The problems of the Sharks and the Stormers in Super Rugby

Both teams have problems that will ultimately let to their demise in the competition, so let look at those in particular:-
The Sharks
The forward pack of the Sharks is defective and that came out clearly in the game yesterday.  Their props are weaker than acceptable - with the result that their backline virtually saw no usable balls in the game against the Crusaders.
Coenie Oosthuizen is poor as a prop and Mtawarira is bog ordinary.  The locks also lost the line-out battle.   Pietersen kicked the balls away uselessly and when the Esterhuizen got the ball he never once passed it to the players outside of him and crashballed.
The backline can be improved when Lambie comes back and Pietersen moves to the   
full back position.  
The Stormers
Even though the Stormers won the game yesterday - they lost the battle.  They would have lost if Malherbe did not make a try-saving tackle that caused the Jaguares player to lose the ball.
The problem starts with the Stormers loose forwards - they are absolutely useless.  The only thing Burger did yesterday when he came from the bench was to make an illegal tackle putting the Stormers under pressure.
However, their main problem is in the backline.  Their scrummies are bog ordinary - Coleman at flyhalf is absolute crap.  De Jongh is no 12 and an extremely questionable selection in any event.  Kotze is a liability at 13.  Kolbe is clueless as well.  Incidentally Coleman did a Morne Steyn on the Strormers by failing to find touch with a penalty kick - absolute proof that he is BS at flyhalf.  
The Stormers backline can be saved by replacing the flyhalf by bringing in Jean-Luc du Plessis and centers with the return of De Allende and replacement of Kotze by Dan du Plessis or Van Wyk.
The loosies is a major problem and there is not a solution in sight.     

The only times most of our teams play expansive rugby is when they are losing towards the end of the match. 
As soon as our teams win a few games, it becomes more important to not lose- than to win. That is the mantra of South African coaches. 
Talk expensive play at the start of the season- and then if they win a few games- just revert back to being conservative.
We also do not have the backline depth for the SuperXV- but our coaches have the effect of disjointed play that makes the players look more stupid

Too few quality players.....too many teams. 

 5 from NZ 4 each from Oz and SA plus the Jags and Sunwolves and e' voila' back to super 15 ! Fewer SA teams would give you guys a better chance of winning not more .

 Wardad
The ideal situation would be 4 from NZ and SA, 3 from Australia and one each from Japan and Argentina.  Fewer teams from NZ would give them a chance to improve their forwards situation and in the case of SA would give it a much better chance with their backline players.    SA has no chance with 6 teams in the competition to field decent and competitive teams.   

Geez you talk some rot Mikey ,you do realise that forwards are only one facet of the game ? 4 Kiwi teams in the top 8 prove this and the only reason the so called stormers are in it is that they play NO NZ TEAMS! How shameful is that ? The only away games in Oz are against the 3 weakest Oz teams .The idiotic gerrymandered conference system put in place only to guarantee 2 SA teams a home ground play off has the Landers on 18 points supposedly trailing the sharks and brumbies on 16 and 17 points .And you have that little d!pshit on here droning on about NZ supposedly being corrupt ? 
Shameful. 

Wardad 
I completely realize about forwards being only one aspect of the game.  Three teams in NZ has rotten props and worse locks.   I would say there is more or less 6 decent props  and 4 decent locks playing for NZ teams.
I never said that NZ rugby is corrupt ever.  I said there is a problem with some decisions that makes unequal statements favouring NZ players - but those are not part of the player set-ups - more of the disciplinary set-ups and the refereeing.       

 No Mikey you didnt say NZ rugby was corrupt but we all know the wee halfwit that does .So dont start with refs favouring NZ thats nonsense and just plain loser talk ,do you think Peyper and the TMO favoured the saders ? You still dont get how NZ rugby works ,we want mobile props who are up-skilled and can run -pass-fill in even on the wing ! All they have to do is win lineout ball with the locks and have parity on their own scrum .Obviously it works ,you see props and locks from a saffa point of view and thats OK if thats all you expect from them .Holistically as wee Brycy put it ,is how we view a team and if you think that doesnt work then why do you think NZ has won all the marbles of late ?

