Tactical basics explained ...barking dogs take note

Don’t begrudge the Springboks for reverting to a more traditional tactical approach, writes CRAIG LEWIS.

Having strangled the life out of Argentina on Saturday with a physical, passionate performance, it’s clear that the Boks have settled on the style of play that they believe will reap rewards at the World Cup.

In the opening two Tests of the Rugby Championship, a Bok side boasting a mobile loose trio and young backline flirted with a ball-in-hand approach, and produced some sparkling periods of play, but still ultimately failed to emerge victorious.

It’s the type of approach that can be extremely effective at the right time and place, particularly when the tempo of the game is high-paced.

However, the Boks were caught out in Durban, with the Pumas – boasting numerous players who ply their club trade in the northern hemisphere – outmuscling the home side and frustrating them by slowing the ball down at the breakdown.

That revealing Test match may well prove to be a blessing in disguise as it clearly caused Meyer to take stock of the tactical requirements that will need to be met in order to be successful at the World Cup.

And in Buenos Aires, the Boks provided a performance that will have served to rubber stamp this game-plan blueprint for the World Cup.

The Boks dominated the forward exchanges, emphatically won the scrum contest, defended effectively and controlled the territorial battle with Pat Lambie’s accurate boot.

The Pumas had no answer, and the Boks had their most convincing victory in Argentina since the South Americans joined the Rugby Championship.

After the match, SuperSport conducted an interview with Heyneke Meyer, and the messages from the mightily relieved coach spoke volumes.

‘The guys really put their bodies on the line, and it shows that’s how we should play, we should play Springbok rugby that makes us proud,’ he commented. ‘We changed a few things with the game plan, we decided to play more tactically … We didn’t pitch up in the previous game, we might want to move the ball and throw it around, but in Test rugby you don’t win like that. You have to respect your opponent and be more tactical, and I thought our defence was really awesome.

‘This is how you win World Cups, you have to grind it out away from home, and I think we’d lost that art,’ he added. ‘You can play great rugby in the Rugby Championship, but this is Test match rugby away from home and what we will face in the World Cup … but if we play like this no one can beat us.’

It remains to be seen whether the Boks can deliver on that assertion, but there was little doubt that Saturday’s approach was something that came extremely naturally to them.

Key to this, though, is the presence of big ball-carriers, and physical defenders, such as Willem Alberts and Duane Vermeulen. While Alberts didn’t have a standout game on Saturday, his physical presence cannot be discounted, and to borrow a cricket term, he will be all the better for his time out in the middle.

Vermeulen’s recovery from injury remains integral to the Boks’ World Cup cause, as will be that of scrumhalf general Fourie du Preez, who is another player ideally suited to conducting a tactical game.

Pieter-Steph du Toit’s return from injury is also another massive boost for the Boks, and his ability to slot in at lock or as a blindside flanker back-up has surely booked him a World Cup ticket.

With regards to the Boks’ alteration in approach, the big question will now revolve around which flyhalf will be best suited to run this tactical show from pivot.

Lambie put his hand up in a big way against Argentina, and may well have just done enough to sneak ahead of Handré Pollard in the World Cup reckoning at No 10, but the competition between the two remains extremely healthy for the Boks. Morné Steyn, meanwhile, remains a reliable flyhalf fail-safe.

With regard to these selection decisions, Meyer’s job is an unenviable one, but at least his mind is understandably made up about the approach the Boks need to embrace at the World Cup.

Photo: Gabriel Rossi/Gallo Images

Ooh wow the Boks beat a second string Argie side.....well done Moz and Meyer......insightful stuff here......we played a power game with Matfield and Brits on board......wow......get bloody real.

We beat a SECOND STRING ARGIES side......wake up  

Under Meyer we will not get past the quarters.

We are lucky we have such an easy group, failing which we would not have even made the quarters......there is a reason Meyer has taken us to No 5 in the rankings......our worst ranking by some distance.

Meyer has been on board for 4 years now and has won ZERO......all he has achieved is lowering our ranking to an all time low - the man is both an insult and a disgrace and what's so fun ny is that some clowns like Moz still support him 

Bullshit Moz, Meyer should have selected the right players some time back instead of investing in a bunch of washed up hasbeens......the man is a conservative clown who cant move on from his class of 2007....if he had his way we would have seen a WC squad including the likes of Kirchner, Habana, Fourie, Jean, Morne, du Preez, Pienaar, Steenkamp, Jannie, Brits, Bakkies, Flip, Matfield, Louw, Smith, Schalk and Alberts.

S15 results have little to do with being able to identify enough class talent to compile a test squad.

