The Brand of Rugby Played under Erasmus compared to Meyer

One always get a host of comments AO  about how effective the Meyer game plan was in playing of attacking rugby.  

In one of those discussions Mozart came up with the followi9ng as to the difference between Erasmus and Meyer:-

"You are right Tokkie.....the brand of rugby under Erasmus is totally different to Coetzee, it focusses much more on possession and territory. Just like HM. Which of course is why we pressured NZ through 60 minutes.

The one thing that is better under Rassie is the push defence....harking back to it's inventor Jake White."

I always am worried about somewhat wild claims made on site and the fact is that AO in particular comes up with statements which really are incredible.   When asked for proof of statements the toic is changed or never really answered.

However, the claim I quoted above came from Mozart  this time around and I decided to do  study to see whether the statement I quoted  above is really accurate and  factual.   Although  Mozart’s assertion relates to backline push  defense being better under Erasmus , initial findings that there is still a major problem  iro backline defense  and the answer immediately is why the better end results.

Backline defense

    Year                                 Tackles made                     Tackles Missed    

  2014                                             257                                      61

  2018                                              248                                     75

From the above the real indication is that Under Meyer in 2014 the defense  was better than  in 2018 under  Erasmus.   There were 8 more tackles  made by backline players and the number of missed tackles  was 14 more than in 2014.

Statistically the best backline defender this year  as to the number of tackles made was in fact De Allende,

So the pushed defense was not really the issue that resulted improvement seen from a broader perspective.  It is consequently  necessary to look at the other figures that impact on the better performance under Erasmus.  

Forward defense

   Year                                  Tackles made                     Tackles Missed    

  2014                                            479                                      68

  2018                                            563                                      67

So this year the forwards made 84 more tackles than the forwards did in 2014 and missed  1 less tackle than the case was in 2014.   It was  in particular the more mobile loosies  who covered the tracks of the deficiencies in the backline defense. 

The player who made the most tackles of all players in the series was Pieter-Steph  Du Toit wit 87 tackles made.    H other difference  was with defense of the props.   Jannie du Plessis often  missed more tackles than he made – but there was in particular a big improvement  in especially iro of Kitshof and Malherbe.  

So what else impact on performances  by the 2018 team – both positively and negatovely:-

Tries scored

2014                                                            13             

2018                                                            21

The real impression is that on attack the  2018 Springboks were much more effective  than their 2014 counterparts.    That is one aspect never raised by AO and Mozart  as  having a major impact on the actual outcome of crucial games.  

The Rolling Maul  Issue

 I raised this issue as a serious  present problem and traced back the decline to circa 2014 when th problem really came to the fore.    I was hoping for  sound discussion issue.  Unfortunately Mozart reacted  negatively and he came up with some rather ridiculous statements   and AO rn for cover. 

Whether we like it or not – there is a serious decline in effective rolling mauls starting in 2014 and continuing at present.     It needs to eb attended to asap.  

Please ask Mozart what he meant with "push defense" - it is the term he used  in the quote above - which was a copy and paste job.

In essense I agree with you about the term being rushed defense and also that rushed defense do have some negatives if it disrupts  the defensive line.

I have tried to give information covering both the positives and negatives of the two coaches involved and factually -

*   the backline defense under Meyer was better than under Erasmus;

*    the forward defense was hugely better under Erasmus than under Meyer;

*    the tryscoring data indicates that the team of 2018 was substantially more effective than the team of 2014,      

Hall Of Fame

7025 posts

That is where a key player in the Jacque Fourie mould is so sorely missed. The kind of player who is an expert in organising the defensive lines on the fly. We just do not have that kind of player at the moment

-----------------------------------------------

@Ceradunce, first you say that defence is combined team effort, then you contradict yourself and say that a key individual to organise the defence is missing. 

SB

There are sometimes correct general comments ending with a flawed deduction.   After retuning from retirement that element in the game of Fourie was largely absent.   

In any event - Ceradyne has identified a problem.   Looking at the recent data it seems that in tests that -

*   both Pollard and Jantjies has serious defensive problems; and

*   whether Mozart, AO and a lot of other posters like it or not - the player coming nearest to being the defense co-ordinator is De Allende.

The latter early on as test player had a defense problem himself - but this years stats indicate that he is largely over that personal problem and when he is playing the defense outside of him has improved.   W hen he is not playing the  defense of the inside center becomes minimal and outside of the 12 deteriorates badly.  The worst defense were in tests where De Allende did not play.     

