The Rugby played under Erasmus

Fact is that since 2012 the Springboks played in the main -

*    the ten man game and rarely used the backline for anything other than defense;

*    the ten man game turned into a 9 man game by Meyer in the 2015 WC - when the loosies became first receivers.

Under Coetzee the backline play was a disaster of huge proportion and the losses mounted as a result.   Like in the case of the Stormers there was no backline play possible in tests in 2-016 and 2017.

So watching the last two tests under Erasmus it was like a whiff of fresh air.   Unlike under Meyer and Coetzee the BS possession-handover kicking stopped and when kicks are made they are 90% effective - putting the opposition  recipients under pressure.   The players played a much smarter ball-in-hand game than under the previous two coaches.   And the backline players - especially in the first test - scored tries that under Meyer and Coetzee would never have happened.

I watched the NZ rugby program over the last two weeks and there comments on the issue were all positive and encouraging from their perspective.   They view the new approach of Erasmus as very good and presenting a serious challenge in the upcoming RC.   Must agree with them about that.             

EN has not trained in altitude, they kept their training camp at sea level. Tells a lot about EN determination to win the series.

SA back line play was initiated after the 20 minutes mark.

Even the quota hooker managed to run through the lines, it tells how EN defense was porous.

May be time to start watching games.

Mozart

It is not the stats that count - it is the issue of comprehensive rugby played in the last two tests.   There were virtually no aimless kicks and real ball-in-hand play absent totally under Meyer and Coetzee.   The stats tells nobody anything in that regard.   

However, this may come as a surprise to you in view of your support of the 10 man game as "Traditional SA Rugby" - whatever that BS may mean - during the Meyer era.  And then the BS never ends - you have two tests played thus far this year - against the three against the French and Irish. 

Vastly improved play? In comparison to what / who?

Le Roux is the same player he was before he left the Sharks ...  he's a little more experienced ... and a little slower too ... but other than that, he's added nothing to his game ... and I'm willing to bet that we'll see the same foolish decisions he's so well known for coming through again.  

Same goes for Faf... he has worked on his kicking game, but other than that, he's pretty much the same Faf that left the Lions for Europe. He still has the same sub standard pass and is as nuggety and as busy as he ever was.

We must put things into perspective. The Poms have been poor. They are by a long shot not the same side that cleaned up all comers a season ago. If they were we would have been thrashed.

I would go as far as to say that this current English side is a smidge above the touring French that came to our shores awhile ago..

The Boks look as though they've actually been coached. They seem to go about their business with purpose ... as if they actually have direction. The improvement from what Coetzee's Goats dished up to what we've seen this year is vast.

It's not the same side ... even with the increased quota presence.

One can see that they have a totally different approach ... a totally different attitude ... an intensity ... and the coach must be credited for it  

Swys is better suited to behind the scenes. That is where his strength lies and we can see his influence in the Boks. I am convinced that he would have gotten the same result with guys like Andries Coetzee and Cronje ... so let's not make Willie out to be this super hero. 

You guys and your meaningless stats. What a laugh.

Mozart

The same players you mentioned played under Meyer and Coetzee and was rated as deficient  because of the playing style used by those two failed coaches.   Why should they now suddenly be better?

Well you do not understand the quality of kicks - in the past there were way too many aimless kicks - so much so that commentators called it BS over the air.   Your heroes Morne and Fat Fransie could not make a strategic kick to save their lives.

Kicking is only effective if they could be followed up and the recipients being put under pressure.   Kicking straight into the hands of recipients with miles of space before them to counter-attack is BS and that was the case in the past

You never realize that kicking should be either -

*   relieving kicks from the red zone; or

*   strategic kicks forming part of an attack mechanism.

However, your comments of the past could not identify that situation - so it must be completely foreign to you as it was to Meyer and Coetzee.

As to the kicking game - it could still be refined - there were a few ineffective kicks made - but that was due to kicks being inaccurate and aimless.   That number was cut by 80% since Erasmus took over.    .        

Moz, its not only the players. There is a clear difference in how both the forwards and the backs carry and pass the ball. They create opportunities to receive the ball at speed(backs) or with momentum(forwards). Less static receivers, going down immediately. We tend to get over the advantage line better...and quicker, which gives us much more forward momentum. This was clear from the start, even when we were 24-3 down in the first test.

