The Balance Between Attack and Defence

Over the years I have observed a consistent trend that transcends rule changes or new systems; every time a team has tried to be a high powered offence first, they have sacrificed defensive integrity and failed to meet their targets on attack. It happened to Mallett in his quest to adopt the Brumbies blueprint, it happened to Henry in 2004 and with the Sonny Bill experiment in 2011, it happened to Viljoen, Peter, Muir at the Lions, the Cheetahs for years, Meyer's Boks in 2013s Ellis Park test, Cheika's Wallabies, Ewan's Wallabies, and now the current Sharks team. Many scoff at Jake White's adamant stance that defence is a high priority, but clearly it is the box that needs to be ticked first. Secondly, playing in the oppositions have is clearly the way to go. So much so that NZ have placed a high priority on aerial security and territorial dominance. The advocates of all out attack, ball in hand rugby, do not understand the delicate balance between attack-defence with the opportunities each present and tacticality. I'm not saying one shouldn't use the ball, merely that it should be used intelligently. I hope the Sharks fans in particular have finally learned a lesson here, and maybe conjour a little respect for what Jake was building last season, and what the players and suits threw away. With many senior figures leaving, we will never know how long it will be before the Sharks c an be contenders again. In my eyes Jake was the last hope for the current generation.

 This is weird and a statement that really is not up to standard at all.   It is typical of the advocates of the kicking game theory.   In a way there is a difference as to the game plan to be followed.   And the statement that defense goes out of the window when balls are kept in hand is crazy as well.
The issue is that kicking is a part of intelligent play and not a separate issue at all.  Kicking has to be strategic and with set objectives in mind.   This is where the advocates of the Jake White game plan becomes unstuck.   It is the accuracy and strategic objectives of the kicking game is negated through poor execution of that game.   Strategic objectives include the need for accurate and effective relieving kicks - especially from the teams 22 meter area - as well as kicking from outside that area to attain territory gain and pressure on the opposition recipients - the key word being accuracy and direction in this case.
Inside the opposition half of the field kicking should effectively be a measure of last resort and the ball should be kept in hand.
Now the problem is what goes totally wrong with the kicking game in SA.   First of all the whole concept relates to kicking whenever they get the ball by robotic and pre- programmed players in the mould of the Steyn's for instance.   If players like Morne is told to pass the ball during games - they pass the ball and do not kick - irrespective of what the circumstances are, viz the second Messam try in the Ellis Park test in 2013.   The second issue is the execution of kicks - too far to be followed up kicks have the consequence of far more dangerous counter-attacks, that completely undo the defense of the team.   Relieving kicks to allow for quick throw-ins when balls go out of touch is equally dangerous as relieving kicks failing to find touch being in a rugby sense criminal.
Like in every aspect of rugby accuracy of execution and ball skills are of paramount importance and failure in that is fatal from a defensive perspective.   That is why players like Carter reaches the height of perfection in games.  They read games properly and their execution is near to perfect.
Where does the Jake White plan goes awry.   In the first instance the one component that is missing in White's plan is critical and that is the chronic inability to coach backline players properly.   Jake had to call in Eddie Jones in 2007 - at the last minute - to put some ideas about backline usage into the players.  The same applies at the Brumbies - where Larkham did the backline coaching and was strong enough to resist the Jake-ball game plan.
The latter plan has limited success and will never win trophies.   It means that the game plan provides for robotic play which is easily countered by the opposition.  That type of play is always dangerous and bound to flop in the end.  Before the Ellis Park test last year - Hansen said they knew exactly what to expect from Morne Steyn - but is unsure of the impact Pollard will have on the game.  
So what is required in rugby?  It is that the backline and forwards should be part of a dynamic process - not a pre-programmed process like in White's case.   There could be arguments that the Jake White approach can work in theory - in practice it is destroyed by aimless and defective execution.   Look no further than the Steyn's for that.  In this regard White is his own worst enemy - he is such a disciplinary jerk that players are afraid to execute anything through reading of the game and making up their own on-field decisions that might be contrary to the prescribed robotic play . 
There is no real proof that variation in play necessarily lead to defective defense.  The fact is that the 2013 Ellis Park test was characterised by individual defensive errors by players like Alberts, Steyn, De Villiers and Engelbrecht, which all let to AB tries. Le Roux also showed deficiencies in that respect - but his failed tackles did not lead to anything much for the opposition.   Fact is the execution of the ball-in-hand plan - with the exception of one piece of Steyn lunacy - did not lead to tries being scored by the opposition.   
The poor defensive abilities by specific players were the problem.  In essence the same players are noted for their defense deficiencies showing up regularly in matches.  De Villiers are not necessarily included in this category - Steyn, Alberts and Engelbrecht are. 
The whole story by Letsal negates the need for accuracy in execution and  variation of the game as circumstances demands and favours the usage of robotic and predictable rugby inherent in the so-called Jake-ball game plan.       
                            

