SA rugby woes? Blame SA's super second-rate coaches

PRETORIA – There is a coaching crisis in South Africa rugby and it is evident in the performances, or rather lack of, from our Super Rugby franchises.

How can it be that a country like ours, rich with player resources and infrastructure at all levels only has one team - the Lions - in the Super Rugby semi-finals?

If it is not the players and/or the lack of resources, be it financial or infrastructure-related kind, then the only plausible reason to why South African rugby finds itself at sixes and sevens is the poor coaching at our disposal.

I’ve been surprised at how Bulls coach John Mitchell has been criticised and lambasted by some of my colleagues and others who consider themselves rugby pundits, all because of where the Bulls find themselves at the moment - they finished last in the South African Conference, behind the Stormers based on points difference and 12th in the overall standings.

Yes, the men from the capital have not covered themselves in glory since winning their last Super Rugby title in 2010 but not all, if any, of their woes should be blamed on New Zealander Mitchell.

Mitchell inherited what had been a sinking ship long before Nollis Marais took over from Frans Ludeke.

Obviously, there is an expectation of Mitchell to turn things around at Loftus Versfeld and based on the performances on the field, there has been a tangible change, even though the results don’t reflect it.

Anyone who knows anything about rugby will agree that the Bulls are playing a good brand of rugby and had it not been for injuries and a lack of depth, then their results could have turned out differently.

But that is not the case and Mitchell finds himself being lumped with the rest of the failed South African coaches, like the Stormers’ Robbie Fleck and Robert du Preez of the Sharks.

I say failed because unlike Mitchell, who is in his first season with the Bulls, Fleck and Du Preez have had enough time with their respective teams and are blessed with more experienced and probably even better players than Mitchell.

But Fleck and Du Preez have failed to take their teams beyond the quarter-finals for two consecutive years and yet it doesn’t seem like there will be any repercussions for them.

And this is exactly what is hurting South African rugby, the way in which coaches seemingly abdicate their responsibilities and other reasons are looked to just to cover up on their shortcomings.

It was disheartening to see the Sharks players look lost at sea in Christchurch in their quarter-final game against the Crusaders on Saturday and most of them are the very same players who did so well for the Springboks under the mentorship of Rassie Erasmus earlier this season.

Why couldn’t these players, who had performed so well when faced with one of the top teams on the planet in England last month, show the same ruthlessness on attack and execution when it mattered the most against the Crusaders?

And that has been the case with the Sharks all season long and more so since Du Preez took over the reins, the Durban side lack the bite they used to have in the past and this is indicative of the rumoured discontent in the squad.

Fleck finds himself in the same boat, unable to take the Stormers anywhere and having recently being accused of undermining his assistant Paul Treu.

The Stormers woes under Fleck are well documented and in any normal rugby landscape, the former Springbok centre should have made way for other coaches.

It is not like there is a dire need for competent and qualified coaches in the country but the bonds of friendship and patronage seem stronger than the need to put the right people in the right jobs.

The very same Treu, who made the claims of being undermined in the Stormers system, is highly experienced, not only as a former player, but has previously coached two national teams and holds a Master’s degree.

There are many coaches with similar credentials as Treu but are being denied the opportunities to coach and have to serve as water boys and lackeys to individuals less competent and qualified than them.

The obsession with mediocrity and the inability to see the world beyond their self-imposed blinkers by the amateur administrators and others of their ilk in power further deepen the coaching crisis that shouldn’t be.

Opportunities, opportunities. These other guys not given an opportunity, who the heck are they? Just give them the keys to the Ferrari and it'll all be okay. One of the things South Africans need to learn is that there isn't always a better option, chopping and changing isn't going to work, most of the time. The coaching issue was brought up by evil Jake many, many years ago. He said that New Zealand have a very good understanding of who and what their coaches are at all levels of the game. We know maybe a handful and then there is a big black void we stick our hand in like a lucky packet, hoping to pluck a world class coach. They have a better culture for learning and development. South Africa doesn't learn from its mistakes. I hate to say it but South Africans don't problem solve and can't see even the most obvious things. It takes generations to come to any realization. All of our problems are things New Zealanders consider easy things to resolve. They are more honest with themselves. South Africans like to pander to feelings and that means dancing around the truth as if it was a smoldering pitchfork trying to sear them. If only we listened to evil Jake. He wanted to help SA rugby put these structures in place. The men who had the best ideas to help SA have been Jake, Meyer, Mallett and Smal. No surprises that they have all scoffed at and even hated. All ended up abroad because they were not valued in SA. South Africa is not a place for skilled men, intelligent men. Not a place for honest men. Nothing will ever change.

