RC 2017 & 2018 Stat Comparison

TRIES

1. South Africa 2018 (21)
2. South Africa 2017 (17)

1. South Africa 2018 (64)
2. South Africa 2017 (80)

1. South Africa 2018 (658)
2. South Africa 2017 (736)

1. South Africa 2018 (2185)
2. South Africa 2017 (2447)

1. South Africa 2018 (121)
2. South Africa 2017 (143)

1. South Africa 2018 (85.5%)
2. South Africa 2017 (83.3%)

1. South Africa 2018 (85.2%)
2. South Africa 2017 (87.8%)

1. South Africa 2018 (52)
2. South Africa 2017 (74)

1. South Africa 2018 (92%)
2. South Africa 2017 (83%)

1. South Africa 2018 (95%)
2. South Africa 2017 (95%)

1. South Africa 2018 (03)
   
2. South Africa 2017 (01)

So, we can see that Coetzee's Boks were primarily an attacking team. Last year, the set pieces were more strongly contested. Los Pumas ended with the best lineout in the competition. Australia had a significantly better lineout. So, the Boks didn't have it easy attacking or defending from first phase.

The big difference is defence and kicking. Tackles won would appear to be even, but the sheer volume of those tackles this year was unbelievable. The defence did improve steadily. Coetzee's Boks carried a glass jaw in every test. Very unorganised and sloppy.

Rassie has made territory his priority. This is interesting, as we heard this is a relic of dinosaur Jake ball. He was criticised from all quarters for basing the Shark's game on territorial dominance. I have never seen a Bok side kick so much ball away so consistently. Were the Boks more accurate it would have been a very dangerous weapon. 

Nothings changed much....LOL except the scores against NZ...in North Harbour last year lost 57-0, this year won by 2 in Wellington and lost by 2 in Pretoria.Hahahaha.

Coetzee did lose by 1 point at Newlands. They scored three tries apiece. The North Harbour test was a perfect example of tha t glass jaw and sloppiness. They exerted a lot of pressure of New Zealand but were picked off from turnovers early on. The signs were there that the Boks were beginning to become a little more competitive. 

I think the quality of our kicks were better and our backs used the few opportunities better, especially against New Zeeland. Work in progress,  but lots to build on, poor centers and all.

Draad

I am always amazed by Mozart's traditional SA Rugby myth - when challenged about what his statement actually implied he came on  about kicking and defense - nothing about backline use.  AO came with the same story about backline play under Meyer - his only explanation hinged on defense.

What both Mozart and AO do not realize is the difference between kicks putting pressure on the opposition and kicking the shit out of the ball  for the sake of kicking,  They have no idea when  a kick is strategically effective and when it is an aimless kick.

Fact is the game Erasmus is developing is vastly different from the 10 and 11 man game of both Meyer and Coetzee and it fact represents a 15 man usage game and vastly different to the game played in the period 2010 to 2017.  As you stated it is work in progress and through experience can only get better.     

So, the constantly aimless kicks all season have been strategic kicks? I suppose all those tries we conceded were strategic tries?

This perfectly demonstrates how biased you are. The most the Boks have kicked under Meyer was the Dunedin test of 2012. That was where Pienaar repeatedly kicked aimless balls to the point that the commentators spoke about it. You berated Meyer for this strategy, n ow it's "tactical" under Rassie. You are unbelievable. Is there no depth too low for you? One might actually think you believe what you say is logical. That's even more frightening than the sheer volume of your lies.

There are significant similarities to the structure of the game. You said that using forwards as a front for the backs was backwards "garbage rugby". It has been extensively done under Rassie. The usage of PODs is very similar. We saw more exotic shapes under Meyer though, more elaborate schemes. That doesn't have to be a bad thing for Rassie, as there are various ways of approaching the game, and I prefer to strip away overbearing complexity for coherency and accuracy. It does make a mockery of what you are saying however, as it highlights perfectly your inability to identify any aspect of play.

Schalk leads a POD, he is in the flyhalf position. Morné stands behind as a playmaker. He is standing too deep. 

Steph leads a POD, he is a dynamic player who is "the best Bok of all time". Pollard stands in behind as a playmaker. This is expansive rugby from a great attacking player.

The hypocrisy is astounding. The use of Willie hasn't changed at all. I'll say that Meyer favoured a wider passing game. Rassie persisted with a very narrow and deep set of attacking units for much of the season. It was similar to what we saw from Australia. He changed various elements though. Certain things from the Brisbane test were never repeated.

