Schalk Burger vs Steph du Toit (Blindside Flank)

Schalk received a lot of criticism for his performances in 2015, but he occupied a similar role to Steph under Rassie. The question I ask is, who was the more dynamic blindside flank? Here are their ball carrying stats, which just so happen to be even:

SCHALK BURGER

1. 15 Passes, 15 Runs, 30 Possessions, 09.1% Team Possession
2. 12 Passes, 10 Runs, 22 Possessions, 07.9% Team Possession
3. 11 Passes, 07 Runs, 18 Possessions, 06.6% Team Possession
4. 14 Passes, 26 Runs, 40 Possessions, 12.3% Team Possession
5. 05 Passes, 08 Runs, 13 Possessions, 08.4% Team Possession
6. 10 Passes, 08 Runs, 18 Possessions, 07.8% Team Possession

1. 05 Passes, 10 Runs, 15 Possessions, 06.8% Team Possession 
2. 00 Passes, 12 Runs, 12 Possessions, 05.7% Team Possession
3. 00 Passes, 10 Runs, 10 Possessions, 04.8% Team Possession
4. 01 Passes, 05 Runs, 06 Possessions, 04.9% Team Possession 
5. 03 Passes, 04 Runs, 07 Possessions, 04.1% Team Possession 
6. 05 Passes, 10 Runs, 15 Possessions, 05.8% Team Possession

Those stats are from the World Cup. He was a key distributor. 

The above statements are ridiculous.    It contains totally unproved deductions.   There is one thing clear.   In no case did Du Toit handled the ball more than the flyhalf as happened in the case of the  loosies (Burger the most prominent) did in the 2015 WC.

Analysis of where the ball went from Burger is not clear at all.   There is no proof statistically that it went to backline players - fact is if it did - the cases were minimal since the  fact is the ball handling by he flyhalfs did get enough balls from the scrummies to over their activities - taking also into account the balls they got hold off covering opposition  kicks.   The  centers  in 2015 handled about the same number of balls passed by the flyhalfs so where did the Burger passes went to?   Definitely an extremely small percentage went to backline players.      

Taking that into account the deductions are totally ridiculous and I had another good laugh based on false interpretation by AO,   Keep it up AO  -  you are generous in causing a laugh a post.  

I would have had Schalk Burger in the WC squad ahead of Schalk Brits...as an almost non playing mentor.

I think in a way Mozart and everybody else missed the pot insofar as Burger is concerned,   I think Burger as a youngster was one of the most exciting loosies I have seen.   

However, of his neck injury he became less adventurous and called down playing wise - so he remained a very good loosie with some o his previous contributions less spectacular.

The position insofar as his performance after his injury in 2012 and the resultant break of over 2 years is concerned,  it had a serious impact on his performances,   He was less effective than he used to be and in the WC he was used in a way contrary to his normal performances.

Burger was never a player effective in ball carries in traffic, with the result that there was more ball losses than normally expected from him.  He was often caught in possession and in crucial games also lost possession as a result of crashballing.

Burger in his prime was a top player (one of the best ever in SA) - but by 2015 he lost some of his shine and the way Meyer used him in the WC did not help him in retaining his top class status,   Fact is in a way he was at times disappointing,   However, I would say that his injuries, the playing style adopted by Meyer in the WC and his advancing age combined to take some gloss of his performances.

I think Du Toit played much like Burger did before his neck injury and the Burger work rate before his neck injury and the present rate of Du Toit is more or less on par.   

Schalk became a significantly better player post operation. I never rated him more than a basher before his injury, he was raw and unpolished but energetic. He didn't lose that energy after his injury , but rounded out his game. The Schalk we saw at the WC in 2007 was a better player than the Schalk we saw in 2004 to 2006. He was remarkably dynamic in 2015.

Balls = deductions from the brain stilted.   Burger never was a basher - something Meyer tried to make him in 2015.   

But then  AO does not understand what is required from  loosies - as he does not know what is required from rugby players in all positions on the field of play.   So what he sees in games is never real - it is dreamt up.    

Balls = deductions from the brain stilted.   Burger never was a basher - something Meyer tried to make him in 2015.   

But then  AO does not understand what is required from  loosies - as he does not know what is required from rugby players in all positions on the field of play.   So what he sees in games is never real - it is dreamt up.   

What dynamic did Burger do in 2015?   Remind us since the above stats indicate nothing dynamic.   Why percentages nobody would be able to figure out and why is the result of carries not given - ie meter gains achieved.   

