Stormers fail Defence 101

Yes the ref made some poor calls.....but.....the Stormers defence was simply out of it's depth. One move to the right, followed by one move to the left seemed to a;ways result in Saders overlaps. The defence was not organized....point number one. . Point number two the players missed easy tackles Duvenage on the one try.....Viljoen gassed horribly on the outside for another. . Then finally there is the matter of line speed. When the Saders defence is moving faster than our attacking line, and they make the first tackle....only bad things can happen. The Stormers by contrast trot up to the line. . And there are too many defensive passengers....Viljoen missed 3 tackles, Basson missed 4, Carr missed 4, Stephanie missed 3, Bongi missed 5......unacceptable. And if Notche is picked to play a roving role and makes only 8 of 10 tackle attempts, he is not showing enough intensity. . We may think we are improving our teams with a bit more offloading....but our defence has gone backwards and defence will be a far bigger factor, come test time.

 SA teams have to play NZ teams more IMO this would also benefit the Boks.

Yep we were far more prepared under the old one pool format.....our teams regress playing each other.

Less local derbies will make the Curry Cup better. The Bulls Cheetas game was pathetic- on par with the Sharks dismal effort. The Stormers were taken to the cleaners- and following their loss to the Lions- are suddenly looking more like 2016 edition. The Chiefs are clearly not in the league of the Crusaders this year. 
What a toothless Sharks team. 

  SA teams have to play NZ teams more IMO this would also benefit the Boks.


So unlikely.
The current situation is highly benefitial to NZ. Others benefit much less (if they actually benefit)

First: NZ has kept progressing. Since the professional era, the gap between NZ and the other nations has kept increasing.
NZ rugby progression has not been achieved by playing with better than themselves (they have been the best) It was exclusively achieved despite worse than themselves.


Second: NZ regular game partners have known a sharp decline.
AU and SA are both on the brink.
AU is now on par with or inferior to NH main rugby nations (aside from France)
SA is now on par with or inferior to NH rugby nations.


Third: EN rubgy rebirth has been happening by avoiding to play NZ. They kept themselves aside and built themselves up. It would not have been possible by playing NZ year in year out.
EN will now use the lions team as a proxy, a test subject to experiment certain ideas against NZ game, in the doing, without harming the EN squad.

So Fleck gets it half right.....he says the Saders offloading game was too good, but then credits their defensive line speed. The truth was the Saders simply exploited the extra man as the Stormers failed to maintain defensive alignment.....the last pass was almost always a conventional pass to the unmarked man outside. The line speed was also way below that of the Saders. That was the hallmark of SA defence in the glory days.....real line speed. .... This from Fleck: ... "We are going to be better [from the defeat] because the second half performance gave us plenty of positives to take - we were better on attack and defence. We can't look that much into the first half as the Crusaders were just too good for us. "We struggled to stop their momentum, their offload game was outstanding. Once they got the roll on us, it was tough to stop them. They were putting us under pressure at the breakdown in the first half and defence was a big issue for us. Regardless of what the score was going into the shed [half-time], it was a better performance from us in the second half. "I think that we stuck to our plan and the players relaxed a lot more when we grabbed that first try, which led to us playing a lot better," Fleck said. Fleck paid credit to the Crusaders' defensive improvements. "One thing about them [Crusaders] is that their defensive system has changed. Their line speed is outstanding and that had us on the back foot, especially in the first half. They have made huge strides as a team," he added. The coach believes the defeat will stand the Stormers in good stead as they head into their second tour match - against the Highlanders in Dunedin. "We always knew it was going to be a tough tour for us as this is a young group with only about three players who played in Christchurch before. "This tour is about us finding each other again against tough teams in tough conditions. We want to play against the Kiwi sides who are the best in the competition. If we feel like we can learn from every performance, then it will stand us in good stead going forward."

 Mozart
I am not sure why you mention the missed tackles without indicating the number of tackles made by the players mentioned.   That could put the matter in clearer perspective.

