Stormers lack of try(s) this season - are they really contenders?

These points were brought to my attention via another article -

*Only the bottom-placed Lions have scored fewer tries in 2012 and yet the Stormers are second on the overall ladder.

 *The fact that they’ve conceded the least amount of tries is the reason why they are still in with a shot of winning the title.

*But, surely, they have to come up with more five-pointers at the business-end of the season.

It would appear Stormers cant create smooth backline plays that lead to 5pointers - I would have to agree with the article - Stormers need to start scoring tries or cant realistically be in contention.

The only difference between the Stormers of the mid 00s and now is Nienaber. He has done great work on their defensive patterns and that has been effective in stifling the more structureless style of the modern Super rugby game. A solid defence will always get you very far, but a more effective counter attack would be very useful. This comes in part down to personnel and the lack of a good backline coach. Much to my surprise, the Stormers actually seemed better with de Jongh at 12 and Fourie at 13, though I do not believe de Jongh to be a quality 12.

I still reckon the Stormers lack of 5 try bonus points is gonna cost them the trophy this year.

nonsense, stormers are one of the big players for title contenders, their losses were to the sharks and the crusaders, both top 6 teams and both away, no shame in that what so ever.

all out attack is also over rated as the hurricanes have scored 2 more bonus points then the the sharks who are 2nd over all for 4 try bonus points, yet the hurricanes sit 9th.

a balanced game on attack and defense is the right combination and this is where the chiefs come up trumps against everyone, but the stormers ability to not let games get ahead of them and grants boot to back their plays, means they will always be a threat to everybody, especially in newlands.

The Chiefs have several key weaknesses that have already been highlighted. They cannot play a tactical game and are suspect in the set pieces. If you hold firm on your inner channels and push out on the outer channels they struggle to make any momentum and start shifting the ball aimlessly back to the middle and start getting flustered. They are by no means a well rounded or balanced side.

That said, back to the Stormers. The Stormers have won many a game over the last three seasons by sheer fortuity than most would admit. Being able to claw away wins is an admirable quality, but you do not want to rely exclusively on defence to hold the score down so your lack of attacking prowess can be masked. Already fro the Sharks game it is evident that their defence is taking it's toll on the team as they were completely unable to physically handle was is in actual fact a rather ordinary and definitely inferior team. Have we not learnt fro the Boks that over-reliance on defence wears you down much quicker throughout the season? There is also the another factor. Stagnation. Where have this side really improved over the last two years? You need to stay ahead of the curve and keep developing. If the Stormers do not sort out their deficiencies this era will be remember as the 'what if' generation.
 

Astrokat, mate the Chiefs scored a brilliant try from a set piece against the Bulls did they not, Your spiel sounds like alot of generalising without any specific evidence to me buddy. The Chiefs are the most balanced side with great attacking backs and a solid forward pack. Thats why they're top of the table my friend .

Scored A try OFF a set piece? You clearly did not read what I said and/or didn't understand it. Please talk to me about their tactical kicking game. Clearly you consider a team heavily geared to running the ball as multi-faceted, unfortunately, this is a common Australaisian misconception. But you seem too hard headed to consider the facts. As per me generalising? I definitely consider myself to be the most researched person on here who produces by far the most evidence and definitive references and facts. Keep that in mind before you eagerly put both feet in your mouth.

sasukeuchiha, this is a delayed reply, but I just have to say, In your post you say that the key is balance, but the Stormers have no balance because they have an impotent attack. How can you call them "one of the big players for title contenders", when they are quite clearly one of the most unbalanced sides in the tournament? No need for me to argue with you, because you are already arguing with yourself.

BlueBok, that's one of his many contradictions.

