The Expansive Game

Watching some our sides play reminded me of the 2004 Tri Nations. The All Blacks finished bottom that year as they struggled to impose the playing philosophy of the great, yet shortlived, Mark Ella; namely the flat attack. For those not familiar with this system, the attacking team aligns itself very flat and it's players run paralell to the touchline to commit their opposite number to tackle them. In short, this system requires an intense close-quarter battle whereby support is vital. This approach yeilded very little reward as a brutal Bok side literally cut them down and drove them backwards. Henry was very quick to backtrack on this philosophy and build a new dual flyhalf system of Carter and Mauger. The turnaround in fortune was immense as they whitewashed and humiliated the British & Irish Lions and redeemed themselves by edging a powerful Bok side in the Hamilton decider to clinch the 2005 Tri-Nations. Henry could not contain himself though and once the ship was steadied he flirted with the fire of the expansive game once more as the World Cup drew close. In a controversial move Henry demoted Mauger and once again the All Blacks floundered after a war of words between Henry and Jake over playing philosophies. Henry had learnt his lesson though and for the next few seasons we would see a far more tactically astute all Black side that would build defence and a strong kicking game as a cornerstone of it's success. The Boks however hired a nutcase who was intent of "playing the All Blacks at their own game"; the Boks were soundly put to the sword in humiliating fashion. Even as recently as 2011 though we saw the flat attack utterly exposed as the All Blacks floundered in the Tri-Nations decider against Australia. That game put things into perspective for Henry as he had the nerve to dispel those delusions and not put his faith in the new sensation Sonny Bill, he who would fit that game perfectly.

So, having a look at this supposed attacking and 'creative' game, why are we to feel ashamed of our core strengths? Rugby is after all a thinking man's game, and in that regard we have the highly astute Morne Steyn. Our supposed attacking woes have often been cited as the result of poor coaching of skills. I disagree however. Whilst it is certainly true that our backline coaching leaves alot to be desired, the entire philosophy has come into question. Afterall, Australia themselves have had very limited success with their brand of this attacking style. Year in and year out the side with the best tactical game consistantly comes out on top. If you cast aside the media ramblings it becomes abdundantly clear that this so called attacking game does not work in the majority of instances. Even in the last two weeks we've seen these attacking delusions fail, even though they were not in essence in accordance with the flat attack's principles.

Before I get lambasted for promoting 'dinosaur' rugby, I will say that good, functional and intelligent backplay are the things in rugby that I love the most. If we are going to be very honest with ourselves then we will conclude that there is a time and a place for unleashing those backs, and even a place for a system such as the flat attack. They will however never render the fundamentals and our strengths obsolete. We have everything you need to suppport a more ellaborate and varied backline repetoire. In the Bulls and, to a lesser extent, the Cheetahs we have the blueprint for a test formula that can consistently produce good results. Meyer must not yeild to the ignorant masses and must show tactical maturity; fortunately his words inspire confidence in this regard. In Morne we have the man to lead the way. The rest are simply pretenders.
 

 I have a suggestion - start supporting England - that should put a smile on your face, leave the creative/flair rugby to NZ, Oz, France and Wales - the Boks can do the same but only once they discard Morne

Were you not the one to claim a few days ago to Mozart that you don't pin the blame of everything on a single player? Besides, what exactly is Morne doing wrong? You obviously misunderstood what I wrote.

Ah yes, Saffex, that would be the England team that had the joint top try scorer at last years World Cup, despite only making it to the Quarter Finals, would it ? ! No creativity whatsoever, obviously.

Sorry we're so boring.

Good post Aristokat, I disagree on some points but more importantly I agree that an expansive game is not solely dependent on a flyhalf or any one player in the backline, it is a collective amongst the backs. Let's be honest, in that infamous quarterfinal at the WC the Boks showed themselves to be clueless with ball in hand with the tryline beckoning. No flyhalf in the world would have been able to help them.

Bok backline woes are not hard to fix, Eddie Jones fixed ours in the space of a mere six weeks which justifies what I've always maintained, we need a good backline coach, preferably from Oz.

Interesting stat Becs, tx for pointing that one out.