Surely the the penny has dropped with Flek by now. He is an utter failure as a coach. Treu does not have much to shout about as a coach in the 15 man game, but he has enjoyed success in 7's. That probably does not count for much, as the two types of rugby are vastly different, but at least he has had success in one form or another. Flek has had none, and his team are looking progressively worse and worse.   

We will never hear the end of White winning the 2004 RC - but it was an accident not repeated in 2005 and 2006.   So really what bearing has it on the present scenario.   Zero I am afraid.

So lets get practical.   Ackerman was learning the coaching trade from Mitchell and he turned out to be a very good and allow me to state the top coach in SA.   Fleck got his training from Coetzee and he is as bad a coach as his mentor was.   .  

What happened is that SA coaches are really shockingly poor - but there is every chance that the Bulls will improve next year - and the Sharks got through to the quarters - but the Stormers was nowhere in site.

The crisis is with the Stormers in the main.   It is time that they get rid of the monkeys running the franchise as well as Fleck.   He had his chances and the result was a disaster in three years now.   One cannot see the Stormers making progress under Fleck.   High priority case here.      

After 5 consecutive years of wooden spoons and an embarrassing 2003 World Cup, the 2004 Boks has to be lauded for one of the most spectacular turnarounds of the modern era, instead of being dismissed as "an accident". They actually did even better in 2005, but so did NZ, who just pipped them for the title thanks to bonus points.

All the excuses from the past means nothing now.   Zero - minus zero.   

White came back to SA to coach the Sharks and the result was a bigger loss against the Crusaders in the play-offs than happened on Saturday.   He got fired after a year - wonder why?

He did not do much better at Montpellier and his contract was not renewed - wonder why?

White is a good old-style coach and nowhere near to be a top coach in the present era,   Why mention him in this case where we are discussing present coaching problems - not what happe ned in the past.          

Mozart - please I expect better from you.   Get to the present and forget about White - he will not coach another SA team again after his flop at the Sharks. 

2006 was not the season White detractors claim it was. First and foremost we must review the injuries that plagued that team: 

Schalk Burger (broken neck), Bakkies Botha (calf surgery), Jean De Villiers (cracked rib), Bryan Habana (cracked rib), Butch James (groin and knee), André Pretorius (groin), Joe Van Niekerk (C5 & C6 vertebrae), Jacques Cronje (cracked rib), Danie Rossouw (hamstring), Juan Smith (left quadriceps), Eddie Andrews (back), BJ Botha (back surgery), CJ Van Der Linde (Leg), Gurthro Steenkamp (broken hand), Pedrie Wannenburg (wrist surgery), Marius Joubert (fractured hand) 

That's a lot. Take into consideration that it was the 2006 Currie Cup that saw a lot of new talent emerge like JP and Ruan. Something that wouldn't have happened had Jake not withdrawn key Boks from the Currie Cup. 

Here are the 2006 results:

They beat Scotland twice. It was a tough series, and where Schalk broke his neck. 

They lost to France and Australia, it was the tough part of the year. And the Aussie loss is how everyone chooses to define that year. It was an awkward game. Australia were lights out and finished every opportunity they had. South Africa by contrast couldn't finish even when they had long periods of dominance. The score was bad, but South Africa were not blown away in general play. Its kind of like that 60 point win we had against them in 1996, Australia were actually competitive, but it didn't show on the scoreboard.

Next up, the All Black test in Kiwiland. We lost Bakkies on the eve and had the rebalanced the loose trio. Olivier made his debut as 12. South Africa nearly won that game, and it ended 2 tries apiece. Du Preez sparked the Boks with a try in 20 seconds of the first half. Here's a match report snippet:

"South Africa’s resolute performance was well ahead of last week’s match in Brisbane.

The All Blacks, in contrast, fell well short of the standard they set in beating Australia 32-12 in the first match of this season’s Tri-Nations tournament two weeks ago. Their forward play lacked thrust or cohesion and their backplay, outside the dominating Carter, was unconvincing, disrupted by South Africa’s rushing defence."

https://mg.co.za/article/2006-07-22-new-zealand-beat-south-africa-3517

Next Was a rematch with Australia in Australia. South Africa lost that game 20-18 with the very last kick of the game! So South Africa could very well have come home with 2 away wins were it not for a few stupid penalties. Yet Jake is worthless? Come on Clever Mike, that's not right at all. 

