Smart fans are getting it....

I fail to see what the Springboks really went back to.   There was very few aimless kicks and the backline was in fact used for attacking purposes as well.   That was completely different from the BS that was used in the Meyer and Coetzee years. 

Did the going back relates to 1997 - the last time the Springboks scored more than 30 points playing in New Zealand.   That may be logical - but then the team lost in 1997 when Carel du Plessis was the coach.   

Was Erasmus not White's technical advisor and Eddie Jones not his backline consultant - so maybe there was some merit in what was said.   On his own White would never have managed it I am afraid.  He was a forward coach with very near to zero knowing about backline play. 

That was why he was fi red by the Sharks in 2014.

Moz said : World cup final 2011 won on defense, no tries scored.

No you are wrong! NZ got 8 and France 7...how do you get these scores with no tries scored...LOL.

What a load of BS again.   You counter-ruck with pl ayers arriving to late to do that.   What a load of crap in duplicate.  

Sure thing - we scored more tries in 2018 and 2019 than in 2012 and 2015,   Without both components - ie in both attack and defense - victory in games is in the end not possible.   

Mozart has always underrated scoring of tries as a means of winning tests,  He even stated that 90% of the functioning of flyhalfs entails kicking at goals and out-of-hand kicking,   He never recognized that there are kicking that are strategic and accurate - as against aimless and inaccurate kicking which represents possession handovers only,   He in fact recently wrote there is no such thing as poor kicks.

There is one thing that goes missing in the debate on the issue,   On any sport their is a code and reason for the existence of the respective codes of sport.   In for instance cricket the objective is to score runs - and at he same time try and reduce the opposition to less runs than you scored - a case of both attack and defense,  In rugby the main objective of the game is scoring of tries and preventing the opposition in scoring same.  To rely only on defense and kicking at goal is ultimately deficient as a means of winning trophies.   I am not saying it does not happen that minimal numbers of tries are scored an victory is solely dependent on the scoring of tries,

There is just one major difference and that is that through the years the importance of scoring tries compared to kicking at goal increased,   Originally a try was worth 1 point and a conversion added 3 points to it.  Through the years it changed -

*   through making tries count 3 and conversions 2 points - ie two goal kicks was worth more than 1 try being scored; and later

*   through making tries count 4 points and conversions 2 points - ie the exact equivalent of two kicks at goal; and at present

*    through making tries count 5 points and conversions 2 points - ie the need to better that is now three kicks at goal.  

Not to admit that as a change in the game is foolhardy and one must accept that a balancd all round gamer plan is what is required,                               

There was very few aimless kicks and the backline was in fact used for attacking purposes as well.

Our kicking is still poor. We almost lost on Saturday thanks to yet another poorly directed box kick, saved only by the obstruction ruling.

Looking at stats against NZ:

Rassie era:

Wellington 2019 we kicked 30 times and made 237 meters.
Pretoria 2018 we kicked 20 times and made 387 meters.
Wellington 2018 kicked 18 times and made 258 meters.

Meyer era:

JHB 2015 we kicked 20 times and made 436 meters.
Wellington 2014 we kicked 28 times and made 282 meters.
JHB 2014 we kicked 18 times and made 420 meters.
Auckland 2013 we kicked 26 times and made 293 meters.
JHB 2013 we kicked 20 times and made 722 meters.

We're not kicking less, and if you want to make a case for the kicking being better now (less aimless) you're going to have to compare a number of games from both eras to show that we now get more possession back from our kicks, or more positive results. Personally, I don't see it. Most of our kicks now are still straight possession surrenders because they're either too deep or we don't chase effectively and we don't dominate in the air.

I've been monitoring these kicks. They aren't good. There are more shallow off target box kicks than any other time I've been watching the Boks. When we do have a nice kick we seldom win it back as we don't have aerially dominant players. We don't have 9s with great scum half skills, and it's Rassie who is persisting with this. The trend has changed since the EOYT, we kicked a lot of ball right up to the opposition red zone last season. Our attack is a clunky mess. We have conceded more tries as a result of aimless kicking through the Rassie era. It's a fools errand to defend kicking under Rassie. 

In the meantime.

Pakie

There are two things about rugby that always baffled me.  It was the myth about the traditional SA rugby needs to be played,   That was to my mind put to rest by a story that Jean de Villiers told himself.  When he was a kid - he and his brother used to kick a rugby ball around at home.   One day that great center Gainsford visiting his parents saw it and said to them - that is not playing rugby - the game is to keep possession and not what they were playing at.   There is no such thing as Traditional SA Rugby.

