FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Praise for bull aerial game

Praise for bull aerial game

Started by Beeno114 REPLIES214 VIEWS· 27 Feb 2012, 02:00
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
27 Feb 2012, 15:22
#1
27 Feb 2012, 15:22#1

Ex keo

The Bulls’ tactical kicking in their victory over the Sharks was identified as the outstanding feature of their play.

The Bulls started poorly, playing uncharacteristically expansively in their territory. However, they settled into a familiar pattern in the second half, and suffocated the Sharks, whose attacks became increasingly desperate, which in turn benefited the Bulls.

Morne Steyn scored all of the Bulls’ 18 points off his boot, but his pin-point tactical kicking was also central to their success. The height, weight and placement of the punts gave his chasers every opportunity to put the Sharks’ receivers under pressure and often forced infringements at the subsequent breakdown or compromised return options (kicks or runs).

Even in light of a mass departure of senior players as well as director of rugby Heyneke Meyer, the Bulls looked organised, purposeful and efficient once they had settled. Sharks coach John Plumtree said his team’s response under pressure was poor but added that when the Bulls are that accurate in that pattern there isn’t much you can do to counter them.

Ludeke said: ‘Our tactical kicking was the standout aspect of our performance. The primary kickers did their job well and the chasers were excellent at contesting in the air or making a strong tackle on the receiver.’

Captain Pierre Spies said their tactical kicking allowed them to build pressure in a manner they weren’t able to with a ball-in-hand approach and pointed to their breakdown work after the ball had been received by the Sharks as being decisive to the outcome. ‘It was the most important facet of play in the match,’ Spies said. ‘We kept our focus, they lost their concentration and Morne could punish them.’

Sharks captain Keegan Daniel agreed. ‘That’s where the match was lost, yes,’ he said. ‘We lost focus and didn’t react to their pressure well. It was good to know we could get ourselves back into the game [with a late try] but those errors at the breakdown cost us.’

Plumtree, however, retained belief in his attacking approach despite its execution failing at Loftus. ‘We would have taken an ugly win rather than a beautiful defeat, but the way we played in those last couple of minutes is what makes us a formidable opponent and that’s how we want to play this season.’

Da bulle are living in a dream world if they think an aerial bombardment will win them the title. We have seen better sides counter this and as the season goes this will happen. The Sharks were not on song and yet came back well and almost won the game.

No bulle,  more is needed than an aerial bombardment.

As for spiesies - well  another lack lustre performance and, like daniels for the sharks, one wonders why he was made captain. daniels has been very poor for a while. Has he lost his appetite for the game or is he saving himself for whatever?
 

US
UsernamePro1,098 posts
28 Feb 2012, 00:07
#2
28 Feb 2012, 00:07#2

I think Plumtree is a little foolish. There are a few problems to be addresssed.
 

  • On the surface it looks as though JP came through and had a good game. The fact is that he missed all his tackles. I pointed out that centre is a very difficult position to defend. Transitioning a wing to centre is not so simple. I think we'll see a side who works the ball more exploit him.
  • Still no variation from Lambie. He is being hailed for his display, yet it was actually a very big insight into his limitations. In a tightly contested game Lambie failed to put his side in the right areas of the field. His lack of tactical nous highlights his lack of poise in the position.
  • The Shark's pack looked very pap overall. Without their pack firing they are very much a mid tier side at best.
DE
DennyCaptain12,893 posts
28 Feb 2012, 13:04
#3
28 Feb 2012, 13:04#3

There's nothing new about the Bulls kicking game and I hope  it's not their sole attacking plan for the duration of S15. Let's face it, it's a very shallow plan.

CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
28 Feb 2012, 16:51
#4
28 Feb 2012, 16:51#4

Eevrybody is so hell-bent on the Bulls kicking game, that they miss everything. The times that the Bulls kicked the flippin ball in the game against the Sharks, it came off almost every time. There is so much concentration on this so-called kicking game that I get the idea you sit and before the kick-off, you decide that the complaint is going to be the Bulls kicking game. How about a few figures from the Sharks/Bulls game. Aristokrat quoted some of them elsewhere:

 

Flyhalves:

Morne Steyn handelled the ball 31 times of which he kicked it 13 times!!! K/P/R for Steyn was 13/14/4. He passed and ran moretimes than he kicked it.

Incidently, Lambie also handled the ball 31 times, and his K/P/R stats are 5/21/5

Bosman's stats are 0/16/2

 

Scrumhalves:

Hougaard: 9/49/9. He handled the ball 67 times and kicked it 9 times.

