Predictable Rugby

Watched the Re-Union program and they blame the Springbok loss on Morne Steyn and also on predictable rugby - they say the Springboks will not win against anyone without variation in their play.

Must agree wih them there.   However, with Morne at flyhalf there is no way that the pattern can be changed and that remains a problem.

Incidentally they were critical of the handling errors of the All Blacks as well.

Lastly - they reckoned that the turn-around in the game came when Beast was carded.

Obviously predict a win on Saturday and said that if the ball is kicked away - the All Blacks wings would not kick it back - but run at the Springboks with serious consequences from a scoring perspective.

What a rubbish program, but SA television always was cringe worthy. The Loss came down to a few factors:

01.Our over reliance on Alberts and Coetzee, their failure to get over the advantage line stunted our ENTIRE game. I cannot recall Morne having more than two consecutive passes come his way. He had nothing to work with but most of what came his way he did actually turn into some kind of gain.

02.The stop start nature of our game. Forwards went straight to ground and set up the ruck, then another ruck, then another ruck. All very slow and all very easy to see coming.

03.The front row was hammered! Beast and Jannie gave away very costly penalties, either conceding points, or losing important attacking opportunities. The failure at scrum time really was a big concern, but not entirely shocking either.

04.The breakdown was dominated by Australia. Lose this facet of play and you very rarely win the game.

In terms of flyhalf play, Morne may play to a conservative gameplan, but he is not a robot either. He uses the ball with careful consideration, and Goosen's failure to inject anything into the game showed just how tough it is to play at this level. Particularly when your pack is being beaten and you are losing at the breakdown. Stupid Saffers do not yet know that an attacking game is built almost entirely on dominance at the set-pieces and breakdown. Why do you think New Zealand's illegal tactics govern these areas more than any other aspect of the game? Without dominance here, there can be NO attacking game. Yet the Boks are expected to do just that!! Saffers are definitely a backward bunch with completely no clue as to how backplay really works. But that has been pointed out with ruthless precision for a very long time.
 

Re-Union is actually a NZ show. Having said that, the only noteworthy SA rugby show is Boots 'n All.

Requi, I assumed you were South African, but I was obviously wrong. I dont think you should paint all of us "saffers' with the same brush as some of the posters here! To them because Morne is a Bull its all his fault.

Mambo, the last couple of generations of South Africans are a complete write off because the nations utterly shambolic education system. But that's one of the goals of Socialism, the dumbing down of society, the irradication of the middle-class and all this works to ensure that you have a nation of little slaves that have no drive to succeed, no real aspiration. This is my gripe with Saffers. Thankfully it was driven into me by with a strong German up-bringing that you must pay attention to detail, be responsible for your own actions and to always have the gaul to stand up for what is right. I cannot accept South Africa's mediocrity, I find the way Saffers defend it disgusting, truly repugnant in every way. When you reach the point that 34% is an acceptable pass boundary just so you can beef up the numbers for successful students... well, it's always going to end badly.

 The Sprinbok game plan is all about dominating the advantage line.

If the boks can run onto quick multi-phase possesion on the front foot, we dominate the collisions and territory as a result. South Africas strength has allways been big, fast and strong ball carriers. When we get slow possesion our game falls apart. 

The problem with Morne Steyn is that he often stands to deep. This means that when he recieves the Ball the forwards are infront of him so he cant pass to them, and his backs can only be passed to if they are even deeper than Morne Steyn. 

Flyhalfs like Henry Honnibal and Butch James at their peaks, ran onto the ball on the advantage line, or just stood flat on the advantage line. This makes it possibale to play 15 man rugby. Many of our flyhalfs play too deep, not just Morne. Although it is only Morne that is playing for the boks. 

Flyhalfs from Australia like Larkham and Copper, stand very flat on the advantage line. This gives them the option of either passing back to a forward who can run onto the ball, or spreading the ball wide to the backs. This makes the flyhalf the major decision maker and not the scrumhalf. 

South Africas main problem so far with Hieneken Meyer as coach has been the area of the breakdown. Their has been other issues, but in every match this year the breakdown has been very poor. This takes away our abilty to have our players running onto fast recycled mulit-phase possesion. Hienrich Brussouw may help with this, as the loose forward combination this year has not been right. 