Nobody ever said kicking is not part of the game - it is inevitably part of the game.  However, the question mark is the QUALITY of the kicking game.  I am here stating that unfortunately there never was enough attention given by previous coaches as to reading of the game by the half-backs and option taking as well as the quality of kicking,   

Under all coaches since 2008 this aspect was totally ignored.   Kicks were judged  on the length of kicks made and the result was that is was rarely a proposition of effective kicking putting recipients  under pressure,   As a result in the main the kicks was possession handover mechanisms in the Meyer and Coetzee era's.   It gave the opposition acres of space to start counter-attacks 

The real problem with Morne at flyhalf were the predictability and quality of kicking.  Now where is the catch in all of this?   After all the Springboks are kicking more now than they did before,  Well - the answer is that although there are mistakes made in individual cases like Pakie referred to - those mistakes are few and far between.   In virtually all cases the kicks are made to allow for effective follow-up and prevention of the possession gain resulting in dangerous counter-attacks - like the case was under Meyer and Coetzee - recipients are often under pressure when getting the ball and has very little space to counter\attack or even deal with retention of the ball.   When under pressure even the top catchers make mistakes.    

I think there is still too much emphasis on box kicking - because in essence predictability in rugby breeds contempt.   However, there is now emphasis on accuracy and effectiveness as part of the process as against the aimless and poor quality kicking of the past.                        

Duplicate

I quickly ran through the All Black game this year to check the result of our kicks. This is a rudimentary analysis, granted, I don't have time to go in depth, but it gives an idea as to the type of results we get from our kicks. Basically I award a plus if something positive happens from the kick (even if it just finds touch) and a minus if we simply surrender possession or territory. I'll see if I have a game on file from the Meyer era to go through for comparison.

For box kicks the result was 6 losses, 2 gains. Clearly this tactic wasn't working for us against the ABs, and I doubt it's much different in other games.

Quick results:

First Half: 7 minus, 9 plus
Second Half: 10 minus, 2 plus

Total: 17 minus, 11 plus

If we award parity to three well placed contestable kicks which we lost in the contest, it becomes 14 minus, 11 plus and 3 parity.

Breakdown:

First half

2:37 shallow box kick, possession lost -
3:53 wobbly kick Faf straight to Smith who returns deep -
4:04 Pollard gathers, kicks deep, Barrett returns with interest - small territory loss -
5:03 Faf kick from open play from halfway, ball goes in-goal and dotted down - territory gain +
5:50 Pollard up and under from halfway, well placed but Le Roux beaten in the air by Barrett - possession loss -
10:02 box kick Faf, Mostert gathers - 10m territory gain +
10:24 box kick Faf, way too deep, Barrett gathers and runs back - possession loss + AB penalty from ruck -
17:01 Kolbe with Faf on his inside kicks ahead - possession loss -
18:06 Le Roux chip on 22, goes dead in-goal, possession loss -
23:28 Kwagga kicks ahead on possession turnover in 22, good bounce gathered by Mostert chasing - territory gain +
23:41 Pollard attacking kick into AB 22, Damian & Goodhue competes, both unable to gather, konck AB - territory gain +
25:38 De Klerk grubber through on attack, possession loss but Boks had penalty advantage
27:25 - Le Roux gathers and kicks for touch - territory gain +
32:01 box kick De Klerk, Kolbe gathers - territory gain +
33:37 Pollard chip ahead - can't gather but touch and territory gain +
35:27 Faf crossfield kick from turnover possession - AB under pressure but possession loss +
35:47 Am kick though the line - territory gain +

Second half

40:13 Faf box kick, Mo'unga beats Kolbe in the air, possession loss -
41:21 Le Roux clearance, straight to Mo'unga, possession loss -
43:24 box kick Faf, Mo'unga secures uncontested in air - possession loss -
49:54 Pollard up and under, well placed, ABs gather - possession loss -
51:24 Pollard kick pass directly into touch - possession loss -
56:29 Steyn clearance from 22, not out, possession loss -
57:02 Jantjies box kick, too deep, Mo'unga fails to gather cleanly but Abs get it anyway - possession loss -
61:24 Jantjies box kick, too deep, Barrett gathers in the air - possession loss -
62:45 turnover possession, Le Roux chips straight into touch - possession loss -
67:03 Le Roux clearance inside 22, touch - territory gain +
68:00 Le Roux hoists deep, Barrett gathers, AB counter deep into Bok territory - possession loss -
79:06 Kolbe chip, try scored +

Your description is as narrow and shallow as per normal.   A kick recipient under pressure is the key.   There is nothing much the recipient can do - even if his team retains possession.   So what your minuses entails is probably 70% plusses - since the interpretation is not realistic and a concoction like you did with the Steyn evaluation the other day,

I said there were a few poor kicks made - but never near to the rubbish we were used to in the past,  Of the above 29 kicks I would rate that -

*   Faf made about 4 poor kicks;

*   Pollard made 1 and

*   Steyn made 1.  

 .       

