The penny drops....a mature article on Boks playing style

The Springboks must evolve their game over time under Allister Coetzee, but it's South Africa’s traditional strengths that will be integral to ensuring the June Test series against Ireland is a success, writes CRAIG LEWIS.

This past weekend’s round of Super Rugby action was a sobering affair. The Sharks lost to the Chiefs. The Waratahs edged the Stormers. The Jaguares hammered the Kings, and the Lions were humbled at home by the Hurricanes. The only ray of light was the Bulls’ impressive win over the Force in Perth.

Understandably, though, most of the reaction and recriminations from the weekend have revolved around the Lions’ 50-17 hammering at the hands of the Hurricanes. The Lions, widely regarded as South Africa’s best side this season, found themselves completely and utterly outplayed.

It served as another stark reminder that New Zealand teams simply won’t be beaten at their own game. Moreover, the prospect of opponents running the ball back at them is undoubtedly one that excites them because it’s sure to present opportunities on the counter-attack.

The Springboks suffered a similar fate against the All Blacks in an epic Rugby Championship Test at Ellis Park in 2013. Needing to win with a bonus point, the Boks played with flair and freedom, and the match was an appealing spectacle from a running-rugby point of view as they scored four fantastic tries.

The All Blacks, though, pounced on opportunities that arose from errors and demonstrated their superiority with ball in hand to score five tries of their own and come away with a 38-27 win and the Rugby Championship title.

Although the Springboks played too much rugby on that occasion, we should not forget that it was during this middle period of Heyneke Meyer’s tenure as Bok coach that he did begin to get the Boks to play a more dynamic, all-round brand of rugby.

In 2013 and 2014, there were some immensely memorable victories, none more so than the return fixture at Ellis Park that saw a young Handré Pollard lead the Boks to a 27-25 victory over the All Blacks. Unfortunately, as the pressure began to build on Meyer as the World Cup drew closer and unexpected results went against the side, he reverted to type and the Boks regressed to a largely one-dimensional approach.

Don’t get me wrong. As a rugby fan, that 2013 Test at Ellis Park was a joy to watch. As has been the Lions’ attacking, ambitious rugby that’s offered so much entertainment. Lions coach Johan Ackermann has said it’s a style of play that suits the players at his disposal, and there’s no doubt South Africa does have players with the necessary skills.

But it’s been clear once again that it’s a game plan that will certainly not work against all opposition (read New Zealand opposition). There needs to be a better balance to their play when the situation demands it. There has to be a plan B.

Coetzee has said he’s been pleased to see South Africa’s Super Rugby coaches all generally working towards ensuring their teams begin to offer more with ball in hand. This is key to the Springboks being able to do the same. But it’s the Bulls who have actually begun to find the best balance to their game.

The team from Pretoria has retained their traditional strengths at the set pieces, in terms of physicality up front and with their kicking game. But they’ve also complemented that with balanced attack. It’s a blueprint that may well make them the best-placed South African side to beat a top New Zealand opponent. Unfortunately, that opportunity may only arise in the playoffs.

From a national perspective, Coetzee will have such limited time to prepare the Boks for the upcoming Tests against Ireland, and there will be a need to keep things simple and direct. However, over the next year or two, and if South Africa’s Super Rugby sides all continue with their endeavours to offer more with ball in hand, he will be able to evolve the Boks’ style of play to incorporate the high-paced approach he’s spoken of.

As always, though, the primary goal for the Springboks will remain to be able to beat the All Blacks consistently. Yet, as we’ve been reminded once again in Super Rugby, it’s a prospect that appears completely unlikely at the moment.

South African rugby must move forward, and there are signs of that beginning to happen. But our traditional strengths need to become something we cherish and celebrate rather than lament, particularly against New Zealand sides, and certainly against the Irish this June.

 I have to add to all this common sense that it is scoring from good ball within the opposition 22, that has been missing with SA teams. W e get into position to score as often as any, but except for the maul we are toothless in the 22 with our bashing phase play.
We need to be less predictable inside the 22....look to the Pollard tries against NZ, Schalk's  try on Saturday....Folau's cut onto the ball vs the Stormers. These are examples but we could be so much more effective near the line. When do we ever see a back running onto a scrummie pass at pace close to the line?