"And the statement that defense goes out of the window when balls are kept in hand is crazy as well."

The more phases you play, the greater the risk of turning the ball over. Statistically turnover ball leads to tries, hence why you do not want to play in your own half. The All Blacks have a particular interest in the transition phase of the game. A perfect opportunity to exploit a team is where they are in transition and restructuring and reorganising themselves. 

"The issue is that kicking is a part of intelligent play and not a separate issue at all.  Kicking has to be strategic and with set objectives in mind."

" />

"This is where the advocates of the Jake White game plan becomes unstuck.   It is the accuracy and strategic objectives of the kicking game is negated through poor execution of that game."

Who woulda thunk it ya'll? Poor execution is detrimental to the success of a game plan, that I have most certainly never heard of before! We need to get Michael into a coaching seminar, he could turn into the Yeshua of rugby!

"Inside the opposition half of the field kicking should effectively be a measure of last resort and the ball should be kept in hand."

Last resort? What if the defence operates a blitz system? Or umbrella system? Any form of press defence in other words? Obviously you would chip or grubber in behind, not shuffle the ball wide... at least I hope not! You watch real rugby, so you would have observed this. Especially the try by Reinach that you praised to the greatest heights of Heaven itself!

"First of all the whole concept relates to kicking whenever they get the ball by robotic and pre- programmed players in the mould of the Steyn's for instance.   If players like Morne is told to pass the ball during games - they pass the ball and do not kick - irrespective of what the cir[removed]stances are, viz the second Messam try in the Ellis Park test in 2013."

And what if his captain communicates for him to pass? Is he not to blame too? You are too linear in your thinking Michael. I know you haven't played rugby before, but the communication between 10 and 12 is very, very important. It affects alot of the decisions 10 makes! Hence why I like Frans, he gives your 10 a lot of information.

"The second issue is the execution of kicks - too far to be followed up kicks have the consequence of far more dangerous counter-attacks, that completely undo the defense of the team."

A far kick downfield is not the most dangerous, It's the shorter kicks that unhinge defences as they transition from attack to defence. The further out, and the further ahead, the more time the defence has to close them down and find their shape. but yes, too far and you cannot pressure with chasers. This has been a hallmark of Pienaar and Lambie's game! Not Morné,

"Like in every aspect of rugby accuracy of execution and ball skills are of paramount importance and failure in that is fatal from a defensive perspective.   That is why players like Carter reaches the height of perfection in games.  They read games properly and their execution is near to perfect."

The first sentence in italics in indiscernible gibberish! Carter has many options with runners on his outside, and New Zealand teams use their blinside wing more coming into the line than we Saffers! You can't shoot someone without any bullets, no matter how well you pull the trigger. Your 10 is the trigger man.

"Where does the Jake White plan goes awry.   In the first instance the one component that is missing in White's plan is critical and that is the chronic inability to coach backline players properly.   Jake had to call in Eddie Jones in 2007 - at the last minute - to put some ideas about backline usage into the players.  The same applies at the Brumbies - where Larkham did the backline coaching and was strong enough to resist the Jake-ball game plan."

