The simple story of Bok revival

Hall Of Fame

35403 posts

No doubt...but not with the 'expansive rugby' everybody was clammering for last year. In my view we are better: 

1 Because we have Pollard, Willie and de Klerk back in the mix. 

2 We are playing a style much more suited to our resources. 

3 Erasmus is more hands on than Coetzee who left the coaching to the loser Brendan Venter. 

4 There is a massive improvement in our defence under the Nibelung (I saw Siegfried on Sunday)....this is probably the real improvement everybody senses. 

May 08, 2018, 05:25

Rassie is a coach steeped in Bok rugby and Irish rugby, which are quite similar.....conservative, traditional role for the pack, a flyhalf who can control territory and a penchant for experience. He has also had his biggest success up north and will respect that experience. 

So I expect more NH players than fans are expecting and a few stabilizing older Boks. As well as a tranche of new players of colour. The team could look like: 

Willie 

Lleyds/Nkosi 

Am/Venter 

Allende/Esterhuizen/Frans. 

Dyantyi. 

Pollard. 

Faf. 

Beast/Kitshoff 

Marx/Bismarck 

Wilco/Nyakane 

Etzebeth/Willemse 

Lomp 

Du Preez/Stephanie 

Kolisi/Louw 

Vermeulen/Whiteley 

Not necessarily my team, but ticking the overseas/experience/quota boxes and so quite possible.

So lots of stupid attributions regards Bok success. The moment an organization really succeeds all sorts of reasons are found….like the coach is a genius.

But really we were at sea after Jake left. HM succumbed to the call to be expansive and go for youth….then pulled it back too late at the WC where his younger players, Lomp and Dud in particular doomed a close call against the ABs.

Coetzee continued with the formula and it got progressively worse.

So what did we change….we brought back key players playing in Europe…we improved our defence although it creaked this year…our scrumming is the best it’s been probably since readmission….and we trained all our forwards to fetch.

All very conservative moves which immediately made sense to the Bok players. The traditional Bok game has been honed.This was always my prescription….the neglect of our scrumming for example just made no sense.

But nor does taking all that good ball and using it in 50/50 up and unders. Teams have been fully exposed to our model. We will always be competitive doing it….but we need something more to widen the gap against the top teams. A backline that can use the ball.

If we don’t do this our games will become a series of 50/50s….as they have been throughout 2021.

The boks got into a deep see when  Meyer started calling back retirees to play for the Springboks and went into a deeper see when Coetzee was as clueless about Springbok coaching as Meyer was.      Jake was as bad as the Meyer and Coetzee was since he was totally clueless about backline play and had to get Eddie Jones to take over backline coaching.     Backline soring tries - the ultimate determinator of backline performances against stronger teams became a rarity 

The other problem was there was no joint attacks between loosies especially and the backline.   That was for instance was why the Springboks were unable to score any tries against England in the final and there was if Smith's own statement indicated their were no planning and coaching of attacking moves in 2007 as well.   

Under Erasmus the plan changed  and it became a real 15 man game - with backline players scoring more tries than the whole team used to score.    That is why the Springboks in two  years beat the AB's in 2018 and drew with them in 2019 in New Zealand.

The whole story is flawed - in 2007 the final indicated that the Springboks beat a very weak England team comprising mostly of older players from the 1999 England team.    By 2007 the England team was poor and not even remotely getting rebuild after the 2003 WC win.  

The story about kicking is seriously flawed as well.  The AB;s for years used strategic kicking as an attack mechanism.     The Springboks until 2018 played a a game consisting of aimless kicking.   So a new strategic kicking mechanism was introduced by Erasmus where ball recipients are under pressure.    However, that was not the only thing that worked - the other strategy was two-fold -in attacking play -

*    ensure that there are forwards - especially loosies - who has ball sense and ball skills to be part of the attacking strategy - where they are also involved in attacks;

*    ensure that at breakdowns balls are quickly retrieved for recycling  in attacking moves.   

The so-called traditional SA rugby is a farce used by clueless SA rugby official, the media and even more clueless supporters,    For many years the SA teams until 1981 used to play 15 man rugby - if there was a  real Traditional SA Rugby a skilled 15 man rugby game was the ideal.   that idea was as dead as a doornail and SA teams were the poorest try scorers in international rugby.    The typical example is that in 2019 backlines players scored more tries than the whole teams scored  in every World Cup series from 1995 through to 1915.   