Common sense - you quoted the above article - but that has never been your approach in the past.   Your comment have always been that a flyhalf must kick the ball away -  you wrote yourself that the role o the flyhalf is 90% kicking and nothing for the rest.   You always support donkey-kicking flyhalfs as well - Morne and Fat Fransie.  
It seems that in view of your comments you now support some ball in hand play.  You talk only about scoring of tries when in the 22.   So is that when the ball must be kept in hand and for the rest never be used in that way outside of the 22 - when according to your theories the ball is to be kicked away?   
And the try of Burger is mentioned - yet the two tries of Du Toit are in your book meaningless since it also originated in the Waratahs 22.   
I still do not understand your logic about playing comprehensive rugby - but that is nothing new - since you obviously do not understand the concept at all.      

 So once in a blue moon you play expansive rugby and it doesnt quite work out.Thankfully folk have realised you need a balanced game plan where you are able to do more than defend. We are seeing forwards offloading and better distribution and running lines etc. The change will be progressive. You have to be unpredictable.
Of course we must not forget our traditional strengths like real locks and not pap string bean like wee matfiled. We cannot though not move forward in terms of creativity, skills and attack strategies.

 The difference Tokkie, follow the bouncing ball, is that the Schalk try was worked. The two Du Toit tries were happenstance. Here's the thing Tokkie, if you are looking at strategy happenstance has very little informational content. Are you following or just dribbling?

HasBeen I know you think there are fairies in the garden, but there aren't.

The Boks need to play in the same way that the Bulls, Lions and Stormers play the game.
A Bok side playing the way the Lions do is exactly what we want to see....difference being that the Boks will have a dominating pack of forwards that wont get their arses kicked at the breakdown like the inferior Lions pack did.

 Mozart
Are you going bonkers again.  You must be kidding if you even think that Burger's try was a worked try and Du Toit's try was not.  Fact is du Toit' second try was the result of clever thinking and strong physicality by reading what was his best optons through reading of the game as to what was in front of him.
Your prejudice remains utter BS.   But then it is a normal - remember the case of the Lambie penalty in the AB test in 2014 when you stated that it was not a pressure kick - get the message.
However, there is an aside to it - you did not answer my question at all.   

 You cant just suddenly decide to emulate NZ and flick some mythical switch .NZs style of play is ingrained from the moment our wee kiddlies pick up the ball and start the whole catch-pass running thing .Huge rumbling packs and kicking long range penalties like Lambie  is where its at for you wee chappies !

 Mike this may be hard for a mong  like you grasp, but reading "what was in front of him" sadly cannot be planned ahead of time by definition. Having Schalk run inside off the scrummie's  shoulder can. I hope that penetrates.

Wardad what you are seeing on here is wishful thinking. Every four years or so we go through this stuff and after a few losses it goes away. The total domination of the Lions has already started the doubts.

"So once in a blue moon you play expansive rugby and it doesnt quite work out. Thankfully folk have realised you need a balanced game plan where you are able to do more than defend. We are seeing forwards offloading and better distribution and running lines etc. The change will be progressive. You have to be unpredictable." Exactly! Compare where our teams finish at the end of this year's S18. I'll put money on our average standings being better than last year. So if we finish better than last year in the first year that most of our teams run the ball then logic unfortunately only points in one direction. I dont see the above article as much more than a bit of opportune naysaying. It's like some people think running rugby is genetic. @Wardad - Huge rumbling packs did work quite well in the past. But the game has changed. Wingers are faster, flankers are more agile and hooker these days look like 8s of days gone by. Huge slow packs will dominate rucks, if they get there first. Turn overs will always hurt a slower side more and unfortunately big rumbling packs are also slower ones. If SA persist with the Ex-bulls/Meyer style of rugby we are likely to be the only nation left playing that way. On top of that it's shyte/depressing/horrible rugby and most SA fans want something new. That's my take on it anyway.

 And that expansive rugby by the Lions, so lauded on this Board has resulted in an aggregate points differential of 33 points over 9 games,  or less than 4 a game.....while the dull as dishwater Stormers have a differential of 90 or 10 points a game. Damn there goes another theory.