So what your minuses entails is probably 70% plusses

Not even close.

Sure, let's put contestable kicks down as a positive regardless of the outcome . Then we get to 14 - 14. I will apply the same criteria when I analyze Meyer then.

Retention of the ball by the team of the recipient is not always a negative - it contains the conditions pertaining to the kick and the resultant pressure on the recipient that counts more than anything else.   However, to condemn a kick where the recipient was under pressure is mostly  a negative for the team of the recipient.

Read elsewhere what I said about the issue,       

"Retention of the ball by the team of the recipient is not always a negative - it contains the conditions pertaining to the kick and the resultant pressure on the recipient that counts more than anything else."

Back to the Folau BS myth,  I can remember now Kirchner is a netter full back than Folau.  Lets see the stats for a difference:-

Hell Folau never kicked a ball that game - neither did Kirchner.   Look at he ball carries, defenders beaten and off=loads and even though Kirchner score a try he was no way better than Folau in that game.      But then we have idiots who claim that Kirchner is a better FB than  Folau,   Happy Idiots D ay to you.

Folau was the better player in the 2013 Brisbane encounter? 

"League convert Folau endured a mixed first appearance in the Wallabies' No.15 jersey in the 38-12 loss to South Africa on Saturday night, as he was well contained by the Springboks and too often ignored by teammates."

Folau was expected to add an extra dimension to the Wallabies' attack but admitted the transition from Super Rugby, where he starred with NSW Waratahs, was huge. He turned the ball over at the ruck with his first run and also gave a penalty away later in the first half from a kick-return which gave the Boks a 16-6 lead.

"It's a tough level and it's a very big step up from playing Super Rugby," he said. "I'd like to get my hands on the ball more and make something of it. Last night there were times that it happened but I think I can do a better job."

http://en.espn.co.uk/australia/rugby/story/197735.html

What now - you refer to the 2014 match in Perth.   If I were you I would keep away from that match as far as possible.  

Notice how Lügnerin attempts divert the topic from his gaff on what defines a good kick. He contradicts a prior post by expressing an opinion he said was stupid last year. Hilarious. Caught in your own trap. 

No diverting topics at all,   you were the one who brought up your idiocy supreme side about Folau.  

This was your reply to Pakie, in defence of poor kicks: 

"Retention of the ball by the team of the recipient is not always a negative - it contains the conditions pertaining to the kick and the resultant pressure on the recipient that counts more than anything else."

I merely posted what you had to say last year. Now we find you break your own golden rules on good kicking. Have a nice day. 

I have been clear al along,  Kicks must be strategic and put the recipient under pressure.   That remains the norm.   The team may end up recovering the ball 0 \but will have lost territory and must attack afresh from further out.

Now for the catch,  The kicking is not perfect as I pointed out in especially the case of Faf.   Bit the fact is that donkey kicks which could not effectively be followed up leads  to the kickers team  being  under pressure.        

Mozart

If defense is the only thing that improved - how do you account for the much higher number of tries scored by the Springboks 2019 in the RC than in 2015?

The answer is simple - it was through better attacking play.   There must always be a balance in the team as well as a balance in the game plan..   Without that balance  and eliminating repetitiveness  no team can play and hope to be successful,    

Mozart

If defense is the only thing that improved - how do you account for the much higher number of tries scored by the Springboks 2019 in the RC than in 2015?

The answer is simple - it was through better attacking play.   There must always be a balance in the team as well as a balance in the game plan..   Without that balance  and eliminating repetitiveness  no team can play and hope to be successful,    

Humble apologies Mr Mozart...no you did not state that but it did seem that you agreed with Mr Bright in overall context...the fact that he stated that no tries scored was totally untrue, both France and NZ scored a try and in a final tries do tend to be rare and valuable. No it was not very bright, haha.

Rugby does change...clever teams are not staid, in fact each game is different.

If you play rugby like the old Redcoats fought against the SA Boer guerillas all lined up and sitting ducks...each game must be unique and different tactics...maybe the WC will hi-light this.

Yes general patterns are there but strategies are up to catch opposition by surprise...

It is not a case of defense or attack but both...balanced rugby works best overall.

If you like that's very old Springbok rugby...the days when we competed with the great AB teams. The rules were different but the game was balanced.

I'm not too sure if were are moving in that direction but so far so good...it looks a lot better than Heyneke Meyer's last days ...WC here we come.

Lügnerin, how many different ways can I say this before you grasp it? Something is definitely not right if you genuinely can't understand what I am about to say.

First and foremost, the Boks played stronger opposition in 2015. Australia had the best attack in world rugby, and we played them at our third worst venue. Think about that. We then played the eventual champions. Consider too thr bloated attack numbers post 2015. Are you following any of this? 

