Those Lions rucks

Watching the Lions game yesterday it was pretty clear why their game plan is superior to that of the Boks. Quick ruck ball. Teams struggle to keep up when the ball is secured so quickly and spread. It causes all kinds of trouble. They keep doing it and even though teams know it is coming they can't counter it. If the entire Springbok pack was replaced with the Lion's pack, that Irish series would have been very different. Securing your own ball is just half of whats is needed. Securing it quickly is the full package. Currently the Springboks...lead by slo-mo Strauss take much too long. Above anything, for me, that is the biggest issue. Anyone else notice how Faf, who is easily our quickest to breakdown 9 in the country struggles to get their quickly enough and the ball is ready to be spread? Did we see that once during the Irish series. We lament the Lions backs weekly but we never seem to give credit to the guys who make it all possible. Those short mobile props, lighter locks etc. That seems to be where it's at. No? Well something went wrong with the Sharks yesterday...and the Bulls a month ago. Something that seemed to start up front. Again. I think the Bok back line is fine as it is. They were given too few chances by the forwards so it's not possible to judge them. Not yet anyway. Away with the bog slow plodders and in with the slightly smaller men with heart and speed.

 I am against  the slow plodders some favour as loosies - so I am with you in that regard.  However, I think the Lions has one problem in their backline - namely Jantjies.  He really cannot read games and take options - which kills the rest of the backline.   Yesterday it was clear when Cronje came on - the immediate improvement in the backline performance occurred.   The same was evident in the Bulls game - where the Lions wiped the floor with the Bulls.   The fact was that Jantjies was not playing that day and the Lions backline was sublime.   I did not see anything of real substance involving Jantjies in the game yesterday as well.        

 Let me put the issue in perspective - when locks arrive at breakdown points ahead of the loosies there is something serious wrong in the loosie selections.   It happened repeatedly in the Irish tests and that is where the whole system went belly-up.  

 Let me put the issue in perspective - when locks arrive at breakdown points ahead of the loosies there is something serious wrong in the loosie selections.   It happened repeatedly in the Irish tests and that is where the whole system went belly-up.  

 CleverMike; here are the stats from the RWC Boks vs. ABs the first 3 to the breakdown. As you can see McCaw tops the list but then you have Whitelock, Franks followed by Read then Retallick. So we have a loosie; a lock, a prop a loosie and then another prop. So it is not necessarily bad if the players other than loosies arrive at the ruck first or at least in the first 3. Probably Read was roaming wide; Kaino may have been involved in the tough stuff in the rucks (or maybe holding the Boks jerseys ). 
First 3 to BreakdownTotalPer halfMcCaw5027+23Whitelock4223+19O Franks3425+9Read2717+10Retallick2616+10Moody2313+10Cane*9Kaino96+3Coles96+3C Smith84+4Nonu76+1B Smith76+1Milner-Skudder64+2B Franks*5Mealamu*4Barrett*3Carter33+0Williams*2Savea11+0

 JW - Thanks for the info.   In the top 4 there are two loosies, a lock and a prop.   If you take the SA stats - you would find that none of the top 6 would be loosies or that is what I believe is the case.  .     

CleverMike; could be, I don't have the stats on the Boks.

JW, it all works well if everyone pulls their weight. In the current Bok setup there are just too many plodders. It's plain as day to me. Whether it's loosies, props, locks or the hooker that get there doesn't matter. As long as the forwards get there quick and the ball is availaboe at a pace that causes attackers to catch defenders put of position when the ball is recycled. There after all only 3 loosies in the forwards and unless they have superhuman fitness they will not always be the first to a ruck. The hooker issue. As an example. Strauss is slow. He does not make above very average meters per carry and is defensively just as mediocre. Where is well below average is in the amount of rucks he gets to and his influence on those rucks. Currently in SA we hqve at least three guys who perform better in every facet. Why then do we stick with Strauss? Because we need an experienced captain? Basically because of reputation? So are we saying that without his experience we wpuld hqve done worse against the Irish? I very much doubt it. They could have made Faf, Le Roux, Whiteley or even De Allende captain, and put a form player in at hooker and the results would not have been worse. In fact, my feeling is the result would probably have been better. Had they used Kriel instead of Louw and Whiteley instead of Duane, as well as starting with Redlinghuys...the series would have been much different. Actually the should jsut have used the Lions front row and that would hqve changed things drastically. They've been dominating much stronger teams than the bloody Irish all season and there is no reason aside from mythical "step up to test level BS" to not have started them. Again, the Lions get the balance right and are able to get quick ball. And that's what ultimately makes the difference. Even if there is no natural fetcher in a team. Getting there quickly enough will result in turnovers which in my book will outweigh the one or two steals a fetcher manages per game. This is without taking into account the pressure it puts on opposition by slowing down/disrupting their ball...as well as faster players being able to adapt more easily defensively. I dunno? Am I wrong about this? It seems obvious to me. Maybe I'm biased?

 The Springboks have some "spectators" in the team - go and re-run the tape and watch how some players actually watch the game and not get involved.  Also that slow meander to the lineouts is absolute BS.

