The Sprinsboks' Attack-Video Ana!isys

to avoid the advertisings










to avoid the advertisings








to avoid the advertisings













to avoid the advertisings









to avoid the advertisings





This video shows all the attacking phases of the Springboks during the first half of their match against Wales. The second half shows exactly the same patterns.

In the whole match the boks played 117 attacking phases (more or less, it's possible that I missed one or another but it's not relevant for the outcome).
From all the 117 phases, they made just one pass in 92 of them (almost the 80%). This means that the 80% of the springboks' attacks consist in FdP passing to the first receiver (the most of the times, a forward) and this first receiver going straight to the opposite defensive line as it can be seen in the footage.
Once and again the boks'  first receiver is going straight to the defense,.... clonk,..... and again, clonk,.... and again, clonk,.... clonk,.... clonk,....
The maximun exponent of this gameplan is Schalk Burger. He ran 26 times straight to the defensive line,... clonk,..... clonk,..... clonk,.....  he didn't gain the advantage line once (or if he did, he did it by cm.), just bash once and again the defensive wall that stopped him everytime. He did no breaklines and he beat 1 only defender in all his runs, 26 attemps!!! he ran 59 m. which is a little bit more than 2 meters/run,..... the distance btwin where he is when receiving and the opposite def line.
And he was given the MOM,.... what a joke!!!!

This is the most basic and primary gameplan one can imagine. And, for sure, the easiest one to defend. The rest of the 117 attacking phases consist in:
- 92 phases with 1 only pass
- 20 phases with 2 passes
- 4 phases with 3 passes
- 1 with 4

4 passes in a row (once) was the maximum the boks were able to link on saturday. It's something really poor, I would say that it's embarrassing.
If we sum the times the boks made 1 and 2 passes, we have that the 96% of the boks' attack consist in giving 2 passes maximum.
The only breaklines came when more than 2 passes were made.

If Heineke Meyer doesn't change his gameplan, and I doubt very much that he will do it (I doubt even if he can do it), the AB are going to eat them for breakfast.





The endless discussions on this site about what player would be best in each position, if de Allende or Kriel are up to test level, if Matfield or Lood or PSDT should play at lock,.... are meaningless. No matter who plays with this antedilluvian gameplan, the outcome will be the same.
With this archaic pattern the only players who attack are the forwards, Pollard and, sometimes, usually when the scrum is in the middle of the field and 2 first receivers are located each side of the scrum, de Allende or le Roux. The outside center and the wings are simple spectators.

The only way this archaic gameplan could give any outcome (at least a small one) is that this first receiver (usually a forward and in some cases Pollard also) would be able of breaking the defensive line through his physicality and open spaces for other players. But atm there are only 3 forwards able to do so, Vermeulen, Etzebeth and Bismark and they are not the ones who receive more balls. lood de jager is able to do it against weak teams but till the moment not against the strongests. Burger is the player who receives more balls and is completely unable to break the defensive line, he's like the bunny of the endless batteries crashing a wall once and again. Nor Louw, Mtawarira, Jannie or Malherbe can impose their phisicality in a way that could turn this gameplan into a success.

As I said, if Meyer doesn't change it this will be a slaughter.

 ABF, for me Meyer has nothing to lose so he might as well go all out and gamble everything. He did this in 2014 I think it was when AB were so far ahead in the RC it would have taken a big win to take the RC cup. He failed of course but we have a fantastic game of running rugby.
The only other way I can see the Boks winning is if the weather is so bad in forces the ABs to play a more Bok style of game. Even then Meyer would have to get lucky.
As we all know anything can happen in the RWC knockout games and in spite of all the preparation of the ABs & all the skill sometimes things just go wrong. It keeps it interesting.
Interesting stats you have provided. Looks absolutely mindless to have such a game plan. The Boks kept the score close & finally through a mistake on defence & a heads up play by the Boks they scored the try to win the game.  Not inspiring but a win is a win.