The England backline were rampant on the 2010 EOYT and later in the 6 Nations. I posted stats of how they stood they matched the All Blacks, destroyed Australia and bettered our backline significantly that year. They lost the plot with a lack of control over the players and the rest is history.

Something that drives me nuts is this idiotic view in South Africa of how a backline is supposed to function. They are either highly conservative, dysfunctional or nutjobs who abandon the very core principles of backplay (Peter de Villiers, Dick Muir!). Meyer is very right in what he said in a recent interview; it's situational. No side that runs exclusively (Australia, Lions, sharks) are ever successful for any significant periods of time. Australia in fact have a record in the NH as poor as ours has been, at times worse. They also have been very por abroad overall, and their TNs games have been very poor but for the easy pickings we gave them. I just wish people in SA would wise-up. The weekend illustrated perfectly just how far off the mark those other 10s are. Right now the Cheetahs and Bulls have been leading the way in SA and a large part of that is because their 10s do their job very well. Ceradyne noted the even spread between kicking and passing with a lesser emphasis on running. That's how it should be.
 

 Wow, Aristocrat, I am impressed - your memory back to 2004 is impecable! Amazing really! You are absolutely right, Henry did start of with the flat backline attack, maybe started by Ella but definitely finetuned by Dwyer for the Wallabies with Horan and Little as the Kingpins in midfield with a very crafty half back in Farr Jones and first 5/8 Michael Lynagh - bits and pieces of it came and went with Rod Macqueen and Eddie Jones!

GH eventually had to sacrifice Carlos Spencer because defenses were up on him immediately and he did not have time to react or think. Sam Tupou was initially picked for this purpose, and the backline were all trained to hit and clear rucks quickly for quick balls - Joe Rokocoko a speed merchent had to bulk up in order to play like the 4th loosemen and so were the other wings - alot of it I guess was  a reaction to John Mitchell's free flowing style which also looked attractive did not win a RWC the previous year! When the flat back line was eventually discarded, bits of it persisted, with the backs still acting like loose forwards! The rest my friend is for another day or at least Aristocrat introduces another topic! LOL!

 I am not blaming a single player for any loss - I am just saying that a useless player like Morne sells us short when it comes to trying to play an expansive game - its just not possible with him at 10 - its that simple. There is no way in hell sides like the AB's, France and Oz would select a player like Morne at 10

Dave, what exactly is this expansive vision of yours?

@ Hakwa: That was a very informative post, thanks for sharing it with us. I'm unfortunately a little hazy on the Dwyer era.
 

 Its simple, I want to see a 10 playing the kind of game Carter and Cooper play - the top 2 sides in the world rankings, add whoever gets selected to play 10 for France - all these 10's are attacking players - Jantjies, Goosen and Lambie are in that mould - Morne is a kicking flyhalf in the O'Gara mould - I have no time for this kind of player at 10. I want a 10 who initial instict is to attack, kicking must be secondary - Morne has his priorities the wrong way round - why because his strength is kicking, he plays to that strength - he has very limited attacking skills. Hell in the past 6 or 7 years he has probably only taken 5 gaps or made as many line breaks in that time - its just not his thing, he does not have the skill set for running the ball

Ag please Dave, not the kind of game Cooper plays.....the kind that brought howls of laughter at the RWC from fans, and only criticism from the talking heads. Oz may not have won the RWC anyway, but with old Quaalude at 10 they were doomed.

The fact is our back play as a whole has atrophied since the RWC. And that's not because of flyhalf play.....Butch added very little beyond crash ball and tactical kicking in 2007.

Why have we declined? In part because we have lost our edge in speed, which we had with the youthful JP and especially with Habana. With that edge any wide ball was potentially lethal. Our RWC 2011 backline was probably the slowest of major nations....that hardly makes for an attacking mindset.

But also importantly because we have lost skills in backplay. Take a squiz at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-ouKMt4wqA&feature=related Jacobs try and look at our double wing structure. Look at the lines JP and Adi ran. We have had nothing like that off set ball for two seasons. In short we have lost our skills.

So rather than dumping one of the 5 best flyhalves in the game, in Morne....we need to be building a skilled and cohesive backline. And I agree with Dave it's important. We had so much good ball in the RWC QF we should have won in spite of Lawrence......further, with the young forwards coming through possession is not likely to be a problem.