Now at home New Zealand had the edge in the second test. However, the Boks were not entirely clueless. Their defence was just having some problems which Jake openly admitted to and subsequently fixed. Normally 26 points against New Zealand is good for a win or at least to push them close.

The very next test was another All Black test in ZA. South Africa won this one, and New Zealand were so upset that they couldn't congratulate the Boks, but instead boasted how the better team lost and downplayed the Boks. Typical Kiwi humility, only when they feel they really are above you will they be nice (mostly, but not always). 

South ended the Tri Nations with a win against Australia. So back to back wins against their great rivals. It could have been 4/6 but surely should have been 3/6 but for one last kick of the game in Sydney.

On the November tour the Boks did lose a game to Ireland. I remember everyone was upset by that, but Jake did rest many players, so it wasn't useless. And we finally broke England's stranglehold over us. We could have won the first test, but Jean failed to see support on the outside for an easy walk in try and Pretorius had a howler upon replacing an injured Butch.

Clever Mike, how can you deliberately portray Jake in a poor light with incorrect information? That bothers me a lot. Were you one of those people who celebrated the World Cup win, but sharpened your knives for Jake? Or one of those who hated the win because you hated the players and Jake? Either way, that's sad. 

"Mozart - please I expect better from you.   Get to the present and forget about White - he will not coach another SA team again after his flop at the Sharks."

Mike

Please stop this BS about White.

Did he not win the SA conference when he returned?

How many seasons did it take him to achieve that???

Exactly. 

You keep bringing up how poorly he failed at the Sharks but he did quite the opposite in reality. 

Tahs finished on 58 points, the Saders on 51 and the Sharks on 50.

What is wrong with you?

HOW IS THAT FAILING?

The Sharks were top for most of the season. They ran out of steam towards the end. That isn't bad coaching though. I got told I hate everyone, but the same people who throw those accusations produce the most tangible evidence of it in what they say and do. Jake deserves some credit at least. 

It is indeed sad to see the demise of rugby in RSA and blame being directed at all except the real reasons.

In my opinion more than one issue has caused this demise.

1. Selection of sub standard players to meet ANC political objectives in sport.

2. Financial incentives abroad.

3. Family security and safety opportunities.

4. Square pegs in round holes within SARU.

5. Injuries to players and being burnt out as a result of poor training/scheduling.

6. Lack of pride to wear a Green and Gold rugby jersey with the Springbok on the sleeve as opposed to the correct place for the SPRINGBOK.

What a shame to witness this disaster....... but that is progress I am informed!

The Sharks ran out of steam badly - and for very good reason.   Don't Come up with the standard story about how White took over the Sharks in 2014 and immediately took them to the top of the SA Conference - utter BS,

The Sharks played in the SR Final in 2012.   They had a nightmare year in 2013 with so many injuries Plumtree was forced to borrow players from other franchises to field full teams.  At one sage he only had 19 fit players left out of the 36 man squad he could select from, with 17 longer term injuries - so don't say that is a natural injury situation.  

Beside that he had a backline saboteur Fat Fransie to contend with.   It took him 4 rounds to find out that Fransie was (and is) not a center at all.   Be it as it may - the Sharks  had a strong squad and they would have done better in 2014 without the long list of injuries - but Smit lost it all and ultimately replaced Plumtree with White.   

He got the Sharks in the play-offs - but that is where the train smash really happened and the strong squad lost to the Crusaders in 2014 by a wider margin than the Sharks did on Saturday,.   

Besides that there were other things wrong  at the Sharks and White at the end of the season got fired - whether you like it or not.   .            

You tell em AJ, good to see you back!

In 2012 the Sharks were hovering around 6th to 8th place and scraped through to qualify for the playoffs. They were fortunate enough to play in ZA against the Stormers. They were wiped out. They never played anywhere near the level of what they did in 2012.

2014

vs NZL (5W, 1L)

vs AUS (3W, 1L)

vs RSA (5W, 3L)

2012

vs NZL (2W, 3W)

vs AUS (4W, 1L)

vs RSA (6W, 3L)

The Sharks were a much better team in 2014 . They could have been real contenders the past few years. Plumtree never got the best out of his group when they were in their prime. He wasted that team. Given as a gift after their glorious 2007 team. Plumtree took them nowhere. 