To compare the ABs use of kicking with our mindless up and unders is nonsense.

What does the AB's do differently  insofar as kicking is concerned from the Erasmus recipe?   They make sure recipients are under pressure when receiving balls and that have the benefit of potential turnovers as well.   

The idea to make long distance possession handover kicks is what White, Meyer and Coetzee specialized in and  opposition teams were very good in counterattacking.   In any event the fact is that the  present Springboks backline has proven  that they score more tries than the Sprin gboks scored since 1992 in any given year.    

The lack of try-scoring ability was a curse on Springbok rugby.    However, who made more aimless kicks and never attacked the gain line than Morne Steyn?   You never moaned about the kicking farce until you started to attack Erasmus on that  score.  You must have been blind to that problem in the past.        

19 tries scored by Bok backs in 2021….tying the disastrous 2017 as the  lowest in the last 10 years. Our backline production has been going backwards as the disastrous up and under strategy has become all encompassing. In 2018 we still had vestiges of prior Bok backline play,

I asked you to compare tries scored in WC series and of the so called vesstages of Bok backline play.   You are just making wild statements as per normal.   There is proof that strategic kicking improved massively under Erasmus and Nienaber -under previous coaches aimless kicking was the norm.   

That story about kicking was dealt with in the past - that complete idiot Kindergarten Imbecile claimed at one stage that . Carter kicked more than Morne did.   When analyzing the kicks there were huge differences in effective  and strategic kicking  - the latter not being used in the SA game.   

Give us some stats on backline try scoring and we can talk again.   At this stage there is one question?  Tryscoring came to a freeze in the Meyer and Cooetzee eras and was critically poor at the time of White as well.   The reason was that the players were not good enough when it came to ball protection and recovery. and breakdown ball turnovers.   Reason was evident - none of the Bok backline players were good at it and under Meyer  the looses were two slow to get timeously to critical breakdown points. - Alberts in particular never was involved in ball protection and never made a single possession turnover.    It never was a strong point of either Burger and Juan Smith.  Proper and quick recycling of balls is a great help in actual  backline attacks.  

The rugby played under Erasmus and Nienaber  is much more scientific based than ever before.   In the past the technical knowledge of De Villiers, Meyer and Coetzee was grossly deficient - that is why nobody else will ever appoint them as coaches - and White was limited to elements of forward play - his knowledge of backline play was seriously deficient - hence the appointment of Eddie Jones in 2007.   In technical knowledge, strategies , HR and management Erasmus and Nienaber  better than the above coaches combined.   

Just another point - by 2014 detailed analysis of any activity of every individual player was available - it shows what and where every player was during every activity  and what exactly every player was contributing to games.   Meyer was never bothered to use that knowledge  - neither was Coetzee.   That is where for instance Mostert and Esterhuizen came short -  the former was demoted to the bench only because of injury to other players and the latter fell off the bus completely.           .            

Wrong again Tokkie….the Bok backs averaged 1.96 tries per game under HM and 2.20 tries per game under Harrassmiss. Basically two tries per game by backs in both cases. There was no implosion in back play under HM…..given the much stronger pack we have now and consequently better platform for the backs, one would have expected the Bok backs to be at least a try a  game better now.

2012 and 2021 are instructive. In both cases we played tough schedules, with the exception of Georgia in 2021. Eliminate Georgia and you are left with 12 matches in both years. We scored 16 tries in 2012 and 15 in 2021. That’s probably the most relevant comparison.

All that additional ball has translated into no more backline effectiveness.

The story is always the same  BS  - the fact is that try-scoring under Meyer was atrocious.    Under Meyer tries dried up and was low.   I did checks on 2012  in 2912 and 2015 - the first year Meyer was coach and the WC year in 2015 and the difference was tries scored in those two years indicated something totally different from what you carry on about.  In tests played against top teams the Springboks tryscoring ability vanished into thin air.

in the quarterfinal and semifinal for the two WC's  the situation  was as follows:

2 015   - try scored      vs   3 tries scored by the opponents.