So it's not a matter of kicking or not kicking. Kicking is a weapon in modern rugby......but if you only kick or only run, you become easy to defend.

But if you play crash ball, bring in wings from the blindside, bust forwards up the middle, run double wings, chip kick, put high corner flagging kicks....use the odd well chased up and under.......if you do all these things you become unpredictable and hard to defend. And the keys to doing that are a few highly skilled players in each facet and a coach who knows how to conduct this mozart symphony.

 Am with you Moz - the only difference is that I dont believe Morne is the answer at 10 - he might be able to provide all those kicking options, but certainly not the attacking ones - we need an allround 10 - Jantjies and Goosen offer us that.

Yes we have lost pace, less so skill - and thats why I advocate the changes I have. We need that edge back and the likes of du Preez, Morne, Jean, Fourie and Habana will not provide that. JP at 25 is still young and provides what he always has, coupled with experience. The likes of Frans and Hougaard will add to JP's experience - for the rest we need to get our exciting young backs on board - Lambie, Sadie, Taute, Jantjies and Goosen give us this. These kids have to come in for the old boys who have lost their mojo.

Same with our forwards, we have more youthful experience here in Beast, Bismark, Bekker, Brussouw, Schalk and Spies - thats 6 of our 8 forwards with experience and youth on their side bar Bekker and Schalk. A side containing these forwards plus the 3 experienced backs gives us 9 players with experience. The other 6 spots can go to our promising kids - I have named the backs - in the forwards we have the likes of Kirchoff, Etzebeth, J.Kruger, Elstadt, Kolisi, Coetzee and CJ Stander. And of course you know who I'd be calling in to play tighthead

Morne is an inside centre's dream. His service his always slick and well timed. His alignment and depth is very well varied. More than this though, his option taking is utterly world class. You speak of Carter, he kicks alot. Certainly much more than Morne. His execution has not been very good since the latter part of 2006, but his decision making alone is priceless to New Zealand. No other flyhalf in South Africa can match Morne's decision making or execution. Lambie and Jantjies are very predictable players. Jantjies is becoming alot like Spencer, a one dimensional player. Neither could handle the pressure of test rugby. Without Morne our backline would disintegrate.

Now onto speed. Speed is not the biggest issue here, nor skills. We have absolutely shocking support structures. How common do you hear people and coaches in South Africa talking of running to your support? It underlines the woeful ignorance of our game. The angles running onto the ball, bringing in our wingers... it's non-existant. The Boks over the past four years have relied heavily on Jean bashing his way into a coma or the Shark's brand of shuffle ball. Dave, seriously, do yourself a favour and watch any game with Morne and Jean together. Watch how Morne plays and how little is going on outside of him. It's utterly ridiculous. Put Frans at 12 and all of a sudden there is life. It tells you something about where the problems lie.

I really can't understand what all the hype over Lambie is about. Yes, he is a good player, but so far I haven't seen anything to warrant him being thought of as special. His goal kicking is no more than average, his tactical kicking is decent, but nothing special, his running and distribution are good, but in my opinion nothing to write home about. I do think he has a little of the elusive X-factor, but many players, Brent Russel, Gafie Du Toit, Ruan Pienaar etc etc, have had that and never really amounted to anything....

Morne is better than people give him credit for. When his forwards give him good go forward ball, like with the Bulls ths weekend, he is actually very effective for the running game....also, people must not forget, he is told what to do by his coach, if the coach tells him to kick, that is what he will do. I seriously doubt that he would be in the team if he was not sticking to the gameplan given to him by the coaches.

Many of the people who dislike Morne, are the supporters of the teams who are "victim to his game". I get the idea that some people just sit and count all his kicks in every game. They never "count his other actions". While it is true that he kicks if it in the game plan to kick, or if his coach tells him to kick, as bluebok has said. The coach is, however, not on the pith to tell hime exactly where and when to kick. That is his decision. If it was a pre-planned strategy to kick, it would mean (in a particular situation, that where he had two or more options, i.e. kick, ru or pass, the first option would to kick. If it was a game with a "running" strategy, the choice would obviously be to run or pass the ball.