 Mozart
This is hard to get into your dim brain - but Du Toit was three times the player Burger was on Saturday.   Burger was average to poor this year all along and you are just simple minded, while in the absence of Etzebeth, Du Toit was the best lock in the whole competition by some distance - but it shows another streak of useless prejudice  in your thinking.
You find an article which you obviously could not understand and made a reference to the issue discussed to the effect that the ball-in-hand issue only applies when the Springbok is in the 22 of the opposition.   For the rest it does not apply if your comments is anything to go by.
Your dodgy thinking is further illustrated by the fact that even though the Lions beat the Stormers in the present series - you try and justify your stance because of a ridiculous and useless comparison.  
Just on other point to quote you:-
 "When do we ever see a back running onto a scrummie pass at pace close to the line?"  
That was out for years and the key standing ball flyhalfs - Morne and Fat Fransie was the real issue here.   Pienaar's passing was too poor to allow for that type of thing either and Du Preez preferred to pass balls back to the forwards.   Not possible under the circumstances - sad to say.    
    

Mr Plum as I have said before you could do worse than have 15 Os du Rondts shoulder [ neck to neck ,ear to ear ?] to shoulder across the pitch so that not even a blade of grass can squeeze past them .Sorry 14 and Morne to kick the goals .Just march em up and down the pitch like a huge grass flattening flesh Zamboni !

 ou maaaikie please. Gven your debacle regarding Trum*p re the GOP nomination one would think you woul d be more cercumspect in trashing great men like Trum*p and Burger.
Burger has not been poor. He still gets through a mountain of real work and his presence and rugby acument helps the team.
Wake up ou maaaikie!

Let's not forget that it was our traditional style of Rugby that got us embarrassed by Japan and that almost saw us lose to the Welsh were it not for a coach defying offload by Duane. One look at RG Snyman's offload this weekend to set up the try and you'll quickly realise that we are able to have the best of both worlds. Listing of couple of quick names of backline players (Le Roux, Jemba, Sergeal, Kriel, Combrink, Faf etc etc) and one has to wonder what a waste it would be to watch them never get the ball. One of Jantjies' strengths is receiving quick ball front the front and setting off ground gaining attacks. Ok...yes, one of his passes was intercepted on Saturday, but this was the exception, NOT THE RULE. You guys are older than me, so maybe you'll be able to answer this question. Prior to to the Bulls mid 2000 successes, how long had SA teams played this kind of ball? As far as I remember growing up, we used to run the ball a hell of a lot and used to dominate that way. Is my memory skewed? IE Is this not a pseudo tradition we are talking about here? Moz, I'm surprised at how quickly you've taken a negative stance, or at least that's what it looks like to me. I think you want to see the proof before you eat the pudding. Patience sir, it is coming :)

"As always, though, the primary goal for the Springboks will remain to be able to beat the All Blacks consistently. Yet, as we’ve been reminded once again in Super Rugby, it’s a prospect that appears completely unlikely at the moment." How many times have the Lions beaten AB sides this year? Yes, this team of nobodies actually has a better win loss ratio against Kiwi opposition than Meyer's Boks had. This article really irritates me.

Having a keen, yet not so succesful boxer in my youth and having had some real top notch trainers there are a few lessons that always stuck with me. One of them being "A counter puncher hates being countered." The idea being that one draws him into counter attacking and then capitalises on the gaps he leaves which will more often than not be bigger that the gap he was attacking. A secondary advantage to this strategy is that it also makes him second guess his own Plan A. Welcome to his head and make yourself comfortable because you'll be in here for a while ;) Sorry, rambling.

 Beeno
Whether you like it or not the Tr umpet is a BSter who is going to cost the RP dearly if he ever get to be their candidate in the elections in November - hopefully he does not.  The RP cannot afford to have him as candidate - since he will cost them not only in the presidential election - but also in congressional seats.   It will give the DP a majority in both houses - which will mean a further decade of misrule and disaster.
Burger was - as even Draad admitted - always on the poor side in this tournament ad it is evident that he is not up to standard anymore.   No use crying about it - he is not what he used to be.  His hard working is of a very low standard - eg look at his tackle and ball carrying stats and it will prove it.   I always was and remain an admirer of Burger - but has to admit he is past his best and is now only doing the minimum to stay in the side.      
     

 I like Johan. The Lions are lucky to have him.

 Plum let me help in terms you might grasp. Think of the Boks as Roberto Duran and the ABs as Sugar Ray ......Duran couldn't move with Leonard, and after hitting air for a bunch of rounds, finally did his "no mas" thing. He needed better tactics, not Sugar Ray's tactics.