The fact of the matter is one must evaluate each test more carefully, they aren't identical and each coach may have different ways of approaching each opponent. There are base elements which is the blueprint or identity of how a team plays and then certain things added. You miss all of these.

I don't know what you are doing when you are supposedly watching these games, but if it is indeed looking at the screen, your comprehension skills are shocking. 

There was  never as predictable a Bok side as the post Japan loss Bok side in the RWC 2015...yes it was effective up to a point, but it was scripted negative BS that I hope never will be repeated. Give me Snorre every day before doing that to me again.

 I was a Meyer fan up till the RWC...yes, I had my differences of opinion,  but I could mostly live with him as coach. The way he forced the structure after the loss to Japan however, is the stuff of nightmares. 

He set our rugby back much more than we realized.  Fcn disaster of Distraeuli proportions. The fact that he still got results blinded us to the disaster on the short term. 

Don't worry about AO - or better still worry about him.    He is on cloud 9 with serious delusional problems.   He writes ravings about Meyer as a coach - thinks he only one to be praised.

Realistic he is not as well.    Morne on average is accused of kicking the ball for the sake of kicking.  In all matches he played in he averaged 55-60% kicking of balls.   Of those 80% can be regarded as aimless.   Morne was the flyhalf of the Springboks in nearly 60% of the tests played.  In the cases of Goosen and Pollard the situation improved -  but on the whole was still nightmarish. 

He deludes himself further that whatever he write s on site will be believed by everybody on the site - but we have our own to see what really happened,    Fairy tales like yours is a no-no.      

The 2015 season began with the loss to Australia in Australia. The fans loved the gameplan and lauded the centre pairing the best in the world. That despite Damian conceding two tries and opened up for two more, which Australia blew. They also liked the All Black game. It was only when we lost to Argentina that the plastics spat their dummies out. Argentinians are supposedly inferior. 

The loss to Argentina was quite simple: We had no ball carriers of note. Damian and Jean were ineffective at centre. It was the first time Lood was called into question as he was shown up for his lack of mobility or grunt against another strong Pack.

As for flyhalf Schalk. This is one of the most ridiculous and embarrassing statements any rugby fan can make. Schalk's job was simple: extend the width of the attack as a screen to hold the interior in check and pass out the back to the playmaker when called to do so. It was the playmaker's job to decide when he wanted the ball depending on the shape of the defence and numbers. This is unbelievably basic. 

SCHALK 2015

1. Australia: 8 passes, 5 runs
   
2. New Zealand: 12 passes, 14 runs, 2 offloads
3. Argentina: 16 passes, 14 runs, 1 offload
4. Japan: 15 passes, 22 runs, 4 offloads
5. Samoa: 15 passes, 15 runs
6. USA: 11 passes, 7 runs, 2 offloads
7. Wales: 14 passes, 26 runs, 2 offloads
8. New Zealand: 5 passes, 8 runs
9. Argentina: 10 passes, 8 runs

The same repetitive drivel and the same BS.   The fact was that the team was totally disrupted by Meyer's selections and the poor performance of Matfield and some of the other senior players  in the tests they played in.   

How come Burger in the stats he quoted had handled the ball 225 times in 9 test matches.    It mentioned off-loads and passes - but not possession losses and knock-ons.  Fact is on average Burger handled the ball 25 times per match - an extraordinary number of times when it comes to normal loosie play.   

A lot is made by AO about his passing game - but in reality the situation is that the game plan neutralized the backline totally - I have never seen any case where a loosie have a better passing game than the flyhalf.   No - I am wrong  - it happened lots of times when Morne was the Springbok flyhalf, but not in the case of any other flyhalfs.

Burger in his prime had exceptional rugby skills and he did have the ball sense and skills to play an expansive game - but through the years and perhaps because of serious and long term injuries those skills became less and less.   By 2015 he was really in serious declining years and his usage in the WC especially was a joke in bad taste.    He showed early in the series- in the Japan test already - that he was not suited to the game he was expected to play and was a major reason for that loss - knocking on 4 balls and never making a real impression on his ball carries, while his passes were virtual hospital passes making it impossible for the backline to function properly.   Sad to see how the so-called game plan of Meyer dented the image of a much-admired  player,

So the plastics are fools and only the almighty AO reads the game correctly. No  AO - the situation is that the public saw what happened and realized that the game was being destroyed by the type of game plan used by the Bulls in 2004 when Meyer was the coach there,     

Sorry - but it has been proved that Meyer as coach started of badly end ended up badly in his coaching career.   The period of November 2014 to September 2015 must be regarded as one of the worst in Springbok history - winning 3 games and losing 6 games - and losing all three games played in the RC that year,  

That Japan game started of as a disaster - instead of forward dominance Matfield ignored instructions and the dominance went out of the window.  The forwards fouled up incredibly badly with Burger knocking on balls and Bismarck donating penalties to the Japanese.   The only forward who showed anything during that game was De Jager - the rest was bad jokes at best.  