I have already disproved that. Morne varies his alignment. That is not a weak point of his game. Besides a flat alignment can only work in specific plays in specific parts of the field. It's very easy to suffocate a flat alignment, it's what cost NZ the TNs last year. What is more important is what movement is going on around the flyhalf. This is the weak point of Saffer rugby.

lol Requiescat

You are such a chop

Really? Provide the evidence. All these myths have been debunked with ease.

The Cat

You are the only person I know of that cannot SEE that Morne Steyn is standing to deep and receives the ball in a standing position - he does not run onto the ball like good flyhalfs do.    That means his first option is always to kick the ball and as he is normally way behind the advantage line - even if he is tackled he never gets over that line.   The alternative of passing the ball is also counter-productive - since the centers are even standing further behind the advantage line and they mostly get hospiral passes from him.  

Over the past three years out backline play has become static and there is no real backline play possible.   Morne is a good flyhalf in the mode of Viljoen or even Grant - but he is no good for SA Rugby.   I found the comments of Re-Union interesting and it is by large the same as was said by a different panel - when they discussed the Bulls-Crusader game in the play-offs.   There description of what was expected from Morne was point-for-point correct and the result was a disaster.  

Maybe somebody would convince me sometime that 10 man rugby is a success - but nobody has ever been able to do that as yet.

Finally the panelists said that the kicks of Morne will not be followed by kicking back of the ball - the wings will use it as an attacking opportunity.   I am not going to castigate the panel at this stage - we will see on Saturday whether they are correct and whether  -

*   Morne stands too far back in the pocket;

*   Morne receives the ball while he is standing still and not moving forward; and

*   Whether the Aussie backline players use kicked balls as a platform for attack.

Finally I think that if the All Blacks ever kick balls on Saturday - it would be strategic kicks followed up to put pressure on Kirchner - that being the weakest component of his game.

@requiscat,

no, what cost the All Blacks the TriNats last year was placing to much emphasis on the RWC and resting impotant players from the test in port elizabeth.
IMO we could have beaten the Boks who couldnt score a single try against our make shift B team. to say nothing of that dodgy illegal call from the SA TMO, but it was fair and the All Blacks had no one to blame for themselves, but a win in PE would have won us the TriNats, but the wallabies turned up to play the following week in suncorp and the rest as they say is history.

Sasuke,
it was quite the contrary. Though Nonu, New Zealand's premier 12 then and now, was rested, the real issue came as Henry, once again, flirted with the the 'flat attack'. On every occasion that he has used it, it has failed. I suppose the overhype of the extremely flawed $onny Bill Will.I.Am was too much to resist. The all-out attack that New zealand put forward through this hybrid a/b team was actually far superior to that of the a-team. Cruden making Carter look quite silly. What your lot did not bank on was the inluence of Nienaber. Take careful consideration here as it was only the second game for that Bok team in 2011, and only the second with a completely revamped defensive scheme. It was actually a big test of that system against New Zealand's all-out attack, and the Boks passed the test perfectly. Henry however persisted with the flat attack against Australia the following week and the Aussies were able to suffocate it and lay down a platform for success. Tri Nations lost because of a tactical failure. World Cup encounter with Australia? Yes, revertion back to the tried and tested formula. It was one of only two games of the world cup where New Zealand did not have to rely on the ref for an edge. But the weaknesses of Australia have been noted many times over the years, I called the winning formula quite early and it stands to this very day.

And that TMO? Hardly dodgy. New Zealand used the forward pass for what must have been the fifth time that game and it got called, much to my surprise. I know you New Zealanders are accustomed to winning through illegal means, I however do not ever justify such things. An illegal move was called, and an illegal try disallowed, the New Zealand all-out attack, the best they had thrown at the Boks since 2003 was completely shut down. Quite a statement in fact.