Lurker 

As I said - you are entitled to your opinion - but that is not whether you are correct living on cloud 9.    

Not a word about the Sharks getting into the final in 2012 - something White did not achieve in 2014.   Some team got wiped out on the day the Stormers played the Sharks at Newlands in 2012 in the semi and it was not the Sharks.    

And the squad did not really change in the period between 2012 and 2014 - so why were the players better in what they did  in 2012 than in 2014?   They were certainly better in 2012 coached by a competent coach and that is a fact.  

So all of Ireland and the Hurricanes no less about coaching than you.   Really?       

Fine 0now the conductor is here and he made two wild statements - namely 

*    that the Sharks did better under White than under Plumtree - ridiculous BS,

*    the Brumbies - factual but with total disregard of what actually happened.

Sharks better? 

The Sharks in 2012 

*   got to the Final; and

*   took the CC trophy

The Sharks in 2014 -

*   got wiped out by the Crusaders in the Semi-Final;

*   lost badly against the Bulls and never got near to the CC Final.

The Brumbies 

The Brumbies got lucky in 2013 - they played the Bulls in the semi at Loftus.  In this game the Bulls led until near the end of the game when dear Morne buggered up badly and allow the Brumbies to attack and score the winning try.   Normal I would say - remember the horrific end of the Perth test in 2014?      

Why did the "same" players as you say fail to play well against New Zealand teams in 2012 but okay in 2014? They were one game away fro sweeping the New Zealand sides. They relied upon their wins against weak South African sides. Under Jake, the Sharks were consistently at the top of the table, under Plum they were struggling and relied on their 3 wins in 4 against 4 South African sides to make the playoffs,which they qualified for by 1 point on the final day by a bonus point against the Cheetahs. How is that more successful than Jake? I means, we can analyze the game itself and it's not even close. Jake's Sharks were better. 

In Jake's first Brumbies season, apart from the final game against the Blues, every loss was by 7 points or less. Mostly by a few. That's very competitive. For a side that did a clean out of 17 players! He built that team and its character from nothing. However, Jake is "the worst coach in Rugby". Uh oh, Houston we have a problem. Two absolutes cannot occupy the same space, and Clever Mike said Meyer is "the worst coach I  rugby". Well Clever Mike, are you wrong or are you wrong? 

Anybody could beat the Bulls with generous Morne's help,   And Jake got fired - why not a single answer to that one,

By the way Lurker and Mozart.   The Brimbies had a very good backline coach - Larkham.   Without him they would have been severely damaged.   As I said previously White was a good old-style coach - in comprehensive rugby he was lost - hence his firing by the Sharks,     

Mozart

I never said you drove AJ from the site - Dave, Biltongbek and Rooinek yes - so get your facts right please.  

Actually, Jake had a good backline from day 1 with Boks. Nothing the Brumbies used to do was new to him. Jake was a great student of  Brumbies rugby during Eddie's era. He used so many of those plays nd patterns for the junior Boks. Bet you never knew these things. Where have the Brumbies been post-Jake? Not s good. Likewise the Sharks. No team has been better after Jake. When Jake was assistant coach at the Sharks in 2001, they made the finals, Straeuli got the Bok job because of that though. Success follows Jake. When he leaves there are problems at the very least, meagre returns comparatively speaking. How do you plan to explain that away? I don't understand why you have to believe that Jake was garbage. It makes no sense at all to me. 

Naas was White;s backline coach for the juniors and if one had to see a mess about backline play - I watched all the Sharks games in 2014 and their backline was pathetic.   But then Fat Fransie was his favourite and what can one expect from that.    

White set an example for Meyer - equally clueless insofar as comprehensive rugby is concerned    

Tell me one set play that the Sharks used and tell me how it was implemented and the end result. Jake's team of course. You can choose any game you like.

And as for Meyer. You use the term comprehensive rugby. That's not a term that is used for any style of rugby, but by definition that means that one incorporates all areas of the game. I agree with you. Meyer's team's lacked aerial dominance most of the time. Look no further than the World Cup loss to New Zealand. Other then that, he played a pattern similar to New Zealand, by dominating the middle of the field and playing either direction based on what was available. A lot of power to the player to make decisions. In fact, that game is critically dependant on good decision makers. The game plan created options and opportunities, but not all players took advantage of it. You can't blame the coach for that. Meyer had a base plan and changed certain elements depending on personnel and opposition. In the end he went into his shell because he felt the pressure and that's where it went wrong. One other thing with Meyer's teams is that their pods were not as spread part as New Zealand though they were effective when Alberts and Duane were fit. Not many replacement for them. So a major part of the game was rendered almost useless and that had an effect on how teams defended. They would often  break upon the backs coming from deep or defend knowing they had no risk of a pass being slipped out in contact. There are so many things it's hard to keep this brief. 