Plum, the kiwi teams seem to have gone away from the natural fetcher approach & every player is expected to fetch, win rucks & generally get turnover ball. 
McCaw's stats on getting to the ruck as one of the first 3 to arrive were incredible. In the RWC game against the Boks the distribution of tackles made was spread across the team so no one player had 20 tackles (as was often the case). So all players were working hard. Only way to win these games and even then it was close.

 I have to agree that the boks will have to work on getting to the rucks, but then I also think it is the way we use our forwards. I looked at the second SA A game and you could see the forwards were playing much better. What I noticed was that what the all blacks do really well and that is using the big lock as first receiver but not necessary always run it up. We have too many forwards hanging around the fringes forming pods and falling over the ball. It has become really predictable and easy to defend against. 
Coming back to the lock as the first receiver, these guys actually pass the ball too. Run a straight line which will do one of three things, smash, run straight and pass or become a dummy runner. Bonus is if they off load in the tackle, since they are tallest guys on the field it is easier to free the arms and get behind the defense
Then if you look at how we play, our forwards are on the floor after 2 or 3 smashes with little support at the ruck. The lions spread the ball smartly and try to keep the ball away from the big guys. 
I was watching the Jaguars last night against the bulls, they kept shifting the ball wide before running straight. 
We have to change our game plan and try to keep the ball off the ground. Do more with our forwards and allow them to use their ball skills.

 For a long time i have been advocating Whiteley.
Guys I'm sorry, the old adage that you need big loosies in the northern hemisphere is hardly valid anymore.

Whether the pitch is as damp as Mozart's vag1na or as dry as a Kimberly race track, you still need fast loosies to the breakdown.

Keep it simple...
Quickest to the breakdown win's the ball.
Slowest to the breakdown concedes turnovers.

Quick loosies are also effective in wet weather. They can still outstrip bigger loosies.
The only advantage is that a big loosie can carry the ball better in the wet.

Ok so let's meet each other half way.
We dont have to have a 6,7 and 8 that all weigh 120kgs.
We can compliment a dashing 6 and 8 like Whiteley and Kriel with a ball carrier like Fat Alberts (or someone similar).

Its all about combinations!
I mean look at 1997. We have Rassie, Venter and Teichmann. WHAT A COMBO!
But as soon as we took Teich out if the mix and slotted Bob SKinstad in to the mix, though they were all very talented, the ingriedients just didnt make the sweetest tasting cake.

I feel the same about front rows too by the way. Combinations.....
I'd have no problem making the Bok front row Redlinghuys, Marx and Dreyer (for example).
Look at Victor when Bakkies decided to get on his Bakkie!
It just wasnt the same.

Hope Coetzee reads my posts! I make complete sense!

...oh i just remembered... Quotas!

 Hey JW ... are you sure you have the right stats this time round?
We already know you didn't watch any of the matches.
Haaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaaaa!!!

 The Lions were rucked and counter rucked off the ball countless times. We lost turnover ball like there's no tomorrow. 
Faff's feed from the back of the ruck is superb but it could have been a lot better had we secured our ball properly. Not sure what the stats are of how much ball we lost ... perhaps JW can copy and paste that for us ... heehee!! 
Vunipola is a very effective weapon in the English arsenal ... in fact I would go as far as to say that the English pack would be a hell of a lot less effective without his presence.
In other words ... I don't agree ... we need an enforcer in the back row ... either at 8 or at 7.  

 Re the Lions issue at the rucks. It's also about how many players you commit to the rucks.What is being undervalued here is the quality of the Sharks pack. What is also being ignored is the FACT that the Sharks have lost Reinach, Lambie, their two centers and Willie. IE only two first team backline players were on the field.
Beeno keeping it real whilst ou JW hums and hehaws!  

 JW false stats mean zero. Its all part of the mcheat propaganda machine. Wee mccaaaaw has been less than average for some seasons now despite all the kiwi hot air on the subject!
Very overhyped player. 

CC I think they conceded at rucks maybe 4 times. But counter rucks just as many times...if not more. Not good jg by stats, just memory so I could be wrong. Generally though they presented the ball very quickly. That speed of availability is what I believe the Boks need.

 Yes, Plum ... it may seem I'm arguing with you but I'm not. I'm in agreement.
Faff's service from the base makes a massif difference and for him to do that he needs to have clean ball available ... the forwards provided this on Saturday.
My concern is that we lost a lot of ball ... ball that should have been secured through simple basics ... we were allowed to get away with it by a very poor Sharks team who didn't take advantage of our mistakes. 
Stronger teams will ... especially the Kiwis. They will punish us and we cannot afford to be put on the back foot by something so easily fixed.    

That's all I'm saying.

CC You can't argue with me. I have Box Tickets at Ellis Park...just saying haha. I hear ya. Will have another look at the game this week though. The good news is that Akkerman will bolster the forward pack next year and I think he'll be able to get some good players in. It would be nice if he gets RG Snyman to replace Mostert. Either way I think the brand will draw some good talent.

 Yes and we have some excellent prospects currently playing Currie Cup.
Things are looking good in the Lions camp.
I think we deserve it after so many years of embarrassment.
We have a real shot at going all the way this year.