No AO - you clearly saw some theoretical dreams about how the game was to be played - but player failure prevented it from happening.   That is what your problem is - you hope for things to happen, read in dreams about it actually happening and so see  things in games that never happened.   So dream on - it is really veering from the incredulous to the funny - not funny haha, but funny peculiar.   

I said post Japan. The loss against Jap forced us into robotic BS. We should have lost vs Wales, but Duane ignored orders and chanced a brilliant offload for the match saving try. In the post match talk on TV he said he thought he was going to be in trouble with the coach for it.

It was a crashball fest galore...and it was effective,  we came within mm's of beating NZ...but it was predictable. 

The Welsh game was approached properly. Those calling for a wide attacking game were ignorant of how the Welsh defended. They had their 9 and openside wing in the line, covering the width of the field. They had a hard rush led from the outside and an exceptional edge defender. The obvious vulnerability was the lone 15 covering the entire backfield. Sure enough, the very first time the Boks went wide, they turned Damian over and nearly ran it right back for a try, being brought down close to the line. The Welsh defence was the most oppressive at the World Cup. We did well. 

The move in question wasn't a chance offload, but a scripted move by Du Preez. He noted how the Welsh defend scrums in certain instances when the blindside wing is in the line and planned a move to exploit it. 

The Boks were essentially shackled by the limitations of their poor centres and out of form Willie. I'd have played Lambie at fullback. At least we'd have sureness clearing our lines and aerial security at the back. 

Many are quick to lambast Meyer, but are unwilling to criticise the players who failed the Boks. Damian, Kriel, Lood, Steph, Lambie etc added nothing to the B ok cause.

Mozart

Just one question - why was Wales leading in the score until Vermeulen disobeyed his instructions from Meyer and off-loaded a ball to Du Preez to score the winning try if the stats were as marvelously in favour of the Springboks?   It was a close game with  Meyer's game plan nearly costing the Springboks the game.

AO

Your anti-player campaign is absolute BS and based entirely on prejudice.    You do not rate players on your pet hate list and glorify failures.   What games are you watching to allow you to see what happens and others not to?   

OK, Moz, wrong choice of words by me. Let's try again: Although we were the best team on the pitch, we almost lost and it took a brilliant try at the death to swing it in our favour. 

Like I said, crash ball fest, with most ball going back to the forwards after no more than 2 passes. Pass, pass, crash.. .pass, pass, crash. Like I said... Predictable but effective.

Draad

Du Preez passed the ball 103 times, yet Pollard at flyhalf handled the ball only 28 times.  So lets face further facts - at least 8 of Pollard's  ball handling was brought on by covering of Welsh kicks so the passing to flyhalf by Du Preez came down to 20.  Where did the other 83 passes go to?   To the forwards obviously.   The cloud 9 fairy tales will not remove that fact.   

Draad

Du Preez passed the ball 103 times, yet Pollard at flyhalf handled the ball only 28 times.  So lets face further facts - at least 8 of Pollard's  ball handling was brought on by covering of Welsh kicks so the passing to flyhalf by Du Preez came down to 20.  Where did the other 83 passes go to?   To the forwards obviously.   The cloud 9 fairy tales will not remove that fact.   

Draad

Du Preez passed the ball 103 times, yet Pollard at flyhalf handled the ball only 28 times.  So lets face further facts - at least 8 of Pollard's  ball handling was brought on by covering of Welsh kicks so the passing to flyhalf by Du Preez came down to 20.  Where did the other 83 passes go to?   To the forwards obviously.   The cloud 9 fairy tales will not remove that fact.   

This is very embarrassing for the an ti-Meyer groupies. You should have just left this thread as a comparison between Rassie and Coetzee's last season. The decision to drag Meyer into the discussion was an ill-fated one. Herr Auge will once more bring the paddle of truth to spank another uprising by der kleine Kläffer.

#1 - Forward Usage

Now we hear that forward usage determines whether the Boks played channel one ball or not. It never comes to one's mind how the forwards were used? Against Pocky World the Boks played a wide and flat game. I posted the video, review just a few phases to see what I mean.