South Africa had Wales on the ropes for most of the 2nd half. 
Wales were lying all over the ball to try slow i down. Their players were routinely getting to their feet on the wrong side of the ruck- and interfering with FDP clearing quick ball.
If that had been a Southern Hemisphere ref- their would have been allot more penalties and perhaps yellow cards. Southern Hemishphere refs favour the team with ball in hand
Wales operate a rush defense- but this is less effective against quick call. Although Wales had the better of the 1st half- I think the Boks should have put them away in the 2nd half. 
Something to consider is that rucks are part of rugby. Taking a crash ball is fine on the first few phases, until their is quick ball. 

 I think you are talking about the RC-2013 when the last match btwin Boks-AB was decisive and the boks needed to get the 5 points (4+BP) while not to let the AB any point.
For once the boks tried to develop a more attacking gameplan but were beaten by the AB who scored 5 tries, being the last one, that of Read when the AB were one man down, the one that closed the game.

But I cannot see Meyer doing the same this time. In 2013 the boks had a real need of playing an attacking game, that was their only chance to get the 5 points and the RC trophy. Next weekend their only need is to get to the final, and this IMO will make Meyer even more conservative,... if this is possible.
But we'll see.......

 @sharkbok,

"Wales were lying all over the ball to try slow i down"

this is just an excuse. When exactly (what minute of the footage) do you see the welsh players lying over the ball?
they lie over the ball in the same way as any other team, including the boks.
They didn't need to do so,.... what for? the bok attack is so predictable that all what the Welsh had to do was to wait to the first receiver.

"Wales operate a rush defense- but this is less effective against quick call."

a rush defense????? what are you talking about? have you watched the video?
All what the Welsh did was to wait the first receiver.

 "This video shows all the attacking phases of the Springboks during the first half of their match against Wales......................."
Oh. 

 are you trying to say something?

 Nope. I don't normally feed the trolls.

After watching the Wales - Australia game, this type of game plan was to be expected.
Wales shut down Australia out wide with their rush defense as Sharkbok correctly pointed out.
Even though the Boks had an off day and the game plan wasn't well executed,  it was still effective in producing pressure and penalties. Pollard makes his kicks, and LeRoux contests that one high ball and the game isn't close.
It doesn't necessarily mean the approach will be the same against the ABs. We have played a different type of game when the situation called for it, but I think it would be high risk to engage the ABs in a game plan they have mastery of with a young back line that has not had the game time or experience together to provide the necessary cohesion. Why would you go into a fight and let the other guy dictate the rules of engagement?

 oimatey
 
Status: Bok regular 
Posts: 1574RE: The Sprinsboks' Attack-Video Ana!isys
October 20, 2015, 16:12:10

After watching the Wales - Australia game, this type of game plan was to be expected.

Wales shut down Australia out wide with their rush defense as Sharkbok correctly pointed out.
Even though the Boks had an off day and the game plan wasn't well executed,  it was still effective in producing pressure and penalties. Pollard makes his kicks, and LeRoux contests that one high ball and the game isn't close.
It doesn't necessarily mean the approach will be the same against the ABs. We have played a different type of game when the situation called for it, but I think it would be high risk to engage the ABs in a game plan they have mastery of with a young back line that has not had the game time or experience together to provide the necessary cohesion. Why would you go into a fight and let the other guy dictate the rules of engagement?

Exactly. Why go to a gunfight with a knife?

when someone doesn't want to say anything and contributes zero to the discussion, what his purpose could be ?


from Wikipedia:

"In Internet slang, a troll (/?tro?l/, /?tr?l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion


also from the same source:

"participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore it,[citation needed] because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts"

 Abasque, thanks for the video. Do yourself a favour and look how many times the Welsh outside backs were offside before the ball was touched. No wonder we didn't take the ball wide. We could have been more creative in other ways, but we bashed it up too much.

 Abasque, thanks for the video. Do yourself a favour and look how many times the Welsh outside backs were offside before the ball was touched. No wonder we didn't take the ball wide. We could have been more creative in other ways, but we bashed it up too much.

 abasque great post and thanks for the great info
spot on mate.....but i am sure fox would deny this info and claim its some sort of anti meyer conspiracy.
the teams that had the most success against the all blacks where those teams that actually go out and play them to there strenghts and manipulate there defences. the all blacks love to have ball possession and its a well known fact that to beat them you need to keep there ball and impose on them a period of long sustained attack...
your not going to give them sleepless nights by attacking channel 1 all day long.
the pattern we saw against the samoa is a step in the right direction but this arcanic bs we saw the last weekend will be canon fodder for the attacking machine that is the all blacks.
aimless kicks wont be returned but will only succeed in turning the ball over and defending for mins on end.