Oh, and the heads didn't drop and the shoulders didn't hang after things went against us a bit. The guys hung on. Giving up without a fight was my biggest gripe with the Boks under Alistair...but early days still for Rassie.

and when kicks are made they are 90% effective

That number was cut by 80% since Erasmus took over.

Erm, so show us the data you gathered by analyzing all the kicks in the past two tests to arrive at these percentages.

We all saw how aimless the kicking was against the Welsh. It cost us in the end ... and it frustrated Rassie.

There has been an improvement in the quality of our kicking since then and it shows. They should just make sure that dumb asses like De Allende leaves the kicking to those who know how to go about it.

The biggest difference as far as kicking goes is certainly not the accuracy. Neither is its surprise factor since in all 160 minutes of this series it's always been telegraphed.

Dyanti and Nkosi's chasing has been biggest factor.

Even when the kicks have gone too far the hit's put in by the chasers and the follow up ruck commitment by the forwards is what has turned possession changing kicks into momentum gaining ones.

Faf's box kicking has not been very good at all really. Par at best.

Dyanti specifically seems to relish the chase down. Did Habana ever put in shoulder the way Dyanti seems to do with ease? 

We haven't spoken much about Dayimani(spelling) but he's much faster than both Dyanti and Nkosi, and is bigger too. 

Not sure if he has the same level of timing and ball sense but if he does then he'd be perfect on one of the wings. Luckily Cois is his mentor so with his raw skill and Cois's guidence we should see a very good player emerge. Just wish he'll make the move to the back line sooner rather than later. He's wasted up front.

No, I don't agree

Everything revolves around the coach. He gives direction ... installs self belief ... insists on attitude and intensity ... brings a game plan ... selects properly ... surrounds himself with a skillful team of coaches / consultants ... and has a vision of where he wants to go.

He inspires and brings out the best from each player.

or ... none of the above ... like Coetzee. 

Coetzee would have destroyed the All Blacks within a season.

CC

And what about Meyer?  He was anytime as bad as Coetzee in most aspects.

It ever there was a crime against rugby committed - it was by those two.   They had really no  game plans and the selection of players was a farce.

Lets think about Meyer's comments of the past - inter alia "SA does not have backline players with the skill to play a ball-in-hand game".   Reason he select the duds who was without the necessary skills.   He refused to pick any Lions for the 2015 WC because they would not fit in with the donkey rugby he preferred.

He loved the old skill-deficient players he was acquainted with - because in his words "I know what they are capable of " -forgetting that they were capable of related to 10 years ago and not the present.   

I think most members bar Mozart was seriously concerned about Coetzee's appointment.   In an opinion poll at the time as far as I can remember  68% said he was not the right person for the job, 25%  said he should be given the opportunity to prove himself and 7% said he was the right person for the job.   So the site members were right about him as a junk coach even before he assumed the job.  

The SA rugby scene went through 10 years of seriously-deficient coaches and it is a surprise we still have some good players around.   I agree with your description as to what is required from a coach.   I would say the last three coaches based o n that description would get  2/10, 3/10 and 1/10 respectively..   

I don't think anyone can ever match Coetzee's incompetence. Not even Meyer.

Meyer tried to relive the Bulls glory years.

The man was delusional at the best of times.

I mean he had to be. Bringing back the elderly like Gurthro Steenkamp, Bakkies Botha, Victor Matfield, Jaque Fourie, Fourie Du Preez, Ruan Pienaar, JP Pietersen, and Morne Steyn ... when guys like Malcolm Marx, Jaco Kriel, CJ Stander, Whiteley, Paul Willemse, Faf De Klerk and Combrinck were available. 

Just an arrogant fool.

Well at least he kept his "integrity" ... lol!!

plum

My observation was in the main that the kicks were chase-able and not the junk of the past.   That means that unlike under Meyer and Coetzee - the recipients were under pressure.  That makes a huge difference to what happened over the last 6 years.   

I do not think there ever were worse ball possession hand-over kickers than Morne and Fat Fransie.   They thought kick the ball down-field as far as possible and that would be fine - so what happened in fact was virtually no chase and recipients having acres of space to counter-attack.  But then that was part of the game plan of our recent coaches if what they produced could in fact be called a game plan.

And there were really very few kicks when  they were in the English half of the field.

I know Faf was deficient in advertising  what was to happen with his kicks - but he made very few kicks that was really poor  as possession handover gifts to the English.   They knew what was coming - yet they were under pressure and made mistakes.