This thread is a spectacular failure on so many levels. Firstly, I have addressed many of these issues, some were the first issues I ever addressed here. 

If you are going to compare tries scored, you've got to look at how the teams were defending overall. As I have said numerous times, defending has regressed in SH rugby. The game was tighter and more tactical the further back we go. More physical. 

Secondly, you haven't at any point discussed how either team has played. Why? Can you? Another issue that has been addressed ad nauseum. I have discussed many aspects of the game from both coaches far too many times. You stubbornly refuse to acknowledge anything.

To top it off, you promote Damian as our best defensive back. He was hopeless from start to finish. Not only a substandard attacker, but a weak defender who cannot be relied upon to make a single stop on his own. Was blown away far too regularly. Faf was our most effective defender. Our best defensive centre was André. 

This is another attempt by Mike to draw attention away from 2017. Why? Because it's the most definitive comparison we can make. In one season our attacking numbers have diminished markedly in every category. Ball carries, defenders beaten, clean breaks, offloads, metres gained. He doesn't want to concede that we are a kicking team backed by a still developing defence. A kicking team with lots of aimless kicks, poor chasers and poor aerial work. Numerous tries scored in the process. Everything that breaks Mike's golden rules of tactical kicking. Only one solid test implementing this tactic. 

Instead of comparing to last year, which he called a daydreaming, he first attempted a comparison with 2012. Claiming the rugby played was a identical and the opposition were identical. Ridiculous. Some much straining to avoid the obvious. It gets even better now that Rassie has his eye on several older players, breaking more golden rules pertaining to player decline. 

Mike you need to take some time out and rework your narrative. It has far too many holes. Rassie isn't doing you any favours. Maybe you need to speak to Malherbe's mother, pass on a message to Rassie through Mal to stop playing "2004 Bulle ball" because you can't defend him on a forum he's never heard of.  

Here's a reminder of the 2014 model. Something the stats can't tell you. 

And AO comes up with regressing in defense when there is a huge increase of effective tackles made.    That is the kind of generalized nonsense that h e dreams up and put on the site as factual.

The above information had an affect on his day dreams he constantly put on the site. and he does not look at factual issues.  

I am afraid that both you and Mozart are faced with facts you cannot wiggle out of and that result in a long book of nonsense you regularly spout on site which is contradicted by facts.   They will then try and prove that 13 is equal to 21 - that 736 is equal to 811 by fiddling with figures and trying to make out that MTR are the issue and not anything else. 

It is that type of thing that makes me wonder  about their wild claims they make on site and when exposed they try to wiggle out of it.    Happy day dreams to the two of you.       

Mozart

Simple facts must be clouded in incomparable comparisons and then dressed up there was no change or that the 13 tries scored in 2014 was better than the 21 scored in 2018.

That type of averaging is total BS - as well as the story about averaging the MTR to prove that the tackle figures are the same.  Lets put it plainly - the performance by other teams and the tries scored by them has no reference to the tries scored by the Springboks in the two years.   You are trying to hide facts by mathematics abuse. It does not matter how many tries were scored by other teams and then to claim that they scored less in 2014 so the fact is the 13 tries score in 2014 - were better than the 21 scored in 2018,

Th fact is we are not dealing with what other teams achieved and dealt with only what the Springboks achieved in 2014 and what they achieved in 2018.      

You better avoid mathematical abuse - what you are doing is exactly what is in line with the following definition of mathematical abuse:-

"In mathematics, abuse of notation occurs when an author uses a mathematical notation in a way that is not formally correct but that seems likely to simplify the exposition or suggest the correct intuition (while being unlikely to introduce errors or cause confusion). However, the concept of formal correctness depends on time and on the context. Therefore, many notations in mathematics are qualified as abuse of notation in some context and are formally correct in other contexts; as many notations were introduced a long time before any formalization of the theory in which they are used, the qualification of abuse of notation is strongly time dependent. Moreover, many abuses of notation may be made formally correct by improving the theory. Abuse of notation should be contrasted with misuse of notation, which should be avoided."

Read carefully especially - the highlighted sentence and avoid further BS.

That is why you should not use mathematical abuse - you should know better.   Because some teams were poorer om 2014 and others better have no bearing i n this case.  Fact is it is what the Springbok team achieved on 2014 and what they achieve in 2018 is what counts.

You try and bring in outside factors to cause confusion and that is really what does not count.   You tried to use the same stunt in tackle stats and it flopped.