2019    -  4 tries scored  vs 1 try scored by opponents

One can go further and analyze the RC and the situation was even worse.    The springboks in 2015 scored 17 tries in total in all matches played  - in 2019 they scored  36 tries - 19 by backline players.    In total in 2015 the Springboks scored 35 tries - in 2019  the Springboks scored 51 tries.   The difference of tries were in fact 16 and that is a huge difference.   The same applied in 2012 as well.    You cannot  eliminate Georgia to arrive at a figure you like  - so the fact is that the circumstances in the two years you picked is not comparable anyway.   SA played in 2019 11  tests with 10 away tests -   In 2012 they played 12 tests of which  6 was at home and 6 away.    By the way did the Springboks in 2012 played the BRI Lions  in 2012?   Fact is if you check 2018 and compare that with 2012 - which wee comparable years - you would find  the same type of difference.         .     0

2021….13 games…..18 tries by backs

2019 ….12 games….37 tries by backs

2018……14 games…..31 tries by backs

……..

2015….11 games….21 tries by backs

2014….13 games….26 tries by backs

2013…  12 games….31  tries by backs

2012….12 games….16 tries by backs.

….

Mountains of bullshit from you….the numbers tell a completely different story.

No use to argue with an idiot about issues.   The fct is that all he tries you allocated to backs do not add up/   but look at the WC years 2015 and 2019 - 

*    21 tries against 40/ and 

* Meyer's and Erasmus's  first years as coaches.   16  against 31 

I referred to the darkest period in Springbok Kistory since 1992  when Meyer and Co etzee was coaching the Springboks  and you try and tell me the backlines under Meyer and Coetzee functioned better than under Erasmus.    

I didn’t allocate the numbers Idiot. This comes from a Springbok Rugby source:

OK  - you still are talking crap all the way.   The best year under Meyer was in 2013 when the three June tests were against Italy, Samoa and  Scotland.  That gave three tests in the June. July months.   So you compare that opposition to the Lions in 2021. 

By the way I assume the above  schedule was from 2013 - since Matfield  did not play in 2012 and  Steenkamp last test as in that year.  Anyway - what was the above schedule about?          

No moron, I compared 2012 and 2021…..I literally said so above.

Well - Matfield did not play for the Springboks in 2012.    Neither did Lood de Jager  - he played for the Cheetahs only in 2013 and only 2014 - when he moved to the Bulls and played for the Springboks in one test against  Wales in  June 2014 when eh cme from the ebnch to replace Bakkies Botha.      He also was on the bench in the Japan disaster when eh came on and scored a try as well.

So that list of 2012 seems to be a bit out of date.    

That’s not a 2012 list, nor is it a list from 2021…..it’s a random entry from the source showing how the data is compiled. The point is the data is available to easily compile backline tries and the backline try scoring rate is essentially the same for HM and Harrassmiss.

So it is entirely worthless as a concoction - should never have admitted that.    

Admitted what? Abstract thoughts are really hard for you. So let me help, here is the first test in 2012:

Team:
Combined caps: 458 tests (starting 15)

2021….13 games…..18 tries by backs

2019 ….12 games….37 tries by backs

2018……14 games…..31 tries by backs

……..

2015….11 games….21 tries by backs

2014….13 games….26 tries by backs

2013…  12 games….31 tries by backs

2012….12 games….16 tries by backs.

I nevr sid your numbers are wrong - what I said is weird is your interpretation of the figures.   Examples:-

That 21 tries scored in 2015 are being considered by you as better than the 40 tries scored in 2019 - both being WC years

Another example refers to the first year in the Head Coacjh position 2012 and 2018 of Meyer and Rtasmus *acting in that position)  is equally weird with th figures being 16 and 31 respectively.

Another example is what happened in 2013,   Unlike in years before there were no major  rugby teams coming tp SA in the June/now July test window, the 3 June tests being against Scotland (very weak at the time), Italy and Samoa.   Of your 30 figure 13 of those tries were scored in those 3 tests,   That means  i the other 9 matches the  Springboks backs scored  less than 2 tries a match.  

My conclusion remains - there was a vast improvement in ball skills and playing abilities of backline players - with a more variable base snce Erasmus took over.    

And in terms of winning, these are the stats, counting draws as half a point:

HM ….33 wins out of 48 tests = 68.75% wins

Harrassmiss….25.5 wins out of 39 tests = 65.38% wins.