Okay Viljoen made 66% of his tackles . Basson made 57% of his tackles . Bongi made 70% of his tackles . Stephanie made 83% of his tackles, which raises his average for the year . Etzebeth and Chris van Zyl made 100% of their tackles . Notshe made 80% of his tackles . Dan Kriel, true to family tradition made 54% of his tackles.

 I think part of the problem was the early replacement of Du Plessis through injury.   Dan Kriel was a bad buy for the Stormers - Kriel is not a good enough player to play on Super Rugby level.   Then we have the Stormers loosie combination - a poor lot by any stretch of imagination.  
How they could have let Cloete go to the Kings is one example of poor decision-making by the Stormers - at least he is a good open-sider - which neither of the Stormers loosies were thus far in the tournament.  
Incidentally Etzebeth and Van Zyl combined made just 2 more tackles than Du Toit did   - so I would not over-credit them for their defensive displays.  
Must agree with you about the referee - to my mind he was just too poor to be reffing games on Super Rugby level.   Fact is the ref was blind as to off-side play by the Crusaders and often enough penalized the wrong team the wrong team for transgressions.    I can remember one incident clearly where Read took up the position of the Stormers scrummie at a breakdown ball situation and he got away with it.    

           

 
The Stormers have been made out by many as the South African team to beat.

We're to keep an eye on them this year. Fleck has his thumb on the pulse and they're moving forward to bigger and better things ... apparently.

Yet what I see is a replica of the previous weekend's play. They don't seem to be learning anything. Same mistakes, same game plan, same weaknesses expoilted.

Are they being coached? Sure doesn't look like it.

Perhaps I'm being a little harsh ... the Crusaders are playing some awesome rugby.

It's just that they look so much better than they are by a team producing rubbish like that.

Goes to show ... not every rugby player knows how to coach. To think they turned Mitchell down for this chump.

 

 When you have a ref who does not apply the laws all comments must be seen in that light.Dr Mozzzz lauds Crusaders line speed. However how about the offsides law. You cant play against a bent down under ref. End of story.

wee cc don't criticize what you cant understand. Fleck did a good job of pulling the Stormers right in the second half . But for two very unfortunate intercept tries the scoreline would have ended close. 

 
Oh please, Pu$syWhipped ... you have a thousand excuses ... none of them valid.

Fleck is an arse!! He knows nothing of coaching a side and that's very much evident by the hidings they've received of late.

He was a sub standard rugby player in his day and he's even worse as a coach. Time to pull your head out your arse, Pu$syWhipped. See it for what it is. Not for what your delusional mind wants it to be.

DumbAss!!

Wehe, listen to Baboon-ou still trying to pretend that his precious Stompies nancy-boys weren't turned into blushing prison-brides by the Crusaders!

LMAO!

Come on Highlanders!

 Wehe oh how sweet!  ickle turncoat rooitwittie is amused!Listen you half baked two morons, Fleck turned things around at half time in a big way. If you cant see that you are plain stupid which of course is a sad fact. Time we had a section for mamparas.

 
Yeah we saw. He did a great job.

Last week it was 4 trys to 1 ... this weeks its 8 tries to 3.

That's 12 tries against your incredible coach in a mere 2 matches.

Wow!!!!!!!!!!! What coaching skills, Fleck has. He's a natural alright.

I wonder when he'll get his Bok call up?

 I a not saying the Stormers should have won the game or came anywhere near winning the game.   However, at least three Crusader tries stemmed from wrong decisions by the referee.   That was even admitted by the commentators on the match.  
The one glaring exa mple was when Read - not at all involved in the tackle situation arrived on the scene late and took up the position normally occupied by the scrummie of the Stormers.   The ball came out of the maul and Read picked it up in what is essentially an off-side position.   The referee however, awarded a penalty to the Crusaders instead of penalizing the Crusaders.  
There was a number of other weird decisions specifically dealt with by the commentators and I think the referee would be read the riot act by the Supervising Panel.   He was just too poor.
However, the Crusaders were the better team on the day and they would have won anyway.   The weakness in the Stormers team was the loosies - even though Du Toit under trying circumstances did well enough.   The other two were nowhere in sight.   The early injury of Du Plessis destroyed the Stormers backline and Kriel caused major problems - causing at least two intercept tries to be scored.     
 