 AB, Meyer made a very calculated move when selecting the squad for WC 2015.
He select "Greybeard" Matfield for the #5 position just for this game.
So beware if he is declared fit.
Joking of course.
With or without him in the team the Springboks are going to have their hands full holding the All Blacks back.
HM strategy for all games is the same each and every time.
Skop and Donner.........unfortunately it does not work against class teams.

yeah, with this basic gameplan that Meyer likes so much ( and very surely is what the boks will play) it's almost impossible to beat any of the remaining teams in the WC, Argentina, Australia and the AB.
The boks, or any other team with the same gameplan, would need a much more superior physicality, they would need to impose their physicality very clearly. There were times when the boks were able to do so but now there's quite equality btwin the main teams in terms of physicality.

In these conditions the archaic gameplan of bashing the op defense with the first receiver is sentenced to death which is what we are going to witness this WC.
The modern game is carried by all the 15 players on the field (not just 10 of them) playing the ball and trying to find gaps or a quick ball (not just looking for crashing the defender), the space is the aim not the defender's body.
Argentina had a game pattern very similar to the boks but now they have evolved, their attack vary to make it more dificult for the defenses. They use their forwards either to crash or to run the ball alternating them with the backline, moving the defense from one side to the other till they find a gap. This is what they made against the Irish and 3 times they found the gap through the wing using 2 players almost together and very very close to the line.

ABF, I agree with what you are saying and hope it will be the case in the match with the ABs. I expect the ABs to win & probably by a comfortable margin, especially if the get 10 points up fairly early in the game. 
We all know that strange things happen in sports & we hope it is not one of those occasions were suddenly everything goes wrong. The ABs are as prepared as they can be. They have planned & thought of everything, they have players that can execute their game plan & have optional adjustments if things don't work. They have prepared mentally for adversity & usual respond to any set back with a try. BUT all of this can evaporate & a boring team that has limped along for years can cause an upset.

 Ab ass well said! I have said as much mysel . 9It grieves me of course to be agreeing with ou ab ass!!) The game against Wales was about the dumbest rugby played by any side during the RWC. I also noted how simple it was to defend against such a utterly predictable game plan.
Burger has been given a nonsensical role. 
We have to play some running rugby, show some creativity and skills. We should not play as loose as NZ but neither can we play this dom rugby.
After the NZ test at home I thought Meyer had finally got it right. Tragically, we were crooked out of that match result wise but the consensus was we were the better team and looked very good on attack. 
The mind boggles at the stupidity at work. Its like being in a race and refusing to move out of first gear.

 the space is the aim not the defender's body.
Exactly so. Charge into the player. By thetime everything is rest the oppoistion are also reset. A good pass beats a player. Angles, gaps, chop aheads. Offloads, brute force. vary your play.Folks must remember we were losing the test agaisnt the Welsh not at full strength. Only a rare moment of skill won the game. The Welsh were shocked out of their minds. Which m akes me wonder if Meyer might not have a surprise for the wee abs. You simply cant be that dumb. Its just not possible.

 beeno lets hope your comments is true as i watched that game on saterday thinking i was teleported into the twilight zone

if meyer was sandbagging its the biggest con job of the century and he should then remembered in the same light as tesla and co......that being said if we look at the past 6 months performances i doubt we will see a rerun of the style of game against the ab's that nearly won us the game if we only managed to finish off our chances better.
i want to believe in meyer but he is not changing the way we are playing but merely reacting to circumstances that tells me that he is not sure where he wants to go

 Tell me Basque, what was the final score in the 2011 final. What was the quality of the opposition and was that a great example of the Allblacks' complete rugby? Are you telling me the result is all but a given? No way the boks can get over the line?