Michalak: 1/26/1

McLLeod: 1/26/3

 

Fullbacks:

Kirchner: 2/2/10

Viljoen: 6/2/5

 

I have taken the 9,10 and 15, because they are the ones who normally does the tactical kicking. All in all the Bulls kicked the ball 24 times, while the Sharks kicked it 15 times. Is 9 times such a dramatic difference? I don't think so. The conception is that because the do it effectively, it is the only thing they can do. They figires are out there. The Bulls does score back-line tries, and many of them. There are always Bulls wingers at the top of the Super Rugby try-scoring lists. Go check.

US
UsernamePro1,098 posts
28 Feb 2012, 16:54
#5
28 Feb 2012, 16:54#5

Checkout my thread the 'Bulls v Sharks [Stat Attack]'. I think that pretty much blows the argument apart, though I did not look at fullbacks. I might update that later to include the fullbacks of each example.

UM
UmgeniSharkRookie62 posts
28 Feb 2012, 22:47
#6
28 Feb 2012, 22:47#6

So what if the Bulls played "kicking"rugby? It worked di'dn't it? Kicking is as much a part of rugby as running. A good kicking game is as good to watch as a good running game.

 

If you wanna watch running rugby only, watch sevens's. As boring as shit!!!

BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
29 Feb 2012, 16:23
#7
29 Feb 2012, 16:23#7

Windpomp, the bulle won becaue they starved the sharks of possession. When the sharks got possession they looked the better team and almost came back to win.

CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
29 Feb 2012, 17:58
#8
29 Feb 2012, 17:58#8

Ou Beenbal, these are two of the factors that led to the demise of the Sharks:

71.4% Kick at goal success 50.0% 12 won, 2 lost (85.7%) Lineouts on own throw 6 won, 5 lost (54.5%)

The Sharks were anything but starved of possession.  Have a look at this:

Kick/pass/run 27 Kicks from hand 20 85 Passes 136 78 Runs 86 333 Metres run with ball 348

The Bulls had 190 opportunities with the ball, and the Sharks and the Sharks 242. They passed the ball 51 more times than the Bulls, ran it 12 more times, and what did they achieve? The Bulls were awarded 7 kickable penalties (I could not get the total penalty count yet) and the Sharks 5, so their discipline was also not what it could have been.

BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
29 Feb 2012, 19:02
#9
29 Feb 2012, 19:02#9

Windpomp I do trust you are not being fed all these dubious stats by ou barny! With your stats you could prove 1 and 1 makes 4!!!!

Please be assured that last season we saw sides working out the aerial bombardment game. Agains tclassy sides it opens you up to counter attacks. It must not be done too much and it must be done with great accuracy and following up etc.

I fear da bulle will take this close win against the sharks and the hype generated as a blueprint and have to learn the lesson all over again. Intelligence is the  key bulle.

Beeno - newly appointed advisor to the all at sea bulle.

CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
29 Feb 2012, 20:11
#10
29 Feb 2012, 20:11#10

Ja ou Beenbal, I was thinking. Since you are so clued up and such a great rugby tutor, why don't you help me out and provide me with the correct stats? Just so I can figure out where I went wrong, you know.

BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
01 Mar 2012, 11:16
#11
01 Mar 2012, 11:16#11

Windpomp my deep insights go well beyond mere stats!

 

US
UsernamePro1,098 posts
01 Mar 2012, 16:54
#12
01 Mar 2012, 16:54#12

Very good post Vlag, I would like to ellaborate further and put the spotlight on the Shark's 'shuffle ball' attacking style. All three of their halfbacks were utterly clueless. The Bulls by contrast had Hougaard rip them up and Morne, yet again, display far greater tactical understanding of the game. The only highlight for the Guppies was JP Pietersen ball in hand, though he couldn't tackle for toffee. Bismarck, the best hooker in the world, was continuing his form of last year with another error-strewn showing, exhibiting no leadership, discipline, composure or accuracy in general play.

CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
01 Mar 2012, 17:00
#13
01 Mar 2012, 17:00#13

I see ou Beenbal, so you do not know then, and you have actually proven flokol. Your assumption that the Sharks lost because they have been starved of the ball is merely your own convenient conclusion.  I do not think that you have watched the game either, because you don't need "my" stats to have known that the Sharks lost a lot of line-out balls, or that their back-line saw more of the ball than the Bulls back-line.

BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
01 Mar 2012, 17:59
#14
01 Mar 2012, 17:59#14

So windpomp loosing lineout ball has nothing to do with being starved for possession. Hahahahahahahaha seems you walked into yet again.

Next!

CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
01 Mar 2012, 18:04
#15
01 Mar 2012, 18:04#15

They weren't starved of line-out ball, they were robbed of line-out ball. So what about theis back-line who had more opportunities with ball in hand? Does that also count as being starved of possesion of Beenbal? You are falling behind jong.

— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news