Generally HM has been more successful, Harrassmiss had a good run at the WC and the Boks played a good final. But looking at the recent Pom game it’s fairly obvious the Poms were a no show in that match.

We are playing 1980s Bools’ rugby and winning by the skin of our teeth.

You quoted stats that showed the exact opposite to what  your statement entails.  You attack Erasmus for backline play inefficiency and the try-scoring by backline players through usage of 15 man rugby is exactly opposite to your statement on the issue.      

Listen dimness anybody who said Meyer was a better coach than Erasmus is an utter rugby fool - as was proven by the fact that Meyer subsequent to his Springbok disaster years was fired by his club based on GROSS INCOMPETENCE.    He has left the coaching sphere altogether   since nobody - not even a school or university team - would appoint him as a coach.    A failure on lower level will never be a success on test level.   

Erasmus in 2018 had to rebuild what Meyer and Coetzee destroyed.  He had o ensure that players are given opportunities to determine a frontline team and in five tets he iused a variety of players 

The only coach who played 1980's Bulls rugby was Meyer and I am still waiting to see the long list of trophies won by Meyer as test coach.    His  performance as coach led to selection disasters and his total ignorance when it came to backline coaching was glaring.    

Looking at anything the way you do is total shit without any reference to coaching - and frankly do not interpret any stats to prove anything.  Fact is the stats contradicted your BS and showed your total  prejudice and constant attacks of Erasmus and players like Du Toit and De Allende is shown you up as a useless rugby brain fart.              

Blah, blah blah…..you just can’t stay on topic. HM’s teams against tougher opposition scored 2 tries a test…so did Harrassmiss’ teams. And all the balls about how great a coach Harrassmiss is implodes when his win ratio is compared to HM’s.

As for the rebuilding nonsense. White inherited a worse mess and in his first year won the Trinations…..Harrassmiss was 7/7.

Game, set and match.

Against what tougher opposition?     The tries scored in  the June 2013 test window period  was against Scotland, Samoa and  Italy - where  13 of the years 30 backline tries were scored.  To make matters worse the team played Scotland  as well in November.  So the three teams produce 15 of the 30 tries scored by the Springboks.   Tougher opposition my arse.    

In 2018 Erasmus had to start with a demoralized set of experienced players - there were 11 of those involved.   Erasmus had to find and identify players he could use as a full squad.  In a number of tests he used  inexperienced  players to see whether they were usable.   For instance in the Wale test in June 2018 there were only five Springboks in the team - the rest were newbies.   That was followed by at least  3 further tests where inexperienced players were bought on Board.

By the way Meyer and Coetzee left a worse inheritance that White could ever have received.   At least White had 4 years to prepare for the WC - Erasmus had 18/ months.   No comparison.             

White never needed 4 years,  he won the TN 9 months after being appointed. As for your tedious argument about tries scored by minnows in 2013..  let’s examine the 2019 picture.

So there were 37 backline tries, sounds great doesn’t it? But 6 were scored in the first Japanese match, 4 in the Namibian match, 4 in the Italian  and 8 in the Canadian match. That makes 22  of 37 tries scored against weak opposition.

Leaving 15 tries in the remaining 8 matches…the usual 2 try a test production.

And then let’s correct your 2013 numbers….11 tries were scored in the June tests against Samoa, Italy and Scotland….13 if you include the November Scottish test.

 That means 18 tries were scored in the other 8 matches… .which included 2 matches each against NZ, Oz and the Bargies and one each against Wales and France

I’m afraid 18 in 8 trumps 15 in 8. Game set and match, another humiliating Tokkie number balls up!

Mozart

I rechecked the tries scored in 2013   The tries scored were as follows:-

Italy      -       4 backline tries and 1 Forward try

Scotland    -    2  backline tries

Italy           -    4  backline tries  and 1  forward try,

Scotland   -     November  2013   =  2 backline tries - 2 forward tries

So you are right about the 18 tries scored in other  matches played - but of those 4 were scored in the Argentina home test in 2014.   

The rest of your discussion is garbage.   I pointed out that your test try by backline players were garbage  and it remains garbage,    In 2012 the figures were 31 and 16  and in 2015 were 40 and 21 in 2014  - which are two comparable years.   With what year do you compare 2013?   Surely not with 2021 - that would be nutty in view of the Lions tour as well as the fact that all games bar 1 in 2021 were away tests and Erasmus was NOT the Head Coach in 2021 anyway.   . 