There was virtually no effective passes to backline players that could ignite anything.      

Meyer utilised Schalk as a link between forwards and backs and as a carrier. He was never a basher under Meyer. Just look at the stats: 67 passes to 74 runs. Very close. Steph on the otherhand has 14 passes and 51 runs. Who has been the basher? Steph is often the forward who handles the ball most. Oh h ow the egg floweth like a river of molten lava over your dreary eyes. In fact, Meyer's Boks had more passes from forwards than Rassie's Boks. So, who was the more dynamic team? 

How come he off-loaded one ball in six games in the WC tests if what Mozart said is true?   

Mozart I think AO is totally off the rails when it cane to Burger,  In essence I agree with what you said about him.      

Look at the run and pass stats for all of the 2015 games Mike. He was getting the ball out. To use offload stats as proof he was a basher is very dishonest and sloppy. Steph on the other hand dies with the ball more often than not. Under Meyer, we could keep the ball moving. Even when he had severe personnel issues, and a horribly out of form Willie. 

To whom and how did Burger got the ball out to.  And under Meyer we kept the ball moving despite Meyer's stated  persistence that the Springbok backline lacked ball skills.   Who kept it moving.

Listen fact is you are clueless about what you wrote.   How many dreams must I keep dispelling all the time?  

Didn't Schalc play 8 too? 

But he did improve his distribution and was fantastic link player. We are seriously lacking forwards that can off load and put other forwards into space. Whiteley is the only one with this skill, but Vermeulen also has that string to his bow, but doesn't do it enough.

But it looks like we have started to adopt the Kiwis model with our forwards where we have a big lock or loose forward standing the 1st channel or at flyhallf during the phase play. 

What AB did well is to pass it to Brodie, who normally has 3 options

1. Take it to draw players and go to ground
2. Run into space and off load
3. Act us a link / pivot and allow for faster backs to run off him and try to hit the gaps

If you breakdown the All Black attack, every player who receives the ball has at least one option. It's very rare for them to be without an option. 

Our attack under Rassie has been too deep and too linear. Slow developing. There are definite similarities with Australia. If you watch the Boks under Meyer, that was much closer to the All Black model. Flatter and wider, using the width of the pass to beat defenders. He made some concessions in 2015 to accommodate Damian though. That couldn't be helped given the circumstances. 

Exactly, if you look at the Hurricanes and how the exploit the space between the 5 meter and touchlines. Quick passes and scissor movements, without a single player going to ground. Getting in behind the defence to go down the tram lines. 

Where we have Kolisi, also going down the tram lines, but ends up taking contact or just giving away poor passes. Kolisi should never be playing in that channel as he doesn't have the distribution skills or pace. Whitely is the only player that can play in that channel. 

But what is the roll of a modern day seven though? 

The AB's uses Squires to come around the corner and barge the ball up and way more physical. But they have Read that playes between the tram lines and uses his offload skills and even used Whitelock in the past. Normally they use their big and tall forwards to draw in smaller players to get their hands free and put their faster back three players into space. 

Mozart

There is one problem and that is that what is meant by "die with the ball".   Die with the ball I assume that recovery is more difficult in the case of "die with the Ball"

If that is what is meant then I am afraid you are wrong.   Du Toit is much better in placing balls for quicker recovery than Burger was in his last year of his playing career.    Du Toit is in fact one of the few players with expertise in placing balls for quicker recovery than most of the other players in the team,   

Watch carefully what is meant in such cases and you will see what I mean..  

Actually, no he isn't. I don't think he is particularly poor, like Damian, but he doesn't have a supple frame. Movement in contact to place a ball? Schalk did it better. Schalk's body position in contact was exceptional. Watch carefully? Follow your own advice. This time, get some fish hooks and pull your eyelids open. 

AO

I am always amazed how you describe the backline play under Meyer.   First of all I think you have gone totally deurmekaar.  There was very little usage of backline attacks under Meyer and playing a flatter attack automatically reduce options and opportunities for players,

That story may hold water if there really was backline attacking    under  Meyer.  There were preciously little of that and when one analyze the try scoring by backline players it really involved only opportunism by Habana and a few cases by Le Roux that resulted in scoring of tries.

The main problem was Morne Steyn making scoring of backline players very rare and difficult - he always was too deep in the pocket - receiving balls while standing still - and attacking the gain line was as rare as a siting of the Phoenix.   That reduces backline attacks to a rarity and since Morne was flyhalf in half the Meyer tests - what you describe was never in evidence.

