dec 2016, 09:50
#27
06 Dec 2016, 09:50#27
It depends on what "Traditional Springbok Rugby" is...if it's the 10 man game no...by traditional "old" Bok rugby which included all 15 players yes.
T he AB's play 15 man rugby always and it's balanced and structured the way rugby was always meant to be played...that's the standard they keep from school, club, province, franchise...it's the only way to play rugby anyhow ...now and then when needed the style changes to a given situation...but 15 man rugby...good in attack and backed by good defence...they just do it very well.
There are no mysteries or secret strategies in the true sense of the word.
England too played like that on Saturday and so did the Springboks in the days of old...
T he AB's play 15 man rugby always and it's balanced and structured the way rugby was always meant to be played...that's the standard they keep from school, club, province, franchise...it's the only way to play rugby anyhow ...now and then when needed the style changes to a given situation...but 15 man rugby...good in attack and backed by good defence...they just do it very well.
There are no mysteries or secret strategies in the true sense of the word.
England too played like that on Saturday and so did the Springboks in the days of old...
Pro4,003 posts
06 Dec 2016, 14:54
#28
06 Dec 2016, 14:54#28
NZ ways of playing might be the only ways of playing the game. Which is a tremendous issue as other major (economically) rugby nations are lagging behind in commanding those ways.
England plays a rugby that is behind NZ rugby. Their handling of phases and areas on the field deprives them from taking opportunities as NZ do.
The saving feature is NZ forced of sending encouragement signs to their partners. So they must lose now and then.
England getting one game from NZ would be a powerful message to all the other struggling rugbys.
England plays a rugby that is behind NZ rugby. Their handling of phases and areas on the field deprives them from taking opportunities as NZ do.
The saving feature is NZ forced of sending encouragement signs to their partners. So they must lose now and then.
England getting one game from NZ would be a powerful message to all the other struggling rugbys.
Captain49,914 posts
06 Dec 2016, 15:39
#29
06 Dec 2016, 15:39#29
They are not playing the Kiwi way....kicks in play by England 19 by Oz 9. They are much more territorial and set piece oriented. Playing against NZ they will be even more so.....they are playing traditional Bok rugby, and winning.
Pro3,164 posts
06 Dec 2016, 15:54
#30
06 Dec 2016, 15:54#30
Captain49,914 posts
06 Dec 2016, 16:54
#31
06 Dec 2016, 16:54#31
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaha....why dontcha post the dodo bird you technologocially challenged old coot.
Coach57,555 posts
06 Dec 2016, 17:39
#32
06 Dec 2016, 17:39#32
So they are making tactical kicking - which the NZ teams do even more. There is still no idea what the difference is between what Jones require from teams and what the SA coaches require.
We have had no real game plan for years and what became of what you call "Traditional Bok Rugby" has due to repetitiveness and no real game plan become a farce.
What you do not realize is that players must be able to read games and take decisions as to what would be to the best advantage of the team. You do apparently do not think that a tam consist of 15 players - not 10 or 11. You also never mention anything about scoring of tries by backline players - but only harp about defense deficiencies by the players you are prejudiced against,
The latt er give the impression that backline players are there to defend only - that any attacking play should never happen and that indicates that you actually favour the BS dished up against a string of teams over the last two years.
We have had no real game plan for years and what became of what you call "Traditional Bok Rugby" has due to repetitiveness and no real game plan become a farce.
What you do not realize is that players must be able to read games and take decisions as to what would be to the best advantage of the team. You do apparently do not think that a tam consist of 15 players - not 10 or 11. You also never mention anything about scoring of tries by backline players - but only harp about defense deficiencies by the players you are prejudiced against,
The latt er give the impression that backline players are there to defend only - that any attacking play should never happen and that indicates that you actually favour the BS dished up against a string of teams over the last two years.
Captain30,741 posts
08 Dec 2016, 19:20
#33
08 Dec 2016, 19:20#33
Bullshit England are not playing traditional Bok rugby they are playing it the Kiwi way who happen to kick it as much....difference is, the kicking is mostly used as an attacking weapon not kicking for territory......many of the kicks came from Youngs launching up and unders or chip kicks by other backs to run onto......kicking for territory hardly comes into the equation.
Oz never kicked for they were starved of possession
The Poms have evolved, they now score tries......something we never saw from traditional Bok rugby
Its complete and utter bullshit......the Poms are playing the modern game, much like the Kiwi's are
They have scored more tries in one season than they have in years put together......tries are not scored by kicking possession away seeking territory
Captain49,914 posts
08 Dec 2016, 19:35
#34
08 Dec 2016, 19:35#34
The numbers totally blow your argument out the water. ....the Poms kicked more than we did per possession. Uninformed and over certain, same old Dave.
Pro3,164 posts
08 Dec 2016, 20:20
#35
08 Dec 2016, 20:20#35
The staticians have no clue...faulty automatons need to be either reprogrammed or discarded.
Captain49,914 posts
09 Sept 2024, 16:45
#36
09 Sept 2024, 16:45#36
And here we have all the biggest Erasmus fans arguing against the changes he would make to restore Bok rugby….power forward play, defense, the role of the boot.
Captain26,388 posts
09 Sept 2024, 16:54
#37
09 Sept 2024, 16:54#37
LOL...what happened to Tradhole...second Bok RWC title in a row probably too much for him....
Captain17,321 posts
09 Sept 2024, 17:52
#38
09 Sept 2024, 17:52#38
Probably somewhere under a tree with his blankie and his dummy wondering why SA rugby isn't dead yet.
Coach57,555 posts
09 Sept 2024, 18:18
#39
09 Sept 2024, 18:18#39
Anyway White had no Idea about backine play and in the end he reverted to BS in the 2007 final - making the t the worst WC final won by SA. Smit as capain said there were no planning stategy as to scoring of tries in that final. White always was clueless about backline e rugby and in the end he failed just like eh failed when failed in coaching the Sharks in 2014 - after which he was effectively fired by the Sharfks as coach. As expected his team was beaten by the Sharks yesterday when they played White kickball istead of rugby.
The shit that was written about te Boks in 2014 was based and supported by the site village idiot as tradiional Springbok rugby. Donkey kicking was all Meyer and white knew about and which Erasmus started changing the game and he was viciously attacked - even from his appointment by the same village idiot who claimed that it would.have been better to retain Coetzee than to appoint Erasmus.
Am amazed about what he claimed happened in the past. Habana was a person known to create tries for himself from individual rugby and a very good player at that. The backline play undr White, De Villiers, Meyer and Coetzee was 100% shit.
Captain49,914 posts
09 Sept 2024, 18:21
#40
09 Sept 2024, 18:21#40
Drivel alert.
↓ LOAD MORE (page 2 of 2)
More from Rugby
- RugbyScotland dominate the stats34 REPLIES · 140 VIEWS
- RugbySpringboks vs Scotland - Monday retrospective18 REPLIES · 97 VIEWS
- RugbyUnder 20 Springbok team to play the Under 20 England team i the RWC semi on Mondat11 REPLIES · 82 VIEWS
- NewsReferee Decisions Overpower Player Impact in Rugby1 REPLIES
- NewsIreland vs All Blacks: Farrell's Key Lineup Changes0 REPLIES
- NewsWallabies Struggle as Schmidt Era Ends0 REPLIES