Moz what part of the obvious are you missing? There is nothing wrong with the Lions gameplan, they just dont have 15 great players to execute that plan....but that very plan beat the Chiefs away from home....not bad for a side, along with the Cheetahs with the least talent pool to draw on.
How good would the Boks be playing the Lions way with a side along the lines of:
15. Willie / Gelant14. Combrink / Ulengo13. Kriel / Vorster12. de Allende / Serfontein / Venter11. Senatla / Kolbe / Sergel Petersen10. Pollard / Jantjies / Lambie9. Faf / Hougaard1. Kitshoff / Nyakane2. Bismark / Strauss / Marx3. Malherbe / Marcel4. Etzebeth / Willemse5. Lood / PSDT / Snyman6. Kriel / Kolisi / Carr7. Jacques du Plessis / Kirsten8. Vermeulen / Coetzee / Arno Botha

Dave stick to the topic, that's just another list.

 The topic is included above my very impressive lists and states the obvious something you fail to grasp as always 

Moz, we had had or best success against the ABS when we attack. The "traditional" Bok rugby that we reverted back to amounted to this... Wales - An inferior boxer who we attempted to convince to punch himself out and capitalize when he gasses. He never gassed and we were lucky to win. ABs - We covered up and let them land blows while waiting for a hole to appear. A hole that never opened up. Your example is a rather poor one since the Boks match the ABs for pace(hand speed), strength, stamina and skill. The only difference is mindset. Holding your attack until the right moment is fine, but you gotta now how to attack when the moments presents itself and under Meyer the Boks were so unaccustomed to attacking that their best attempts amounted to not much more than blocked body shots. Again, running rugby is not AB rugby. They don't own it and they never invented it. They were just smart enough to understand the way the game was going and started playing that way before we did. Better late than never. Saying that the expansive game belongs to them is just a weird statement.

 Plum
Mozart is a firm believer that the main function of the flyhalf is to kick balls away and the inside center to crashball.   Passing of the ball is absolutely unacceptable insofar as he is concerned.   Matter of fact is that he prefers the scrummie to either kick or pass the balls to the forwards and only occasionally to backline players.   That is why he is such a strong supporter of Du Preez, Morne Steyn and Fat Fransie - they are his absolute top players.  He always supported Meyer and carries on about how successful Meyer's brand of rugby was and the 2 point loss against the AB's is a real indication how the Springboks should play.
When discussing the game being played on a comprehensive basis - he goes bananas and refer to it as wanting to play the AB style of rugby.   He does not believe in passing the ball at all - but now suddenly make an exception and say it must happen in the opponents 22.
It is very difficult to discuss the issue of backline play with him - since he believes that the backline should not be used at all bar for defense and when used in the opponents 22 - that neglected part of the backline coaching should suddenly and miraculously turned into wonderful success. 
       
       

The author says:
"It served as another stark reminder that New Zealand teams simply won’t be beaten at their own game." 
This generalization is built on a myth, i.e. that kiwi teams just run the ball & don't have decent tight 5 forwards. He may have some validity to his argument in the Lions vs. Chiefs game but not for all kiwi teams.
Stats to prove it's a myth:

Lineouts  % Success

1.      Canes                             93.3

2.      Bulls                               92.9

3.      Lions                              90.9

4.      Saders                           89.9

5.      Blues                             89.5

6.      Reds                                89.3

7.      Kings                             89.1

8.      Landers                       88.3

9.      Stormers                      88.2

10.   Brumbies                     88.1

Summary: 4 out of 5 kiwi teams in top 10. Only Chiefs missing.  Only 4 SA teams in top 10.

Scrums % Success

1.      Reds                      96.0

2.      Landers                96.0

3.      Saders                  95.0

4.      Canes                    93.0

5.      Rebs                      92.0

6.      Blues                     92.0

7.      Chiefs                   90.0

8.      Tahs                      89.0

9.      Force                    88.0

10.   Kings                    88.0

 

Summary: All 5 kiwi teams in top 10 only 1 SA team in top 10

Rucks % success

1.      Blues                97.0

2.      Rebs                 96.0

3.      Tahs                  95.0

4.      Brumbies         95.0

5.      Stormers          95.0

6.      Canes               95.0

7.      Jags                  94.0

8.      Wolves             94.0

9.      Bulls                 94.0

10.   Saders              94.0

Summary: 3 out of 5 kiwi teams in top 10 only 2 SA teams in top 10.