Be it as it may - I think that there is really a vastly improved environment with the new coach and if he could work on it  it may yet be leading to a vast improvement by the team in future.       

SB

I think Le Roux developed a problem in SA- there was no support of his attacks and the fact is that now there is a different mind set in play with good  supporting players   

I am afraid that was being discussed above is way ahead of your understanding of the game of rugby - hence the "balls" comment.   So give us some real entertainment by enlarging what you in your ignorance regard as "balls"   

He is perhaps the best playmaker in world rugby, with skills that are better than most of the All Black backline players.

Willie Le Roux is a double double thinker, a term derived from the sport of Chess. In simple terms he sizes up his options of which there are a few in any given situation, then in a split second he chooses the one which is  most effective and by so doing he creates enough doubt in the minds of the opposition. It is a rare ability in rugby where physicality rules. The other great ability of Willie is that he blends his genius within his team. All of his genius would be wasted if there was no link....which again shows  the power of his mindset i.e. to not only confuse the opposition but also to keep his team mates in the frame. Do it enough times and it rattles the opposition.

That same sort of genius we saw in AB De Villiers. To magnify his genius you'd have to imagine a screamer coming at you at 150km an hour over 22 meters. Mere mortals would do well just to get bat to ball, not so with AB, he had that many options, one would have been to clear the boundary which he did with regular monotony.

I'm convinced that Willie would have been the best Springbok flyhalf of alltime. Appreciate his genius for what it's worth, we might never live to see it again.

OK= Just tell us all what you meant by saying "balls" when logical rugby was discussed?  

I think Le Roux developed a problem in SA- there was no support of his attacks and the fact is that now there is a different mind set in play with good  supporting players  

I don't fancy there is much evidence for the claim that there was no support for his attacks. Willie blows hot and cold. When he is switched on he is without peer in this country, but the wheels will probably come off again. There are a few more challenges ahead. Let's see how everyone gets through them first.

"....but the wheels will probably come off again"

I hope you're wrong, anyway, at his best he is poetry in motion. Confidence is his worse enemy, right now he's bristling with it. I turned off him when he chip-kicked in the red zone, he is so much better with ball in hand.

Glad to see someone taking an interest in the topic....tx Pakie.

I also hope I'm wrong. We need him at him at his best. And yes, that chip kick phase of his irritated me as well. As for flyhalf, who knows? He'll have less space and will probably be targeted more effectively by the defence. But I'd wouldn't mind seeing him have a go there.

I'll be over the moon to (a) see it happen and (b) to see him succeed. I can visualize him being a conductor of an orchestra.

Pakie

Willie was the only player showing any real ball-in-hand ability when previously playing for the Springboks under Meyer.   The problem was that there was a seriously deficient game plan nullifying his attacks and none of the players knew what to do to assist him.   

The game plan was atrocious - some backline players worse.   Fact is that there was no chance of a real attack possible when Morne was flyhalf and in the case of other games when the flyhalf was not the first receiver,    Joining up with the backline in an attack was totally unfeasible under such conditions and the only cases available for attacks after he collected the ball after a pressure kick by the opposition.   There was nothing he could do with such balls ssince the backline players did not line up for attacking play from  such a phase.

Fact is both Meyer and Coetzee were clueless about attacking ball-in-hand backline play and was not capable of coaching players correctly in such a case and in the land of the blind - there were serious limitations on what Le Roux could achieve.   What was clear is that the opposing team worked out how he could be neutralized and that seriously limited his usefulness.

From what we have seen in the first two English tests there was a vast difference in what could happen under a proper game plan and that on its own open up the game that Le Roux thrives in.   If you think otherwise, just study Meyer's quote on backline play as mentioned in a previous message.        

Mike, You're repeating yourself......seriously we've heard you say this many a time...."Meyer and his deficient or non existent gameplan" nyaah nyaaaah

It's like I've said ... Mike has nothing more to offer.

If you've read one of his posts, you've read them all.

I find myself giving his posts a quick glance ... but I no longer read the entire thing.

It's the same old repetitive stuff ... boring as hell.

There was nothing he could do with such balls ssince the backline players did not line up for attacking play from  such a phase.

Simplistic and inaccurate BS.

I just quickly checked Willie's stats in tests against Aus and NZ during the Meyer period, and with a few exceptions he consistently made running meters not only comparable to his opposite numbers in those teams, but sometimes even exceeding them.