Duplication



 

 "One move to the right, followed by one move to the left seemed to a;ways result in Saders overlaps."

It's just a jump to the left.

And then a step to the right.

With your hands on your hips.

Y ou bring you knees in tight.
But it's the pelvic thrust...
That really drives you insane

Let's do the Time Warp again.
Let's do the Time Warp again.

Since Neinaber left the Stormers, their defence has fallen apart. This used to be the only good thing about the Stormers.
They need Delande back ASAP.  The other guy has injured himself, (van something)It is desperation in the midfield- where they may even need to call up Dan Kriel- a one trick d onkey. 

"They need Delande back ASAP." 
Really? He is an expert in doing the Time Warp moves. 

 Now the warped mind thinks that De Allende is to blame for the poor defense on Saturday?

 Now the warped mind thinks that De Allende is to blame for the poor defense on Saturday?

 
And De Allende is known for his solid defence, right?

He knows how to put defensive structures in place ... how to make good decisions ... AND ... I'm told that after a medical examination he was found to actually have a brain ... the doc is confident that with a lot of hard work he should be able to use a small portion of it before the coming French tour.

So yeah ... bring De Allende back as soon as possible. He's your man.

Their is 2 different propositions:
1. Delande - with a back-line coach (and team mates that understand the backline coach). 
2. Delande - without a backline coach  (A revolving cart horse. )

@OuMaaikie. You posted your kak remark twice. I have read what I have posted five times......... each...... and nowhere could I find the spot where I blamed De Allende for the Stormers' defensive woes on Saturday.

 Great play by the Crusaders, felt that they were helped a bit by the ref in the first 20 min by not blowing attacking players for holding onto the ball. It really knocked the momentum out of the Stormers considering they had most of the possession in the first 10 min. 
The Crusaders played direct rugby with clever interplay and neat angles. The stormers were simply at 6' and 7s. They could just not handle the pace.
They struggle to breach the defence and I also believe that their back 3 let them down. 
Notche and Car are simply currie cup players and no more. They are good when their packs has momentum but Notche did a disappearing act in the last 2 games. 
Car is not a ball carrier and either gets turned over or loses the ball.
Both PSDT and Etzebeth got knocked back every time they got the ball. The crusaders did their homework and knew that they were the primary ball cariers and came up really quick knowing that they would receive it. The stormers would have been better using them as decoys and maybe bring in Kolbe up in the line more often to get behind the defence and then pass it on to Etzebeth to draw players in followed by quick ruck and getting it wide. 
Lets hope the stormers can pick themselves up. Not looking great at the moment

Nice post Corn.....the thing I don't get about a player like Notsche is why he isn't a factor in open field tackling. We know he isn't going to be a factor in the tight stuff, know he isn't an effective fetcher....why don't we ever see him hunting down a centre? . As things stand all he can do is run in space....and that happens about every fourth game.

 Ceradunce
I was just trying to get some sense into a completely deluded mind.   How in heaven could a backline player function properly with Meyer and Coetzee as coaches and a collection of sh!t flyhalfs to contend with.
Just look at the ESPN stats for the semi-final against the AB's in 2015:-
SHdu Preez0/0013/50/7150000 3/10/000/0
FHPollard0/01512/6/3211101 11/50/000/0
Cde Allende0/000/1/8281202 8/20/000/0
So lets evaluate the above stats.   Of the  19 balls handled by Pollard 5 was from collecting of kicks by the AB's - so he got 16 balls from Du Preez - who passed the ball 50 times.   Pollard passed the ball 6 times and De Allende handled the ball 9 times.  So even if Pollard passed the ball 6 times to him - there are 3 unaccounted balls received from him.   According to Pakie Du Preez (1) and Burger (2) made 3 hospital passes to him.
Why did Du Preez pass less than one-third of the balls to the flyhalf and how does that affect backline play?   Let me be blunt - it destroyed backline play in all games Meyer managed - the above info was as an example of what backlines under Meyer produced. 
In the tests in 2016 the selection of Jantjies and Morne was another death knell for backline play.  
   
