Tony Brown on thin ice?

One would conclude that based on these observations:

Erasmus dissected the meltdown:

"Is it the last message in the change room? Is it when we were 22-0 up, 'Let's put them away'. Is it forgetting how desperate they are?"

He suggested that the team might have strayed from their core strengths, influenced by a shift in playing style under new attack coach Tony Brown, whose strategy, while initially successful, faltered dramatically against Australia's comeback.

The Springboks' traditional gameplay, characterized by a dominant pack, seemed overshadowed by a newer, riskier attack plan. This was evident as the Wallabies dismantled their lineout and capitalized on every opportunity. Erasmus highlighted the necessity of integrating their robust, traditional rugby with the newer elements introduced by Brown. "If you play beautiful rugby and you lose, you lose, but if you play boring rugby and you win, people are happy," Erasmus pointed out, recognizing the need for adjustment.

….. …

So finally DrLucky is saying we need to integrate traditional Bok rugby with the new approach. Close but actually we need to integrate the new elements into traditional Bok rugby.

And the new elements don’t have to be basketball. Watch the Irish forward ball carriers, they all try to beat the tackle which commits two defenders and then they offload. They make space where none exists….just resetting phases does nothing.

Backline penetration depends on fast ball, we have consistently underplayed the value of a fetcher. But if we go back to Dud Allende forget about it….backline creativity isn’t going to happen. We need to commit to Esterhozen who is uniquely equipped to thrive in tight space.

But this isn’t going to happen.this weekend it will be traditional Bok rugby in spades. Brown hasn’t taken with the Boks, I doubt if the match is close on Saturday we will see much except box kicks and defense.

Another loss and it could be bye bye Tony

I had callbacks to the Alister Coetzee era when the players' shoulders dropped near the end of the game.

It was like they just did not understand the game plan.

However, the problems started with the breakdown and snowballed thereafter. If the Boks could have continued the form of the first 20 minutes for at least 50 minutes, it would have meant a score that was too high to concede defeat.

Yet again Abandoning structured Attack for a complete return to Rassie ball??

I thought the Bok Management and even here on Ruckers agreed, that it was only small margins that has to be Fine tuned for success?

And keeping the Attack progress intact….let’s not forget how good the first 20 minutes was.

Brown is going nowhere, he has added attacking value - it’s now a case of getting the balance right

Making changes takes time, we are in the formative period of Brown’s tenure and it’s a positive addition

More Clickbait from Mozart….

not worth commenting on

I see, when the Head Coach comments on the failure of the new coach whose is supposed to be defining our strategy, that’s not worth commenting on…why?

Where has he had a negative comment about Brown [search: liberal judaissm]?

In my first post:

Erasmus dissected the meltdown:

"Is it the last message in the change room? Is it when we were 22-0 up, 'Let's put them away'. Is it forgetting how desperate they are?"

He suggested that the team might have strayed from their core strengths, influenced by a shift in playing style under new attack coach Tony Brown, whose strategy, while initially successful, faltered dramatically against Australia's comeback.

David, don't engage.

He's just trying to create a stir.

Actually it’s a quote, you do know what that means?

There is obviously some journalist interpretation in there...and ultimately the buck stops with Rassie...he decides the game plan and strategy, not the assistants.

Don't we have a attack coach & a defence coach ?

How Sweet and Thoughtful of Chip to lookout for Suffolk:)

For me, it comes down to game management, which is a player problem. An IQ problem.

TB is the last person that should take any blame, but I felt that Rassie's defence of him after the game was just for the cameras.

And it's an interesting one, because now everybody is calling for a "return to what we do best".

But if we go that route then it means that TB doesn't need to be there, because what we do best, traditionally, isn't Tony ball.

I think what we did on Saturday was fine. Until it came to the point where either Manie, or somebody else in the team, needed the IQ required to read the game and switch up in order comping the scoreboard pressure.

...but let's remember that there is something called half time. And there is something called a coach that should be delivering the right message to the players about what needs to happen in the second half.

Outside of the set piece, I put very little blame for this loss on the forwards. Even the then, the set piece wasn't great but it wasn't a train smash either.

We had PSDT on the wing, so doing very little at breakdown, and then we were asking the forwards to chase the ball from touchline to touchline, inevitably gassing them out.

Everything points to poor direction from Rassie and horrendous game management by Manie.

If Rassie ends up putting this on TB, well...then we know what we're dealing with.

There is nothing in there about him having an issue with the new attack approach it’s more about moving away from our traditional strengths which has nothing to do with Brown

He acknowledges that a balance is required

Brown introduces new ideas on attack, it’s down to the head coach and coaching team as whole to determine how they want to play the game

Brown gives them the attacking tools he does not define our overall pattern

Judging by what Ox said it seems the players themselves did not stick to the script - arrogance kicked in.

Makes having Pollard not on the bench even more absurd for had he been sent on, the attack minded ploy would have been binned

I’m having a hard time buying our attacking play tired us out, but not the Aussies who were playing at altitude. When we were running from touchline to touchline …were the Aussies standing there. Isn’t it supposed to be more tiring to defend?

This sounds like another idea which has been accepted as a given truth. We lost the game because our defense was porous.. both our fullbacks were missing in action. Fassi never made one tackle in the game! And beyond the rush we had no defensive structure.

This loss is on the head coach and the defensive coach,

I don’t think we were tired out I think the players took matters into their own hands as Ox has volunteered

He said they were meant to tighten things up after their smashing start but they took matters into their own hands and arrogantly continued to play it wide

Hence my call that had Pollard come on at 10 then that would not have happened

Without doubt Rassie fucked up by not having the security of Pollard on the bench - both from a goal kicking and tactical point of view

He said they were meant to tighten things up after their smashing start but they took matters into their own hands and arrogantly continued to play it wide

There is some irony to this - like ironically Wilson's second try, the one after the intercept, came from Manie kicking the ball high and us losing possession - which is probably the type of thing we would have been doing had we "tightened it up". Aus gets possession, make their own crappy box kick which Arendse drops and then poor tackling has a try at the other end. Then immediately from the kickoff comes Jorgenson's try, exploiting our narrow defense.

As I said in the previous thread - I don't see an issue with how we were playing, ball in hand beats 50/50 kick ball. Our problems were 1) lineouts 2) that intercept pass, which was simply a moment of pathetic judgement and should not be an indictment of the way we were playing 3) poor execution inside the opponents 22, which we reached with ease throughout the game by keeping the ball in hand 4) our narrow defense that was exploited at least 5 times, once for a try and 5) a few critical missed tackles. Maybe we can add 6) breakdowns especially between minute 19 and 31 where we conceded multiple penalties at the breakdown, which certainly broke the deadlock we had Aus in at that point.

Agreed Pakie - most frustrating was creating good attacking options only for a player to fluff a pass or throw a poor pass