Examples vs NZ:

JHB 2015:
Le Roux 78m - Dagg 33

Auckland 2013:
Le Roux 28 - B Smith 27

JHB 2013:
Le Roux 117 (the most individual meters in that game) - B Smith 59

Wellington 2014:
Le Roux 68 - Dagg 113

JHB 2014:
Le Roux 78 - Dagg 42

Examples vs Aus:

Brisbane 2015:
Le Roux 106 - Folau 108

Perth 2014:
Le Roux 42 - Folau 86

CT 2014:
Le Roux 80 - Folau 45

Brisbane 2013
Le Roux 76 - O'Connor 77

CT 2013:
Le Roux 50 - Ashley-Cooper 36

Etc etc.

Not bad for a bloke who got balls he could apparently do nothing with, hey? Stop sucking nonsense out of your thumb, Mike. These things are more complicated than "Meyer make backplay deficient".

Pakie

Sorry you are missing the point completely.  The stats about meters gained is absolutely meaningless in the case of a full back - who often enough runs 10 meters and more before he makes a kick or is tackled.

For Le Roux to be dangerous in attacking play  there are two requirements totally missing in tests in teams coached by Meyer, namely  -

*   ball-in-hand backline play where he can be an extra player in attacking moves - under both Meyer and Coetzee this was impossible and Meyer said it explicitly and used Burger as stand-in flyhalf in the WC - he automatically ruled out such attacks - Coetzee was even worse: and/or

*   the players have to line up with him fairly deeply so as to carry on a carry receiving the balls from him when he caught a kicked ball - this near to never happened and it destroyed any attacking move Le Roux would try to initiate.

If you can give me examples where I am wrong in the above regard please be at liberty to do so. 

What in affect happened - because of the poor state of backline play from 2012 to 2017 was that the opposing team realized soon enough what was going on  and simply ignore the other players and aligned the players to tackle Le Roux.   That was made easier by the opposing players ignoring Morne Steyn as well - because he never attacked the gain line and if he passed the ball it was easy to "kill"  the 12 receiving his hospital passes .

I think Le Roux was decades ahead in his thinking about backline play compared to the two duds who coached him.   

There is no way Meyer did not say what I quoted above - that shows clearly that he could not understand what backline play is about and did not have a clue about coaching of backline players.    His game plan in the WC was sick (a repeat of the 2004 Bulls game plan) and that is why everything went haywire starting off with the Japan test and ending with the semi.    

CC

How can you not be repetitive when BSters come up with the same BS time and again?  

The stats about meters gained is absolutely meaningless in the case of a full back

No, it's not absolutely meaningless. But I'll play along. In the 4 games he played on the wing against Aus and NZ he also made more meters and received more possessions (just 1m and 1 possession less in one case) than either of the opposing wings. That means he made more ground carrying and saw more of the ball than 7 out of 8 wings he played against in those 4 encounters - Australia and NZ wings.

Pakie

Since you looked at the stats - I also took a look at them.   Le Roux played thus far in 40 tests for the Springboks and the record was as follows:-

Wins      -     26

Losses   -      14

6 of the 14 losses were against the AB's .  Of those at least two could have been won by the  Springboks - but for the balls-ups made by Morne Steyn and Matfield at cruicial stages during the games in question.  

Le Roux in total scored 10 tries and that happened against most countries - the only countries he did not score tries against were France, Scotland and Samoa.   From a try-scpring erspective his best performances were against Australia and New Zealand./

Interesting stats - hopes he keeps it up  . 

Well Mike should be able to tell us exactly which games he is referring to since he remembers so vividly how they were lost.

The case of Morne - so lets see about the Ellis Park test in 2013 0 where Morne missed five tackles and buggered up badly - remember the the second try of Messam where instead of kicking for touch seconds before the end of the first half - Morne passed the ball he should have kicked and Messam ended up scoring a try.  Two missed tackles by Morne also let to tries in that test - lets see potential Monre BS gave the AB's 21 points.

Second one was the Wellington test in 2014 where instead of setting up a driving maul as intended Matfield fumbled a SA-throw line out five meters out and the opportunity was lost - that was about two minutes before game end and the AB's was 14-10 ahead.  O yes, somebody nobody saw touch Matfield's arm causing the fumble according to Mozart.

The other test that was lost was the Perth test in 2014 - in which case Morne all on is own lost the test - the last test Meyer chose Morne as the starting flyhalf.

Mozart on his own found amazing reasons to blame others than Morne and Kiewiet for their bugger-ups.