It was maybe rare in 2012 to 2014 - but went AWOL in 2015.   So why did you see happening and nobody else saw it,    Because Meyer would never cater for it in game plans - since he believed that the Springbok players did not have the ball skills to execute it the way you describe it happening.

Le Roux was a breathe of fresh air when he came into the Springbok team - but it did not last,   By 2015 his adventurism vanished from sight and the backline became stagnant because there was no support for him emanating from the rest of the backline.

But I do not like to stop dreaming up miracles - so keep bluffing yourself that they worked and write total delusionary dreams on site.                 

Mozart

Sorry - but if you believe that is when balls die you must really be  very narrow in your perception of the game.    How many times does  players get caught near the line and a try scored shortly thereafter by the attacking team.   If the ball die because of the tackle a subsequent attack would not result in a try being scored.

Take the try scored by Dyantyi against the English.   The bnakll was carried by De Allende and when he was tackled a quick recovery caused the same to happen with Du Toit and another quick recovery led to the try. 

Coaches all over the world favour that type of play as major attacking mechanisms and they would NEVER call it balls going dead,   

So when does a ball go dead after a carry - it does go dead when the team of the carrier struggle to recover the ball and thus allowing the defending team to line up their defenders,   The negative is when the opposing team in fact recover the tackle ball or result in penalties by the defending team in the process.

In essence the main requirement in tackle situations is the placing of the balls so as to allow for continuation of attacks.  Meyer gave dozens of lectures regularly to the media about what he requires and he would squirm to see what you came up with in this case.        

Crisp off-loads are rare and one only to note that in the WC Burger made only one off-load and whether it was crisp is another question/

It is difficult how many crisp off-loads happen in a year.   There are players like SDW who was experts in off-loads and very effective in doing it.   But there are also players like Fat Fransie who claim to make off-loads  by dropping balls behind him and hope that somebody picks it up.

No Mozart a ball does not op dead when a player gets tackled  and their is fast recovery after tackling  -  but I think that is for your own reasons not acceptable to you.      

When a player is tackled we have to expend resources to secure possession and reposition for the next phase. All while the defence has found its shape. Against Australia in Brisbane, they weren't contesting the rucks, but very quickly getting into possession. We averaged two players in support of each ruck, while Australia had the tacklers flee. We were thus outnumbered on attack, and space which was available disappeared time and time again. We had a quick recycle each time, but it was essentially worthless. There was a particular phase in Australia's 22 where we had numbers wide; in around 2 seconds it was gone and we were snuffed- out wide. Had we been able to keep the ball alive in contact, it would have been difficult for Australia to adjust to the change in carrier and angles. 

A good review would be the second Puma test. When they made a break, they kept the attack alive and our defence could never find its shape until the ball went to ground. Sometimes not at all, as a try was scored. Against England a couple of weeks ago, see how they kept the ball alive and made us strain to quell the attack. 

Its not a  neck & neck affair.

Mozart

The fact is that ball retention remains the better way to play and what AO miss totally is what happens in fact.   Slow recovery means that the attack dies - quick recovery does not allow for it to happen.  

I do not think that off-loads are necessarily better, it entirely depends on the quality of off-loads.   

In some cases passes are described as off-loads.   However, in many cases off-loads and passes could result in intercepts, especially when the retreating opposition players are between ball carriers and potential team recipients.             

AO 

The games you describe are so different from what actually happened on the field of play that it is always amusing.   Fact is the description of what happened in the Burger passing case and his linking with the backline is not supported by facts at all.

I can remember a few cases in the WC where it actually happened and the recipient had to contend with a hospital situation with defenders on top of him.   Fact is that happened in virtually all the cases of Burger passes - whether it was backline players or forwards.

I can remember two excellent ball carries by Andre Esterhuizen in tests this year and  -

*   in the one case it resulted in a ball turnover by the opposition; and

*   in the other case in a penalty awarded to the opposing team because he hung onto the ball.

It totally negated the line breaks and in fact caused the Springboks effectively to lose ground in the process.   Erasmus obviously noted what happened and the usage of Esterhuizen on test level has become a rarity.   You missed out totally on what the results of the very good ball carries were.

It would be far better for you to watch carefully what actually happen in games and what the consequences of what happened is dealt with objectively and not dreamt up.