Actually, Jake had immediate success in 2004 with a strong attacking gameplan! Do you remember that? I certainly do, but the change happened in 2005 when Barry and Joubert lost form. Jean was the intercept king but not a creative 12. He did plug our defence, but the attack was never quite the same. Even after Eddie joined the squad, the Boks still had the same troubles. Right up until Jean's injury against Samoa, we could not click on attack. Then came Frans and we absolutely roasted the Samoans! The point to take away from that is we need a 12 who can dominate the collisions and create space. Eddie Jones by his own admission didn't do very much, and we ended up winning the World Cup playing the Jake way, so your point is not a point at all, but a blunt, and that must be why you are as high as a kite! Saffex and yourself watching the rugby:


Furthermore, Larkham struggled last year until he adopted a more pragmatic approach! You forget that too! Either way, your point doesn't add up to reality.

"The latter plan has limited success and will never win trophies.   It means that the game plan provides for robotic play which is easily countered by the opposition.  That type of play is always dangerous and bound to flop in the end.  Before the Ellis Park test last year - Hansen said they knew exactly what to expect from Morne Steyn - but is unsure of the impact Pollard will have on the game."

The latter has been the cornerstone of every successful championship winning team. You can go back as far as you like, the answer will be the same! What is bound to flop is headless chicken rugby, the kind you canvas to the sheeples of the world! Of course Hansen knew what to expect, just as I know exactly what to expect from the All Blacks I have seen before. That's probably why Hansen doesn't send runners down Morné's throat like he does Lambie, he knows what to expect. 

"So what is required in rugby?  It is that the backline and forwards should be part of a dynamic process - not a pre-programmed process like in White's case."

So what you are saying is that Jake is the only coach in world rugby that has a pre-programmed plan in place before match day? So the way forward is a dynamic, or fluid, 'make it all up' plan of action on the day? Either you are saying that or you have no idea what you are really saying! The reason why attacking rugby is so much more difficult to implement than defence is because it's structures are more complex and has the finest of margins for success. The attack must manipulate the defence, the defence must merely maintain that structure. To coordinate an attack requires extraordinary cohesion. That comes down to puzzle solving skills, not a lack of structure as Peter dom Failures and yourself suggest - the likes of which Eddie Jones (you praised him) said is played on the moon. Look at how New Zealand train, Sharkbok posted the article. They practice against defensive systems and training involves breaking them down and knowing what they are seeing in front of them before they can play what's in front of them.

"There could be arguments that the Jake White approach can work in theory - in practice it is destroyed by aimless and defective execution.   Look no further than the Steyn's for that."

Morné has never played under Jake! Frans has never been known for aimless tactical kicking, nor for kicking excessive amount of ball away. Morné is very balanced in his kick to pass ratio. The real gem is your firstsentence.: Jake's plan only works in theory - in spite of it's obvious success - because poor execution will make it ineffective! 



I sure hope we adopt those gameplans that are bullet-proof. You know the modern types that are impervious to poor execution, like Cheika's Wallabies for instance!

"There is no real proof that variation in play necessarily lead to defective defense.  The fact is that the 2013 Ellis Park test was characterised by individual defensive errors by players like Alberts, Steyn, De Villiers and Engelbrecht, which all let to AB tries."

Alberts was stretchered off before the rot Michael! Morné was the best Bok in the backline that day, preventing two tries and mopping up after Jannie, Alberts, Habana and a few others. You blame him for things he had no part in. You probably don't even know that the guard and marker at a ruck is not supposed to leave his post until the ball is passed two players away to prevent switches or inside balls from attacking that seam! Well, Morné had to guard against a pod of forwards right in front of him before Jean jumped the line and Barrett ran into JJ and through him for a try. You can't blame Morné forthat one. 

you know what? I never said variation leads to defective defense. What I said was, as per my opening post, that coaches who canvas the high-end run everything attacking game fail. I listed many of them and reflected on their lopsided appreciation for the game and how that leads to problems. There was scope for discussion, but you ruined it by writing inane garbled waffle that barelys communicated anything coherent.

"Fact is the execution of the ball-in-hand plan - with the exception of one piece of Steyn lunacy - did not lead to tries being scored by the opposition."