The Meyer game plan is to get forward dominance before going wide- other than 1st receiver crashball, counter attacks and kick and chase. 
When the Boks do well at the breakdown, our strong ball carriers can dominate the collisions. Once we get quick go forward ball with our forwards running onto the ball, we can get penalties or our backs involved. 
When the Boks dont get quick ball there's problems. Static ball carriers mistiming runs onto the ball. Forwards standing in the way of the flyhalf (Schalk usually)
The Boks could lose the lineouts and scrums, but if they are getting quick ball they are effective. 

 too many questions, man,....... but i'll try,...

the WC finals are a word appart, there the psichological aspect is a lot more influential than in any other match. Both teams reached the final in a very diferent way, the French had nothing to lose while the AB went with the burden of not having won in 24 years, of playing at home, all the country expecting them to win, being the great favs,.... and the responsability overcame them, they weren't able to play their game. Of course the french defense, more harmful than in the pool game, was an important factor also but what in the pool game was surpassed without any problem turn more and more impassable while the time was going on.

And I cannot see the boks winning. Of course it could happen, anything could happen,..... Suzie, ...... but I give the boks very few chances, almost zero,.... but this is just my opinion,.... contrary to Argentina and Australia (and a lot more in a final) that they have their chances of beating the AB.

The boks' gameplan of attacking always the 1st channel alternating with kick and chases is not going to work. To succeed with it the boks should impose very clearly their physicality and win the kicking game.
The boks could be more physical than the AB but there's no big diference, at least not enough for imposing themselves the way they need. This invariable attack over the 1st channel, using generally the forwards is so predictable and easy to defend that they need to impose their physicality in a way that nowadays is almost impossible, even the less physical teams have their weapons as the japanese proved.

There's no way the boks can impose to the AB in the tactical kicking. Pollard is quite deficient in this aspect of the game and there's no other than FdP than can kick decently. Le Roux is a liability.
As it's very well explained in the article about the rain posted by JW, the AB are the best in the world with A. Smith, B. Smith, Nonu and especially Carter probably the most accurate tactical kicker.
In the aerial game the AB are also superior with Skudder, Savea, the same Carter and especially B. Smith. The boks have just JP and Habana.

If they cannot get too much points with this kind of attack, they need to strangle completeley the AB attack, reduce it to zero, and I don't think that any team could do it at this moment.

 So the Boks have no chance of beating NZ according Basque.....almost nothing. 
*But in their last match the Boks were ahead until minute 73.
* The Boks beat the ABs once last year
* The Boks should also have beaten them in NZ but for Lomp's farcical last move
* The Boks lead the ABs 2 to 1 in RWC encounters
* The ABs are well known chokers under pressure
* The Boks unlike every other nation except the Bargies in the scrum, have the means to outcompete the ABs in tight forward play.
Doesn't look like no chance to me.

But all of that according to Basque a recorded Bok hater, we have no chance. Time will tell.

 "The Boks should also have beaten them in NZ but for Lomp's farcical last move"
Mozart -  with respect - that story is far from the truth pertaining to the situation as it is a bit oif a farcical statement.  The whole sequence of play leading up top the statement mad by you should actually reviewed in true context.  
It started with a penalty awarded to the Springboks - being 14-10 behind - was awarded a penalty resulting in a 5 meter line-out.   The whole idea with that kick was to start a rolling maul to try and score a try that way.  That is where the problem started.  Matfield fumbled the ball in the resulting line-out and the idea of a rolling maul went down the drain.    The ball was despite the fumble won by the Springboks - but the ball won was of poor quality and a series of totally ineffective passes followed.   The ultimate pass was by Hougaard to De Jager.  Van Graan admitted afterwards that it was a bad play - you do not pass a ball to any player 2 to 3 meters from the touchline with defenders o top of him.    The result would have been inevitable irrespective of who the receiver was - the receiver would have been forced out of the field of play.  
You refer to the end result of a series of defective plays - not the whole series of poor plays involved.   To blame the end result on De Jager only is to my mind somewhat simplistic,   He was to my mind the ultimate receiver of a brainless pass by Hougaard who should have passed the ball in field and  never to a player that near to the touchline - as Van Graan admitted publicly afterwards.