Having said that, if you look at the stats, and a lot of them were posted in the last number of days, there is no way how anybody would convince me that Morne as a "kicking flyhalf". It has been proven on many occasions that he and lately Goosen are the only two flyhalves who vary their gameplay.

I think that Moz has summed it up pretty well. Balance and intelligence.

Just because a player passes a ball does not make him a running flyhalf. Consider how much of a threat on attck Morne himself is - ZIP. Ask yourself how much of a threat Fourie Du Preez was recently - ZIP. Two half backs with no attacking threat. So the defensive efforts of opposing sides can concentrate wider out.

If anyone doubts this weigh up the attacking prowress of Genia and Cooper and compare it too Du Preez and Morne.

Dave is correct to want our half backs to be better RUNNERS with the ball. All running or all kicking is no the answer. The answer is a dominant pack, shrewed tactical kicking, brutal defence and  better skills and finesse etc in the backline.  Need a backline coach bigtime. WE DO NOT GET FULL VALUE OUT OF OUR BACKLINES.

Now ou dave suggests we have wee brussouw, spiesies and the loafer Beast are the future. Sorry none of these guys convince me and I am becoming less convinced as time passes.  We must get rid of all show ponies and get in forwards who mince the opposition. Forward domiannce is a non negoitiable.

Show ponies who make an occassional line out steal, occassional turnover or break are not the answer how ever glamourous it may look to their adoring fans. The next time, when it happens/if it happens etc, that spies does something - the starry eyed spiesies brigade will be all over us like a rash forgetting game after game of mediocre play. Man was he hapless against the Cheetahs!!!

The Bok rugby tradition was not built on show ponies. End of Story.

Fantastic debate here guys.. very insightful opinions..

great points Moz, what makes a great flyhalf is vision and unpredictability (allround ability), but also making the right decisions at the right times (vision)

as pointed out above, Carter might be kicking more than Morne but the success of the team Carter is playing for rely on his decision making, he might be kicking more but look at the win ratio when he plays for the All Blacks and the Crusaders.. sure 1 player doesnt make a team but a teams success rely heavily on the decisions your flyhalf is making.

your flyhalf needs to have plenty vision, think of your flyhalf as your quarterback in american football - pass, run, kick..

 I echo JeanF's comments - fantastic debate!

All you gents have very intelligent comments

1. Decision making - of the whole 15 including the reserves.

2. Unpredictability - the ability to mix it up depending on what is infront of you (combination of what you see and what the coaches see in their box and on intel haha sounds very cloak and dagger stuff).

3. A flexible game plan which does not depend excessively on any one particular player but on the whole team.

This will kind of nullify the importance of any particular player, Morne included! mmmmmm interesting!

I think it's also important to discuss the Coaches really. They are the people who ultimately construct the game plan and don't always let a player exhibit other skills they may have if they are incredibly adept at one thing...as Morne Steyn is with kicking. No-one can deny he is immensely good at that. So the teams tend to play to this strength. Less the player at fault, more the Coaches.

England suffered in this way when we had Rob Andrew at 10. His kicking, not just for posts but also out of hand, became so accurate that everyone just saw him as a one trick pony, which he was anything but. Our Wings, which included Rory Underwood ( who is still in the Top Try Scorers of all time ) became starved of ball at times and we were all frustrated by this. There should be a balance, I think.

We have Stephen Myler at Northampton who has been viewed as a similar player, only adept at kicking and, because the pack is so dominant, that is how he has been utilised. A couple of weeks ago, he was responsible for 3 tries which all came from great vision and amazing passing on his behalf. I think he proved a point to a lot of people that day. But, if the game plan is one of a structured kicking game, the player isn't always at fault.

I do know what Saffex is talking about, he doesn't like to see a stifled backline and, to this end, the onus is on the 10 to get the creativity flowing. And there has been a lot of talk over here already during the S15 about the merits of Jantjes ( did I spell that right ? ), particularly from Michael Lynagh, who we have to conceed knows more about both International Rugby and the merits of a decent 10 than any of us do !

What did Lynagh think of Jantjes Becs?