Actually, running from deep often leads to turnovers and those turnovers New Zealand kicked into our half of thefield. They were winning the territorial battle and their linebreaks and attacks were happening right in front of the red zone, ours in our half of the field most of the time. So yes, our running approach cost usbany chance of winning that game. Just as that very same approach - which New Zealand discarded after the 2009 whitewash - yielded poor returns, i.e., attacking hard from deep and then being picked off by turnovers and penalties. What you say is not modern rugby Michael. Not even close!

Morné's defence has been superb for the Boks. At Ellis Park it was virtually flawless. Only misses were last grasp finger tip scrags trying to mop up after someone else' poor defence allowed the All Blacks to flood in and behind our defensive wall. 

 I may b be morally bankrupt as you put it - but I am not blind.   I say directly what is actually happening on the field of play - not what I dream up as happening. 
You highlighted some aspects and then make a seemingly logical deduction, without dealing with the alternative and very real issues:-
Highlight 1
Ball in hand may be lost ultimately through turnovers  - not necessarily but it may happen over some phases.   Ineffective and aimless kicking 90% of the time leads to immediate turnovers.
Highlight 2
Gibberish - this fool refuse to recognize the fact that most SA players have problems in their kicking game which cause serious defects in execution.   Nobody needs a coaching course to identify that problem.
Highlight 3
I never said kicking is not to be used.   Kicking should be limited and not done in the way Morne did it in the Dunedin test in 2012 - which the commentators called outright BS - and Fransie does it regularly.  Grubber kicks away from the defense and cross kicks are good strategies for scoring tries, provided they are accurate and mostly within the opposition 22.   I have it against the BS so regularly dished up by some kickers destroying attacks - like the kick of Fransie in the Brumbies game in 2013.
Highlight 4
This is gibberish and dreamed up by the Morne stooges to justify his mess-up in the Ellis Park test.   Players communicates regularly amongst themselves, but to state that the inside centers instruct the flyhalfs what to do is indeed gibberish.   Most of the time you would see flyhalfs with their hands hiding their mouths in communicating with the inside center - not the other way around.  
Highlight 5
Eddie Jones joined the Springboks before the Samoa match.  That is never mentioned.   The rest is make-believe junk -  the Springboks were leading by a 20+ margin when De Villiers was replaced.  The story of Fransie being the cause of the Springboks roasting the Samoans is a figment of the imagination of this fool.  The score at one stage early in the game was 25-3.  The roasting this idiot refers to ended up in a final result of 44 - 22 - both teams scoring 19 points in the process.  What a roasting that was!!!!!!!!
Highlight 5
There was nothing said in that highlight on the issue subsequent comments are based on.  Daydreaming again.
Highlight 6
The worst two kickers in SA teams are being singled out as being perfect - that really is a joke!!!   Morne is so poor - commentators call his kicking BS.  Fransie is so poor he recorded the highest number of turnovers of possession in Super 15 last year - basically as a result of poorly directed kicks.  
Highlight 7
The fact that the Jake  plan is sabotaged by ineffective execution is refuted - on what  basis is not clear at all. 
Highlight 8
Alberts and Morne are habitual poor defenders and that was the case at Ellis Park as well.  The myth about Morne preventing two AB tries at Ellis Park is BS - what is not is the fact that he missed two tackles resulting in tries.   Morne always had a defense problem - it varies from test to test.  In the Perth test he missed 55% of all attempted tackles - it normally is not that high - but it is never below 20% of attempted tackles.    In the Ellis Park test it was 36,4%.    The fact is that anything above 15 % misses is an indication of poor defense and Morne's defense is in fact piss - poor. 
The rest of the story of Letsal is gibberish - absolute BS in fact. 
      

LiarMike exposed yet more:

 They showed only three of the missed tackles of Morne leading to tries - there were one other they did not show.  No lies about the fact that he did miss 4 tackles and made 7 during that test.   Missed tackle ratio 36,4%.  
The try-saving tackles you claimed he made is really tackles made on two players that already was slowed down by other players and they were  easy to make.   Myself did not rate that as earth-shattering - because he already was poor in missing way too many tackles during the rest of the match.
However, it i not only in that test he was below par - in all tests he has been so.