By the way you claimed  there were no weak teams in the 2015 series.   Japan - before that fiasco was ranked 15 in the world and the Springboks also played  Samoa and the USA  -  so you can reduce the number of tries scored against  Japan in 2019 was  a  top 10 ranked country. and even went to the play-off's a top of their pool after beating both  Ireland and Scotland .    A weak team achieving that -  dimness?  

And then we had the classic about 1,96 as against 2,20 -  the difference is  in fact  12,24% and not equal as claimed by you.   That is  telling and showed the difference between acceptable and unacceptable performance per game.   However, that is jus t part of the long list of misrepresentations you come up in this case.       

\In any event you lost the plot completely when it came to Meyer - he never was a better coach than Erasmus and whatever  crap you came up with is  total BS.    By the way Meyer himself said the Springboks do not have the ball skills to play a backline ball in hand game - and that his team  practiced that as well.          

You are mixing 2014 into 2013…..focus on the three. And I didn’t start comparing 2013 and 2019, you did. I went along for the ride because those are the 2 highest backline try years for HM and Harrassmiss respectively. 

And then I proved to you that HM had a higher strike rate against top teams and that Harrassmiss’ high numbers were compiled against the likes of Namibia, Italy and Canada.

In short I schooled you and you haven’t even thanked me!

Mozart

When dealing performance  issues you must be suffering form seer delusion and specialize in  total misrepresentation of facts   

First of all I never made any comparison  between 2013 and 2019 - other than to point that the June tests were farcical.   The comparisons I made were always between  2012 and 2018 and 2015 and 2019.     Those were for obvious reasons  comparable.

The story about a higher strike rate is a joke in bad taste.   Lets take three comparisons:-

*     Games against the AB's -   Under Meyer  8 played  1 wim

                                                   Under Erasmus  6 played 2 won and 1 draw

*    Trophies won                 -     Meyer none, Erasmus  1 R and 1 WC

*     Coach of the Year         -     Meyer  none - Erasmus 1

*     Discharge due to Gross Incompetence   Meyer 2  - Erasmus nil

The fact is you are trying to compare a rugby expert (Erasmus) with a coach who cannot find any team to coach anymore because of incompetence.

I am afraid your rugby knowledge have been drowned by prejudice and hatred.               

You say the higher strike rate is a joke and try to prove that with trophies, coach of the year awards and events after HM was a Bok coach.

On the other hand after you trashed 2013, I proved that the Bok backline try scoring strike rate in 2013 against good opposition was better than the strike rate Harrassmiss achieved in his best try scoring year…..2019. Crisp, to the point, conclusive.

You have a mind like a weathervane, the slightest breeze changes your orientation.  The sheer randomness of your thought process always produces a moment of disorientation and then the smoke clears and your malfunction becomes apparent.

There was an imaginary strike rate in your prejudiced idiotic mind.   You are won who made wild statements about strike rates and other BS tht you cannot prove.   You claim that a quarterfinal  opponent of the Springboks was a substandard team at the time ranked as number 7 in the world. despite being top of the Pool.    So eliminate the tries scored.  Your interpretation of tries scored is that 16 tries is more than 31 tries - that 21 tries is more than 40 tries when evaluated.   

Did Erasmus ever caused a world rugby scandal by being beaten at the number 15 ranked player in the WC.    Has Erasmus ever coached  a  team that lost ALL their games in a Rugby Championship.   Rugby Championship and LOST all games played like Meyer did?   

But in your miond you van write any BS and you cannot recognize truth if it stuck you in the face.    .        

You can believe anything you which without checking the team combination used by the Japanese - it was virtually their full test team.    You,  can piss off with your prejudiced and imagined BS,  A second tier team that won their WC Pool playing Ireland and Scotland - is Ireland a second tier team?   

There is one thing I agree with and that is that Japan was a third tier team beat the Springboks in 2015 - by 2019 Japan was a top 10 ranked team.    Hell this is getting funnier and funnier - your  BS is getting funnier and funnier too.     

It had 9 of the 15 starters who played in the QF. But here’s the bigger picture:

HM ….68.75

JW…..67.6%

Hun….65.3%

Case closed