What I like about the Bulls is that they obviously break the field down into zones and know how to work each area of the field. They have their set moves for certain situations and like to open it up when it is on. Morne is very good at managing the game and the vast majorty of what he does is the right thing to do! we cannot say the same for the others. Becs, I have heard Lynagh say many things, very little after really looking hard at the game. Last year he bleated about how crucial Lambie was, I posted a detailed assessment of that game and it exposed the fact that Lambie wasn't part of ANY positive phase of play!! Literally not once! In fact, he screwed up almost everything he did and put enormous pressure on his backline. So these pundits really need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Becs your point about Lynagh, can I say that players and coaches get it horribly wrong as well. Lynagh it seems has a high regard for Jantjies, with all due respects he might have it wrong. I say might. I had the privilege of meeting and speaking to Joe Roff on the plane flying out to the WC and let me tell you he had a mighty opinion of Quade Cooper who as we all know melted like butter in the hot sun when the pressure was ratched up full bore. Jantjies like I've previously said is a manufactured Flyhalf, there is nothing natural about him, he is nowhere near a Mark Ella or Steve Larkham, two of the best in the modern era when it comes to running rugby, besides he has done nothing to suggest that he is a better option than rock solid, safe as the bank of England, Morne Steyn.

But that aside, my other point still stands and that is that the running game is a collective culture that manifests itself in the early years of a player across all clubs and all provinces. There isn't a great deal of difference in backline play by NZ franchises neither is there a great deal of difference in backline play by Australian franchises. That culture has been set in stone at an early age in an much earlier era.

You raise an interesting point there Denny. I have often said that the way a country plays a sport is reflective of the culture as a whole. We are the Germany of rugby. And we should feel no shame in that fact. You cannot cut against the grain of that culture without having serious problems. This is where Jake at the Brumbies is succeeding, because he understands the culture and is working around that. He knows that trying to have them fully adopt a South African mentality will fail spectacularly.

Ja well, it's like trying to teach Brazilian soccer players how to play like their English counterparts....and vice versa. Once again, the style of playing by whatever country has manifested itself at an early age several generations earlier. I'm not saying it's right or wrong because there is no right or wrong, it's just the nature of how things evolve.......so in view of that there is no magic bullet that is going to break the South African rugby mould of playing the game......and as JW reminded me and I quote...."There isn't a great deal wrong with our game....we need to alter but we don't need to change."

Good point Aristokrat.....noticeably JW 's brains trust are Larkham, Gregan and the ex coach Lawrie Fisher. I bet Finnegan is there somewhere looking after the forwards. Now that is smart thinking.

Well Jantjes seems to be a better balanced package then Morne. He runs, breaks a line kicks well etc. Only when it comes to decision making and a degree of tatical kicking could Morne be better.

That said how good was Morne at Elton's age? Not as good in my opinion. Morne is going to feel the heat from Goosen and Elton and perhaps Lambie too. These are very young flyhalves we are talking about.

Feeling the heat is healthy and inevitable....Morne's time will pass but right now no-one can guarantee that Jantjies is an improvement. It's pure speculation.

Decision making and intelligence are the most important attributes of a flyhalf. There have been many before Jantjies that have had the skills but failed. Gaffie, Brent, Pretorius, Rose, Dollie, Koen, Tsimba, Pienaar, Jaco, Lambie to name but a few!

Agreed but can you tell at 20 years old or 19 as Goosesn is. Give them a chance. Morne fo  now but he WILL feel the heat as these young guns look potentially better. We shall see.

Morne at 20 di not look as good then as he is now.  Consider that.

Forget about the age story. Not all the best players were always the best around or shwoing their talents at an early age. There are numerous examples. Jacques Kallis was kak early on on his career. Andre Venter never even played Craven Week rugby. Mike Hussey. I had a list at some stage (around 2009/10 IIRC) that a whole host of the Bokke, never played for the SA Schools side. Two names that I can clearly remember were Fourie du Preez and Gurthro Steenkamp, but you can trust there were a hell of a lot more.

 der - how many more times do you want me to watch Morne, bloody hell he is 28 and been playing for years. The guy is piss ordinary with a great boot - nothing will EVER convice me otherwise as he has been around for years and nothing has changed.