Rugby is a team game, you are as strong as your weakest link......those weak links being poor domestic coaches bar Ackerman, who continue to invest in poor players.

But that does not detract from the fact that the quality players still stand out and win their one on one battles, creating the right impressions......look no further than Lood playing in a losing Cheetahs side in 2014.....or Faf, Kriel and Vorster making an impact for middle of the table Lions......or Jessie Kriel making a huge impression in a bubbling Bulls side.

Point is a good coach would identify these players and select them for his national side, regardless of how their team fared in the S15. Favourable team results are not the measure of a good player. The good players stand out in average teams.

Meyer is poor when it comes to identifying talent......how on earth can the likes of Senatla, Combrink, Vorster, Faf, Kitshoff, Willemse, Jacques du Plessis and Jaco Kriel for instance not have been identified - its pathetic and the list does not end there.

As for our recent test history, well given how poor we have been for some time now under PDV and Meyer.....none of their teams was ever going to prove much given how poor the selections have been under these clowns.....so using tests as a measure is a bit of a joke.

If my side was selected and failed playing say 5 tests in a row then I'd say you have a point......but fact is, Meyer keeps failing with his and your side so you have nothing to stand by......whereas my calls have never been tested as a unit so you are not in a position to say my side would fail.

I take comfort in the fact that a Kiwi like Sas thinks my sides are 99% the sides he would select....it take a progressive Kiwi to see who are the best players in SA......the same kind of thinking that has the Kiwi's dominating the game.

Kiwi's are progressive when it comes to rugby, SAn's are conservative......Moz your sides, like Meyer are pathetically conservative and the very reason we have slipped to 5

The very fact that we have only won 5 of our last 13 tests against major oppositions and the fact that we have slipped to number 5 seems to escape Moz.

But what the above does do is make a mockery of any of his calls or blind support of useless Meyer

All a little embarrassing when the results and rankings keep letting your convictions down.

But Moz will blindly support clueless Meyer making his name mud in the process.

You need results to back your convictions, failing which you end up looking like a bit of a fool  

The Barking Dogs....Carbuncle, the Pervert and the Sapp.... are obsessed by the decline in the rankings, they cite it as evidence they are on the right track. But they have three problems.

1) The rankings have been very close from 2 to 5. For example Oz was in our shoes a short while ago. As long as the raw numbers are so close movements up or down are easily reversed. The real point is no other team has shown the consistency to challenge the ABs, but the nearest thing to a rival has been HM's Boks.

2) The top team, the ABs are following exactly HM's prescription of maintaining the team and only including new players where they perform at a high level over a long period....so players like McCaw, Carter and Conrad Smith, who the Pervert would call "geriatrics", are at no risk.

3) The recent Bok failures....in no way prove that the Barking Dog theory is correct. The Barking Dog theory would probably have led to wider losses. The best evidence comes from the Aussie game....we were 20 to 7 ahead when Jannie and Bissie were subbed for Malherbe and Strauss.....we were still 20 to 10 ahead when Pienaar was subbed for Reinach, Pollard for Lambie. Introducing these flavour of the day players led directly to that bad loss. As did the poor defence of Allende who let in the winning try.

The Aussie loss with two newbie centres, a newbie flyhalf and flavour of the day subs Lambie, Reinach and Malherbe proves nothing except the team needed more experience.

So we have Moz telling us that his evidence is based on the Oz game when Jannie and Bismark were replaced......well for a start Bismark was replaced by an established player in Strauss who happens to be one of the best hookers in the game.

Secondly when Malherbe replaced Jannie, prior to Strauss coming on, we had our most dominating scrum of the game......concluding therefore that the Beast, Bismark and Malherbe frontrow was better than the Beast, Bismark and Jannie one.......something Moz conveniently ignores as it counters his assertion that we struggled when Jannie and Bismark were replaced.

The real issue was the introduction of Heinke v/d Merwe at loosehead who replaced Beast. Another pathetic Meyer selection.......what on earth was Heinke doing in the Bok squad in the first place, what the hell had he done to merit selection?

On came Heinke and the Bok scrum troubles started......a scrum is as strong as its weakest link. Heinke has never amounted to much and that test proved it. Seems useless Meyer has woken up to this fact as we have not seen Heinke again.

So as per usual Moz has it wrong......wanting us to believe that we lost against Oz because of the loss of Jannie and Bismark is laughable......if you want to blame a frontrow player for the loss, look no further than Heinke who.

More to the point no single player was responsible for the loss......the loss as with many recently is down to poor team selections and poor direction given to those teams......the issue is MEYER

Moz you keep paddling though.....we feel your pain.....the Meyer ship is going down fast, with you firmly on board