#2 - Wales

Now, we hear that the best way to beat the Welsh defence was to hand the ball to the backs? What happened to Australia, the most powerful attack in the world throughout 2015? They were repeatedly beaten back for losses.

I pose a question, but I'll explain the parameters of what I asked first. Wales defend the width of the pitch, they have their 9 and openside winger in the line, even their blindside wing in many cases. They rush hard from the outside in. How do you beat that defence? Seeing as the two of you are unhappy with how the backs played, I want to hear some ideas for what Meyer could have done differently against that defence. What was the best way to beat Wales. Feel free to name some set plays and phase patterns. 

Listen dimness why not respond to the comment about the scrummie passing and the ball handling by the flyhalf as quoted by Draad.   We are sick and tired of your BS,  Whenever your BS gets exposed and them deception.

Burger was indeed the stand-in flyhalf and the game plan you wrote never materialized,   

No he was not the stand-in flyhalf. He sometimes played first receiver. Many players play first receiver. This year Steph played more at first receive than any other forward. He was used in a similar role to Schalk. This is where your ignorance of rugby is exposed. You don't know how teams use forwards or backs in the modern game. 

It's even funnier as Meyer, Coetzee and Rassie have done it in exactly the same way, with some variations. The only reason why you say Schalk was in the flyhalf position was because you heard it from a journalist who also doesn't understand rugby. You need a journalist to point these things out because you can't see it in game. If you could, you'd have been berating Rassie for having Steph, Eben and a host of others in the flyhalf position. Why the discrepancy? Does Steph make a better flyhalf than Schalk? Is that what you are suggesting? You've made another boo-boo Herr Petze. 

Herr Eine-Auge. I'm not anti Meyer, he has done alot of good, but he did a few wrongs and that made him lose the support of most of the Bok supporters.

IMO:

1.  Matfield and Jean were overplayed in the nothing matches where we could have played the near-contenders.
   
2. The pass-pass-crash/pick-up-pass-crash game plan after the Japan loss. It was predictable and looked like spoiler rugby. Negative stuff, The fans did not like it. As a once off, he might have been forgiven...(ala Mallet 1999 vs England Jannie de Beer drop kicks ), but he did it for a few matches in a row...he almost played League. 

Predictable, but effective...he almost won the RWC for us, but it was anti -rugby.

PS,

DdA was used as a loosey.

PSS,

Good thread Auge. Similar stats, but yet IMO, the feeling for Rassie is a lot more positive as what it was for Alistair. 

Meyer used what was available to him. I thought he painted himself into a corner by choosing Damian over Serfontein. Frans ruled himself out after the death of his brother. We had few options at 13. I'd have gone de Jongh. That was the best we had at the time.

Either way, the fa n favourites were useless. I criticised Meyer for persisting with them. I criticised everything he did wrong. The gameplan being scaled back was a direct response to personnel limitations. There's nothing more one can do about that. 

I'm thinking Rassie is doing slightly better with almost the same resources...I'm thinking Meyer was a bit too conservative and too afraid to try/trust untested players. Emotionally over involved too.

Rassie has André and Am, Faf, Mostert, Mbonambi, Snyman, Dyantyi, Mapimpi, Nkosi, Willemse. This is the very first time many new players are showing any aptitude for test rugby. Malherbe and Steph are primary examples.

Now, imagine this. Pollard, Faf, Marx, Eben, Kriel, Steph, Snyman, Mostert retired the end of 2017 . Now that would be where Meyer started from. Rassie has done nothing magical. He has improved the Boks from Coetzee's era, but by returning to what the plastics supposedly hate. 

For heavens sake = the fool wrote about Serfontein who was injured and not available  for selection and then the most useless center in Super Rugby for three years running as an option.   What a fool - no amount of cooked stats will help in this case.

Frans would have made his tackles and the Boks would have been in a World Cup final. That's the difference between him and Damian. Flip was another loss. He'd have dominated New Zealand as he always does. Instead we had a tree trunk plodding around the field, with the tackle radius of a Jaffa Cake . 

Dream on dimwit.   Fat Fransie's defense throughout the games he played for the  Sharks in Super Rugby was worse than De Allende.   How would the Fatso suddenly turn it around on test level?   Another wild statement by a stupid fancy fairy who dream up things.  

Incorrect. Frans was never run over. Damian loves to grab ankles and give back rubs. As in the case of the tackle on Frans, pole dance too!