Your argument falls flat on its face when you tell us Jean brings nothing to the game - bullshit, Jean is the best 12 the Boks have had since post isolation, in fact I dont ever recall a better Bok 12. Frans is up there, but yet to make the impact Jean did in his day. 

Your take on rugby is so flawed its laughable - you think Morne is a God, but in the same breath tell us how poor the likes of Jean, Bismark and Lambie are - I just cant take you that seriously. How you see so much in something so ordinary is beyond me - the paradox is puzzling

 Becs you have got to love these guys - Lynagh now knows nothing about rugby and has it wrong when it comes to Jantjies, despite the fact that all and sundry are raving about the guy......the problem here is that these guys love Morne so much and realistically see Jantjies as a massive threat to their idol, so even a respected 10 in Lynagh has it all wrong. 

Pinch of salt springs to mind - one certainty is that good old Morne's days are numbered and the sooner we see the back of him the better for Bok rugby - we will then be able to evolve and rise up the rankings. I just hope Meyer does not take too long in seeing the light

My idol? Hardly. I'm not the kind of person who basis loyalty on emotional attachment of any kind. I simply call it as it unfolds. You can bleat all you want about Lynagh, it makes little difference. He badly misjudged that Lambie performance last year and that put into perspective his credibility in assessing the game casually in the studio. I also doubt that Lynagh, or any other name you'd like to watch, analyses these games and players as closely as I do. I have the games available and I challenge you to point out these supposed flaws. If you are right, I will happily concede my stance.

Now onto Jean. In 2004 the Boks had a lethal attack, unfortunately Barry and Joubert lost a lot of form thereafter and were dropped after a poor loss to Australia in 2005. With Jean at 12 we never again saw that level of potency ball in hand. Jean never was an attacking player, rather a defensive wall (in his early days) that had a knack for the intercept in his second and third season (05 and 06). After that time time he was beginning to wane elsewhere, and the intercept was no longer a weapon. We were floundering in the World Cup in 2007 until Frans sparked life into our campaign. He single-handedly killed off Samoa and went on to form the most lethal centre pair in Bok history. Jean has never performed to that level, not even close! And yet again in 2011 Frans showed Jean up for what he truly is. Throughout Peter's tenure Jean was nothing more than a battering ram. He gained very little ground and often barely set-up the next phase. He stunted our backline. It was evident how Morne thrived having Frans outside of him. All of a sudden our backline opened up. You are too proud and stubborn to admit this though. That is very unfortunate. You call it whichever way you want, but I will never abandon my stance until something changes in either player.
 

 Oh boy so Lynagh got it wrong with Lambie as well - a player we all know is a class act. So Lynagh is wrong about Lambie and Jantjies - views I share with Lynagh - and you are right about these two players - do you take me for a fool?

To mention Barry in any positive light is another joke and derails your take on Jean and co even further. I really just cant begin to comprehend how anyone could fail to see the quality in Jean, easily the best Bok 12 I have ever seen.

I dont get your rugby views at all and never will

 Dan Carter had this to say about an important atribute that all good number 10s must possess,"Finally, and perhaps most important of all, a good 10 has to be a great communicator. It’s no good telling people what they should have done after a move has gone sideways. Keep in people’s ear. Learn how to talk to them. Get your message across. And like all the other skills – anyone can talk badly. You want to talk well. So practise it."

It's funny you should mention that Hakwa because Dave's hero, herr Cooper, tends to explode in a fit and take it out on his team-mates!

 Cooper is no hero of mine, but a class act he is. The question indirectly was Cooper of Morne for 10.......I'd take Copper with one hand tied behind his back over Morne.

I am not joking when I say that Jantjies, Goosen, Lambie and Butch would play 10 for my side ahead of Morne - I dont rate him at all. Conservative and solid at best - I dont do solid, it goes against the grain

I know you don't - You are rather rash, reactive. Your side reflects that. You cannot select a stable team with that ethos.

 The question I will then pose to both of you is, in RWC 2011 if the whole Queensland Reds Team was selected to represent the Wallabies and Ewen McKenzie was the Wallabies coach, would we see the same flair and tactics?