Mike

Answer the question.

How is topping the SA conference and finishing 3rd over all an an abject failure?

How is beating all but one Kiwi side a failure?

*    the Brumbies - factual but with total disregard of what actually happened.

Factual = What actually happened. You fantasy sentence makes no sense!!!

Anybody could beat the Bulls with generous Morne's help

More inane babbling, drowned out by the roar of the records:

- Most drop goals in a Super Rugby game (4) (in the 2009 Super 14 semi-final against the Crusaders)
- Most drop goals in Super Rugby (25)
- Most drop goals in a Super Rugby season (11 in 2009)
- Most penalties in a Super Rugby season (51 in 2010)
- Most points in a Super Rugby season (263) – Beating Dan Carter's record of 221 set in 2006.
- Most points by a Bulls player in Super Rugby history (1,467)
- Most points by a South African and first South African to reach 1,000 points in Super Rugby (1,467)
- 3 Super Rugby titles

Pakie

Most fuck ups in crucial matches making sure important games were lost - Morne Steyn.   He was dropped once from the Springbok team in 2012 and twice in 2014.

Kicking at goal is not the only requirement  expected from a flyhalf.    That was his only positive - for the rest he was totally and hopelessly useless.

*  Defense - BStrs screaming murder - but go to the following two tests as examples of his achievements - Ellis Park against AB's 2013 - Perth in 2014; 

*   Kicking out of hand -  called BS by TV commentators - boo-ed by PE spectators - flopped often in penalty line kicks (7 in 9 tests) - kicks basically was possession hand-overs to opposing teams -  no strategic kicks .  

*   Never attacked the gain line

*   Stood too deep in the pocket and when passing the ball sold out the recipient.   

Was a "B" grade flyhalf and Stade Francais soon realized it and used him as bench flyhalf.   You must be deluded to think he is any better than Jantjies as a flyhalf - I rate him as worse.      

Answer the question Mike!

*   Stood too deep in the pocket and when passing the ball sold out the recipient.  

Once you start producing utter rubbish like this, I'm not even engaging you further. I have challenged you in the past to produce any examples of this supposed slew of hospital passes from Morne. You've come up with none out of the mass of footage available of the guy.

You must be the only person - perhaps supported by Mozart and Lurker as well as the despicable Ceradunce - who could not see how deep in the pocket Morne stood - receiving the ball standing still and never attacking the gain line,    

So what happened:-

*    The wings fell back to cover the BS possession handover kicks of Morne;

*    The loosies and opposing 12 went for the no 12 in the case of a possible pass.

Hansen - whom I presume knows more about Rugby than you do - said before the 2014 Ellis Park test said they know exactly what to expect from Morne - they do not know what will happen with Pollard at flyhalf.   That showed my comments as to what happened is 100% correct.

So what tests did Morne caused Springbok losses against the AB's?

    *   The Dunedin test in 2012

    *    The Ellis Park test in 2013

    *    The Wellington test in 2014 (jointly with Matfield)

The record against the Aussies included the Perth test in 2014

By the way the 2014 Ellis Park test was the only one the AB's lost against SA during the Meyer era despite a determined effort by Matfield to lose that test as well.       

Stood too deep into he pocket is nonsense. One of the most used moves by the Bulls was when Morne stood flat with Oliver coming in, angling in. I'll post details of that later if anyone is interested (it's boring trying to bring details to discussions for nothing all the time, why bother?)  

Clever Mike, unpredictability is a very rare thing in sports. The players that are genuinely unpredictable are almost always bad players that are erratic. I know what to expect from players too. Anyone doing video analysis should know what to expect from every team. Fans act like you have to be a total enigma, the game isn't won by some mysterious thing but by imposing the known aspects of your game accurately. The odd gimmick can be thrown in and maybe an interesting little ploy once or twice. Here's another thing, a 10 isn't always supposed to stand flat. If a 10 stands flat his centres have to condense the flatter they become and the more pressure is on them to handle the ball well. A flat attack demands players with excellent short range passing accuracy and perfect decision making . We don't have those players. What you describe with Morne never happened. Ever. What's worse, you clearly know this.