Wardad 
Sure - it is an advantage if the props and locks can can handle and run with balls - but it si nevertheless a serious disadvantage if they cannot scrum and take decent line-out balls as well.  
Basically my problem is that the latter is not the strong point of NZ rugby.  Too often NZ teams are just pushed back in scrums and manhandled in line-outs.  There are very few locks and props in NZ who are competitive in teh Tight phases of play and can handle and run with balls the same time.
That is why I would never select a NZ lock for the fatasy teams I am involved in.  Because Du Toit was not available this weekend - I made the mistake of picking Whitelock as a lock.  The difference between what a player like Etzebeth and Whitelock achieve is stark - thus far Etzebeth has got 26 points and Whitelock 13.  That is about the top of the range in locks in NZ.  That is a typical example of what I mean with absence of good enough locks and Tight 5 players in NZ.
The NZ teams thrive on aimless kicks and ball possession losses in their games - their forwards are in the main part of their running rugby.  However, in the absence of kicks and ball losses their performance from ball possession gained by their forwards is minimal.  
I am not questioning the quality of rugby played in NZ - but pointing out the problems they have in Tight 5 performance.  The problem is that in their last three tests against SA - they lost one (despite having a fairy like Matfield as a lock), they won one because the ref decided to have uncontested scrums and they won the last one because Meyer instructed usage of the most idiotic game plan ever.
However, four of the top matchwinners of NZ in tests are gone - Conrad Smith, Nonu, Carter and McCaw - and Savea has gone down drastically and their only real improvement in the backline was Milner-Skudder.  
The Highlanders developed a kicking game that would be neutralized sooner rather than later.  I did not comment on the praise songs about the NZ teams this past two weekends - because they played the weakest teams by some distance in the competition and had an easy route to beat them.  The Crusaders struggled badly against the Sharks and their winning margin was small.  Same as was the case in the other two victories of the AB's.  
I give the Crusaders no more than a 10% chance to beat the Lions Friday.             
 

 "The Crusaders struggled badly against the Sharks"?

really, mike? what game did you watch?

the one I saw saturday was overwhelmingly dominated by the crusaders who couldn't impose their superiority until the last minutes,...... but from there to say that the saders "struggled badly" there's a huge distance
the only thing that kept the sharks in the match were the saders' mistakes, both with the boot and (slipery) ball in hand,.....

"I give the Crusaders no more than a 10% chance to beat the Lions Friday."

based on what?
the lions don't beat the saders since 2007,..... in the last 8 years the lions have been completely unable to cause any problem to the saders.

-14 Mar 2015 Crusaders v Lions 34-6 Christchurch
-05 Apr 2014 Crusaders v Lions 28-7 Johannesburg
-31 Mar 2012 Crusaders v Lions 23-13 Johannesburg
-20 Mar 2010 Crusaders v Lions 46-19 Christchurch
-01 May 2009 Crusaders v Lions 32-20 Johannesburg
-12 Apr 2008 Crusaders v Lions 31-6 Christchurch

Under Ackerman, Lions' forward pack has been entirely dominated (exactly in the same way the sharks pack was dominated last saturday) but unlike on sat the saders' let them the possesion of the ball (or the lions were trying to play the ball) to just get one try (against the 7 of the saders).

I would say that the saders have around 80% chance

 ABF
A team winning by 5 points despite having all the possession they had and the Sh!t game plan used by the Shark is not a house on fire. 
I am prepared to lay a bet with you that the Crusaders will lose against the Lions and that is a fact.  They are just not good enough and the Lions did beat the Chiefs in Hamilton and they are at home against the Crusaders who lost against the Chiefs.  
Your past history is of no value - and one has to look at the games in 2016 - not what happened in the past.    

 So Mikey have you heard of Sam Whitelock and oh I dunno some Retallick bloke ,I hear he won some sort of an award ?As for the Saders 2 tries against the run of play padded out the sharks scoreline .And you still dont get it do you Mikey ? We dont want or need your forwards they suit your old school style of rugby which has won you what exactly ? Nothing in the last 7 years ? Our forwards and locks suit us quite OK thank you very much .Lions may well win it but it sure as hell isnt a sure thing .Stick to saffa style rugby Mikey as you just dont get how NZ rugby works ,but then again no other outsiders do either including internatiional teams and coaches who have tried to emulate the ABs.PS are you seriously trying to tell me the ABs and Kiwi teams struggle to win unless the other team makes mistakes ????So you reckon Kiwi teams dont create their own chances or pressure teams to make mistakes ? 