 

 Duplication - cannot get the stats out.


SHdu Preez0/0013/50/7150000 3/10/000/0
FHPollard0/01512/6/3211101 11/50/000/0
Cde Allende0/000/1/8281202 8/20/000/0



   
 

M NonuC 2. 6 11 44 1 4 0 0 . D CarterFH 17 31 7 21 0 2 0 0 . A SmithSH 10 85 6 7 0 0 1 0 . From the same game Mike...Smith passed the ball 85 times, but Carter only had 55 possessions. Who else did Smith pass to but forwards. . Carter passed the ball 31 times, but Nonu only got possesseion 19 times....no doubt from sources other than Carter as well. The fact is Allende got a higher percentage of balls from his flyhalf than Nonu did. . I don't think these stats prove much, except that NZ had a great deal more possession than we did.

 Mozart
Unfortunately it is not the percentage that count in this case - since the number of balls received by Pollard and De Allende was so much lower than the balls handled by the AB backline compared to the number of balls Du Preez passed to the backline which was far too low compared to the number of balls kicked away or passed to forwards.      
Fact is the AB''s used the ball better - but Meyer decided on dead rugby backline play with du Preez being the key and it counted in favour of the AB's,
   

  

 Duplication


   

  

Have to disagree. If we opened up the game, the ABs would have thrived on it......our best shot was to keep it tight, hope for turnover ball and penalties. It worked pretty well and we had a shot at winning the game, which is more than you could say for Oz in the final who tried to match the NZ open game. . The strategy failed in part because we only made 85% of our tackles.....NZ made 96%. If we had pushed our tackle percentage up closer to 90% odds are we would have won. For example Lomp makes his tackle on Kaino....we restrict that NZ possession to a penalty vs a try and you have four crucial points.

Ag Ou Sopdoos. You are so fecking thick that you haven't even noticed that I was actually taking the piss at Moz' opening post. I'm sure Moz noticed it and probably a few others. It was just you who were immediately hellbent an putting your sorry ass stamp on the proceedings again. Nothing to do with anybody who deserved to have their meaningless little string of ESPN "stats" being pulled out again in an effort to prove exactly f@kol. It has to be fecking hard to be such a miserable humourless sorry excuse of a piece of work.

I noticed that Vlag but the dance I was really describing was the Hokey Pokey!

 Hokey Pokey...... Geez, now you really want to confuse the old plonker. 

 Listen dofdoos - you have no idea of rugby so go to where dunces normally go,   Sit in the corner where you belong.  

 Mozart
I am afraid that game plan used in the game under discussion could and would never work in present-day rugby.   the only way at present is to vary the game and not be utterly predictable like the Springboks played that day.
The day a flyhalf kicked the ball more than he passed or carried balls himself meant that you have a situation where the opposing defenders have an easy time to organize their own defenses, with a result that you never really play any format of an attacking game.  To then hope that penalties could win the game is a hopeless scenario.
   
  

 
Yeah ... go google something, Dunce.

I'm sure we'll all believe that it's your own thoughts. Now pi$$ off.


To be predictable is disasterous. If your opponent reads you without much effort you're in for a torrid time ... and if you're known to follow the same predictable game plan match in, match out ... it gives them ample time to plot your demise.

It's so obvious.

You have to have a flyhalf that keeps them guessing ... and varying his play with an assortment of tactics opens up many positive options in the match ... and it keeps the opponents unsure of what to expect next ... which puts pressure on their defensive game plan.

The first sign of no confidence is when everything goes to boot.

Might as well raise the white flag before the whistle sounds.