So the 2015 rugby team losing all three matches in the RC are better performers than the tournament winners in 2019.   One has to accept that you are as per normal talking twisted garbage.   Happy Idiots Day to you.

How do you get that Argentia beat us in Durban for the first time winning a match in the RC in SA,   How do you get that one twisto?   Were they a better team than they were in 2015 too?   No - because you are talking KAK as per normal.  Happy Idiots Day to you again!!!!

You mak e sweepings statements which  is difficult to prove and then come up with stats obviously not correct at all to support it.  Happy idiots Day to you a third time!!!!!

LMAO    

Duplication

No Mr Idiot

The Jaguares was in the final of Super Rugby this year and nowhere in sight in 2015   The Argentine team is largely made up of Jaguars players    Start thinking BSer before you write garbage on site.

This is getting more hilarious by the minute - what next LMAO, 

It is so easy to identify where AO us ever right because there is evidence to prove he is always wrong!!!!   LMAO        

So, super rugby performance supersedes the performance of the rugby championship, when discussing the rugby championship. Interesting. Double the tries Lügnerin. Not only that, better tackle percentages, the second best lineout in the competition with significantly higher percentages than 2019 and a better scrum. 

I agree, this is getting very hilarious to say the least. 

Now, before you spit your dummy at the screen (again), do tell me how and why our RC rivals are better this year. Show me something tangible. 

Oldest Meyer game I have on file is Wales 2013. I am applying Mike's chosen criteria that any contestable kick is positive regardless of outcome, and likewise I will score any uncontestable kick negative regardless of outcome (there are examples of both in this game, where contestable kicks turn out bad and bad kicks turn out good). So it's about the accuracy of the kick, not what results from the kick. I did not factor in free kicks from marks, which all went to touch.

First half - 8 plus, 4 minus
Second half - 11 plus, 4 minus, 1 parity (drop)

Total: 19 plus, 8 minus, 1 parity

00:13 Morne touch +
03:11 Lambie hoist contestable & ruck penalty +
05:24 Morne touch +
06:02 DuP box kick uncontested possession loss -
18:08 Lambie touch +
24:59 Dup hoist uncontestable Wales knock -
28:25 Dup hoist, contestable, catcher tackled +
34:54 Le Roux hoist, contestable, catchers miss, bounce favors Wales +
35:54 Dup hoist, too deep, marked by Wales -
36:09 Dup hoist, contestable, Wales recover under pressure +
37:47 Dup box kick, too deep -
39:15 Lambie hoist, contestable, North beats Fourie in the air +

43:52 Dup touch +
44:32 Lambie too deep -
44:47 Dup box kick too deep -
45:03 Dup catch and kick, too deep -
45:14 Le Roux kick for corner, Wales driven back under pressure +
55:47 Le Roux hoist, catcher tackled immediately +
59:58 Lambie drop, miss =
63:50 Le Roux hoist, contestable, retain possession +
64:00 Dup kick down touchline, Fourie flips ball to Dup, Boks score +
65:58 Dup box kick, contestable, Wales tackled into touch +
68:00 Lambie cross kick, contestable, Boks knock +
69:54 Dup box kick, contestable, Hook wins the air battle +
70:25 Lambie cross kick, accurate but two Boks collide, Wales possession + 
74:20 Le Roux kick deep, touch +
76:54 Lambie hoist, contestable, knock on Wales scrum +
77:45 Habana attacking chip, straight to Wales -

The least effective kicks were three box kicks from Du Preez and three deep kicks downfield during a ping pong sequence early in the second half. Apart from that the kicking was generally accurate. Just like the weakness we are suffering now, we were mostly beaten in the air by the Welsh.

About the same time prior to 2015 RWC a poster in the Roar, Lindsay Amner posted this article.

How much does a country's characteristics influence their rugby style?

I thought it was very insightful, yeah it had it's critics but generally it was a valid point.

Some of the comments were very apt too.

It is interesting to note that our number one opponent NZ played more conventional rugby prior to 1987...it was John Hart that changed that.

Another point of interest was that in the apartheid days very few Maori's played against SA and it appears that it is a fact that they play a more open running game...not arm wrestle rugby.

Tactics do change however and yes I don't like 10 man rugby (if you can call it that) and yes it does work occassionally, even France has used it effectively (probably because it was used unexpectively and contrary to their normal style).

To have the same pattern over and over again does not work. SA must play the balanced game and it must drilled into the youngsters at school rugby level.

NZ schools teach their boys this type of rugby and I believe it is why they dominate when senior level is reached.

What are the Kiwi answers to this...is this true?

Meyer actually pressed SARU to implement that. All to no avail. Not only that, but New Zealanders teach their players to read play. We have pros like Damian who can't. 

This is a cultural thing. Trying to override cultural tendencies is never easy. It can be adapted, but the underlying mentality will always be there.