 CleverMike, SA & Boks past history is of even less value as it seems nothing has been learned from the losing record. Recent history (this past weekend) shows the dominance of kiwi teams, just look at the player of the week selections. They selected a few SA forwards out of sympathy I guess but otherwise nothing much p ositive for SA.
Lions are a good team & show what can be achieved with a more balanced team. I guess 1 good team out of 8 ain't bad

 "I am prepared to lay a bet with you that the Crusaders will lose against the Lions and that is a fact."

which is the fact? that you are prepared to lay a bet? or that the saders will lose?
if it's the first one you just have to say what you want to bet

"Lions did beat the Chiefs in Hamilton and they are at home against the Crusaders who lost against the Chiefs."

this is the only thing that never works,....... never,...... rugby is not a transitive relation (whenever A > B and B > C, then also A > C),.....

in the last 2 years with both teams under the same coaches the saders have nulified the lions through their pack dominance,...... and if this season the saders have already dominated all the opposite teams (including the sharks) through their pack, the possibilities of tha saders pack controlling the lions and nulifying them are high,...... there's also the possibility of Ackerman changing the gameplan or the strategy (hence the 20% chances of Lions' winning)

 Blackadder has already said the Crusaders will have to change their game plan. They may also get a few injured players back so this will help.

 Your a laugh wee Mikey ,last year you were telling us about how Maccaw ,Smith and Nonu and Carter were past their use by date ,correction the 2 years before that as well .Now you reckon we cant do without them ! Have you ever been right about NZ rugby ? Hi Justy ,BP !

 ABF - I will lay a bet of $50 with anyone that the Lions will beat the Crusaders - can I make it any clearer than that.  

 In the 2003 WCQF the Bok forwards were supposed to pave the way to victory with a huge pack. The ABs gave them a scrumming lesson on the way to an easy victory.
In our next meeting at RWC15 we were supposed to dominate the lineouts with Hype de Jager. We were dominated in the lineouts.

There have been several other occasions where our pack was touted as unstoppable and the ABs stopped us. Superior technique stopped us. Just because the NZ teams don't lead with forward play, doesn't mean they can't produce the forward goods when necessary.
Honestly given our position as second best, we would be better off looking into our own deficiencies.

 There you have it CleverMike, a brilliant summary by Mozart. How could any one disagree?

 hi wardad,..... welcome back,.... I supose you've seen that we managed to have the lunatic rants down there


@JW,
I read the article you linked yesterday,..... but I'm not sure that are the saders those who change the gameplan,..... I think it's more that they face teams with very different gameplans,..... the sharks kicked away every ball they had while tha lions use to try to play the ball,...... but in both cases the saders try to and get to nulify the opposite through their pack's dominance,....... in both cases the opposite is impeded of creating anything,..... they cannot create any risk,..... and once the saders have the ball they go from side to side using not only the backline but also their forwards (or kick for territory),..... may be they will be a little more direct friday,.... but the basic gameplan usually remains the same

 @mike,

bet accepted,..... how are you g oing to pay?

 ABF, The idea behind playing side to side is to wear out the forwards rather than engage them directly but to do this the Saders have to make few handling errors. The article by Richard Knowler states:
"It (the game plan) definitely needs a massive tweak," Blackadder said.  "We made a lot of errors. If we had lost the game we would have scratched our heads and said 'how did they win that?' The Lions are a completely different animal, I think they hold on to possession the most in Super Rugby … So next week there will be different tactics."
We will see if Blackadder has a game plan that plays more directly and if he tries to maintain possession to counter the Lions who hold on to the ball more than most. If the only change is to cut down on the error rate & changes little else then Sader will improve a lot. What is clear is the Saders had enough dominance to blow the sharks away but did not. The game against the Lions will be an interesting one.

ABF  
We can discuss payment after the game.   I am not afraid of loosing and R800 will pay my Electricity account for the month.      

I'm impressed Mike - putting your money where your mouth is.
Can't see the Lions winning though. Sharks were completely dominated and thats with Mounga's radar way off.

The Lions could surprise- but at this stage, I would say by 60/40 to the Crusaders winning. 

 Easy answer oimatey - the lions has better forwards than the Sharks and a far better usage of their backline.   I would not waste money on a bet like that.   

 Mike, this is way too close to put money on, but I think the Lions have at least a 50% chance. Obviously the altitude and being well rested will count in their favour, but plauing a confident Crusaders team after a beye isn't ideal either. New Zealand teams have the knack to still win matches where they struggle up front....not implying that the Saders will struggle up front, they did very well against the Sharks pack and the Sharks pack is all but weak.

My Hal computer model which wiped the floor to win the SH international predictions challenge a while back, had a strong winning parameter in second tour matches for touring teams that won their first game on tour game. The second game tends to be the strongest for a cross Ocean tour.