Mike,
I have gone through this many, many times. Morne does not sit too deep and nor does he align himself the same all the time. In fact, most of the time it is nearly a 50/50 split between deep/flat, wide/narrow. The only other flyhalf in South Africa who has good variation in alignment is Goosen. Lambie is actually a player that sits too deep in fact, one of his chief failings is his poorly timed passes, his deep alignment which puts too much pressure on the backline and the fact that every pass is very predictable in that he basically looks at the target long in advance. Morne however is smart enough to know that when getting slow ball, you do not align yourself too flat. You cannot successfully generate attacking movement with slow, static ball. Standing deep also gives you time to use the ball, and it allows you to work the ball further down the line. Something the Boks have been doing is working a lot of ball to Jean. To allow them time and space to work with, depth is required. So many other things I could get into, but this post could be made ten times longer. Suffice to say, Morne does not have alignment issues. In fact, this was one of the most well debunked myths I have ever done.
 

morne definitely lacks flair - the moment goosen came on the other day when the mighty wobblies won... I got worried. Morne is predictable and ABs going to dominate as much as I'd prefer boks to win. btw im over reds loss at hands of dubious sa reffing now...

The Cat

There is no way that the present backline play of the Springboks is not sterile and poor.   Don't give me the excuse that they do not get enough good balls - they do get such (maybe not enough, I grant you that) - but those they get are either kicked away or passed to Francois Steyn - where the ball died.  

I cannot remember one case - where the ball went beyond Francois Steyn in the test last week from either line-outs, scrums or mauls.   It happened from two mauls only  - one of which led to the Habana try - and one where the ball was ultimately knocked on by Morne Steyn.    Nothing from any line out, scrum or maul won by the Springboks.    If Morne is not partly to blame for that chronic deficiency - who is?    

Some very interesting comments. I do agree with the statement by Card that "What is more important is what movement is going on around the flyhalf". This point was also made by Mallet as was hos questioning whta decision making responsibilities did Morne have. I also agree 100% with the need for forward dominance and go forward ball.

As for Morne adjusting his alignent etc I will take  closer peak. I think though one has to admit there are many facits of play from scrumming to backline play that are not working as well as they should. It is a multifacited problem and not soley Morne. Lots of work for Meyer.

Mambo I have to agree we are not all complete Morne bashers and some see the deeper complexities.

NIce to see Redman back in the saddle at last after the sharkies put his side away so convincingly!

Card may I ask how in the world do you have all these details at your command. I watch a game once and form an impression - the rigjht one of course - but cant back it up with the details you come up with at the drop of a hat.  How do you do this.

Its a bit like ou snapster sitting in the UK and knowing about every SA schoolby/junior rugby player! 

Beeno

I want one question answered - and not in generalities and remarks aimed at distracting from the answer.   Why is our backline so putrid in attacking play?   If anybody is not prepared to answer that question - but keep on mulling about what is going on around the backline players - then they are living in a dream world.   Did the backline got no good balls in the last two tests?   If the answer is yes - then I will accept that as part of the problem.   They got some good balls and completely fluffed them up.

And as for Morne not standing to deep and not receiving the ball standing still - it relly is a figment of the imagination of Card.   Those are generally accepted facts leading to a kicking and crashball game.   That so-called 50:50 position of Morne is a real joke and NOT BASED on fact.

I watched games repeatedly - and do get some facts by watching certain controversial players - and I do jot down times and what happened in the case of specific players.   Hence my continued criticism of some players.

Finally do you really think our backline is functioning satisfactorily?

Have you ever found out why Erasmus is not completely out of the Team set-up.   Some journalists should follow up on that one and ask Erasmus himself about it.   Does it have anything to do with the useless and sterile game at present dished up?

reunion is a great rugby show and those bash the show dont know what they are talking about.

the boks play to a set pattern of big slow running forwards and try to outkick a team. the way to beat the boks front up whip up the tempo and attack the rucks and the meyer golden game plan is worthless. that is the reality of the current state of the team. i dont buy into the injury debate. there has been injuries but a real coach will play a style that make due with the players that he has to choose from.

the ball from the rucks is to slow morne stands to deep has poor hand speed and width on his passing and the off the ball running is ultra rubbish. running lines of the backs is also poor but the main concern is the of the ball running. the fat boys cant keep up witht he rucks so they get beaten 70 % of the time on the deck. hooper of the wallies made he rucks alot more tougher. he is a no name and he managed to slow us right down.

the english have just appointed a attacking coach why are we still lacking behind the 8 ball ????

the backline has recieved a lof of decent scoring balls and the chances were not taken. small things are not corrected and i see the same errors that i saw in the english series in the game against the wallies. just poor coaching and attention tot detail.