@bluebok,

stormers are one of the big players for title contenders, this is not debatable, how else do u sit at No2 with only 4 rnds remaining??? the purpose of that comment was to argue the merits of questioning wether they were in contention for the title. so it wasnt a contradiction and im surprised that i needed to explain this, to bloggers who love themselves for their two greek euros worth of knowledge.

however, despite the stormers being one of handful of teams that can win the spXV, IMO, the chiefs are the odds on favourtie to win the spXV, because they have the most balanced  system in place as well as the best squad.
chiefs have the 4th best attack in the competiton and the 2nd best defense, and their meltdown against the reds was the first time they comceded 4 trys. not bad conisdering it was the redsnear strength in suncorp, but it was worrying that the let the game get away from them, especially as it was the reds forwards who did the damage, but every team can only strive for successful continuity, but it dosent mean that u will get it.

the only thing i can see which will give them a lot of trouble is playing either the stormers in newlands or the bulls in loftus.
 

sasu I am not arguing about the Stormers credibility as title contenders, I agree they are still sitting relatively pretty. My point is simply this, if the most balanced side, The Chiefs, are only 3 points ahead of the least balanced side , The Stormers (which basically means the two teams are euqals) then the whole balance argument is flawed.

i see what ur saying, but the point i was trying to make is this, the chiefs ability to attack and defend, is a better plan then the stormers ability to defend and grind out wins.
even though their are only 3pts that seperate the stormers and chiefs as they have both won 12 out of 14 games, they are not equall, cos the four 4try bonus pts that the chiefs have, compared to stormers zero 4try bonus points, has the chiefs at No1 and the stormers at No2.
if the finals was this weekend and the chiefs and stormers both win their semifinals match the following week, the stormers would have to travel to NZ, because of thoae 3 pnts. thats is why IMO the chiefs are more balanced.

also, i never said the stormers were the least balanced, cos i believe their defense first mentalitiy is their unique style and the key strengthsrequired to play that way has been groomed for most of the season. to try to adopt a new style in the bottom end of the season will be detrimental to their cause and they should stick to it, cos it is a winning formula, despite the sharks hic cup last week.
 

For me - Bulls and Sharks are the two SA teams with true chance to win this comp - I just think that quality sides will be able to create space and score too many points v Stormers - will never be easy v their defense but in the march to playoffs I think any one of about 4 teams have wood over Stromers.

That said - I think Cheifs have significant deficiencies too - great with the ball in hand but if possession is restricted they lose focus and will let soft points through. This is a characteristic of their style of game and quite often follows the teams with high-mix of polynesian decent players.

On that though I would place cheifs ahead of stormers to win S15 this year.

Astrokat if you yarpies are hell bent on kicking the ball away then that just makes our job easier. What's wrong with your outside backs . Can't they run the ball or something. Go away and do abit more research on why the Chiefs have been so successful and get back to me buddy.

Actually, New Zealanders and Aussies are the sides more reliant on kicking, and they even lead the way with te most pick-and-drives too, with Adrian Strauss (11th) and Derick Minnie (16th) being the only Saffers on the top 20! South Africans have nothing to be ashamed of ball in hand.

More generalising about kiwis and aussies i think Astrokat. One minute we have no tactical kicking game and next we're more reliant on kicking. Which one is it as your logic is getting fuzzy . Cruden is no slouch with the boot btw either also being an AB reinforces that fact but it sounds like you are implying there's something wrong with his tactical kicking when in reality he has been instrumental in putting the Chiefs on top of the table.  Coupled with one of the best defensive records of any team and a backline that will cut you yarpies to pieces. Realistically the Crusaders are the only team that can pose any significant challenge to the Chiefs title hopes unless you yarpies up your game..

You make an asumption here, that being of me saying that either Australia or New Zealand have no kicking gae. I have never said such a thing. In fact, I have stated on many ocasions over the last five years that New Zealand have a propensity to kick far more than the Boks. I have often referenced stats that show Carter kicks considerably more than Morne. With regards to Australia, I noted in 2009 how Van Straaten had influenced the Aussies with tactical kicking. I more recently pointed out Jesse Mogg for his prodigious boot, as well as that of several other Aussies. Keep trying Brycy. Back to therapy perhaps?

Onto the Chiefs though, I do not regard their kicking game, they are not a very strong tactical side at all. They rely quite strongly of surges through SBW and getting in behind the first line of defence. It's very similar to the Saders of last year, only minus Carter's tactical boot.
 

No wasnt making that assumption at all. I was assuming when you said "please talk to me about their tactical kicking game" that you meant there was'nt one-  but there is and its good so no worries there mate. Thanks but your concerns are unnecessary.