What is traditional Springbok Rugby?

The idea was clearly described by Eddie Jones when he said the following:-

"You've got to take them on up front and then when you get opportunities to score points you've got to score them. They play the traditional Springbok game up front and then move the ball wide when they need to."

Unfortunately Mozart claimed consistently that the Springboks played traditional SA Rugby under Meyer - when the coach himself said the SA backline players do not have the necessary ball skills to "move it wide" and extremely rarely did it.

Traditional Springbok rugby always encompassed a game for 15 players and not the distortions that has limited the game over most of the past two decades. 

Mozart has recently rejoiced in the Springboks now playing traditional Springbok rugby - so congratulations to Mozart in catching up at last.  

Jake's Boks were built on solid defence, set pieces and a counter attacking game. His teams were able to hold an impressive record against a particularly strong All Black era.

Peter's Boks played a more and more limited game as 2008 progressed, despite what the England test may suggest. A frantic running game with poor breakdown presence. Once this was rectified, they played a very direct game. 

Meyer's Boks started off with a very conservative game. A limited pallette of moves/plays which I actually still have logged. He opened the game alot more. His team's were based on power up front and territorial dominance. Dominate the middle of the field where they can dictate terms like a chess player controlling the middle of the board. He gave players a lot more freedom for directing play. Compared to Rassie's Boks, his payed flatter and passed wider more quickly. He implemented quicker developing sequences of moves. He tried some very intricate plays and shapes in 2015 though. Some interesting ideas, like JP at first receiver with Damian outside him. Pollard was underneath inside Damian. Damian ran an unders line and Pollard angled out. It allowed him to be the decision maker right on the edge of the defence with Kriel and then Willie outside him running crossing routes. Habana was outside them to finish. Some box formation, many staggered layers, using forwards as screens or as links.

Coetzee was very predictable. His team ran the same base pattern the the letter. A flatter more ball-in-hand game. Quite spread, which I don't like. It's too susceptible to turnovers against good packs and strong backs.

Rassie uses a lot of the same concepts and shapes, but with a different flavour. The kicking off 9 launches our attacking game and is pretty much always done when we have slow ball in our half. Groups of 3 forwards roving around, carrying the ball up, play makers underneath these mini-units who call for the ball when they get the conditions they want. In some ways it reminds me if the Reds when Cooper was at his best around 2011. Rassie has tried lots of different things in each test, but became more conservative as the RC progressed. He was most experimental in Brisbane. A lot of it backfired.

So traditional Bok rugby? Dominate the collisions. The pack lays the foundation for the backs. We play in opposition territory and launch attacks from solid set piece ball. We pray on mistake and exert pressure without the ball. Attack quickly with speed. 

I spoke about the past decade - and that did not include the Jake White era.   Jake White could not properly coach backline players and got no assistance from Coetzee - so in the world cup of 2007 called up die Jones to help with backline coaching.   Enough said about White - even though I exclude him from the poor era.

As to De Villiers era fact is De Villiers was not the real coach - the decisions were all taken by the senior players - even when it comes to team selection and strategy.   In that era selections became a gamble and backline selections suffered badly.   It was in that era that two huge backline failures first appeared on the scene - Morne Steyn and Juan de Jongh.   Both were one test wonders and then became duds for the rest of their test rugby careers.   

Now onto dear Meyer,   He was and remains a regular nightmare of mine.   His most memorable remarks about team selection and strategy are always remembered as the norm he followed throughout his 4 years as a coach.   I am not going to repeat the three most memorable ones.   All of those indicate minimal use of the backline players - who according to Meyer himself did not have the skills  to play a ball-in-hand game.   If what you describe in fact happened on one or two occasions it got lost in the swamp which was Meyer's backline strategy.     In the case of the WC of 2015 it vanished from sight totally and both Habana and Habana misfired then and ever since.   I really enjoyed the day dreams you have about what actually happened.   You claim the backline  under Meyer played flatter - which really made attacking rugby virtually impossible as well as a result of potential intercepts.   So get your factual description to the realistic level please.      

Your description of what happened under Erasmus is flawed as well.   Fact is you attacked De Klerk for making box kicks - and said that was the basis of the attacking play of the Springboks, but forget that box kicks have always been a problem.  I have never seen a scrummie making more box kicks than Du Preez and it was a constant with all other scrummies under Mey er and Coetzee.   Those who failed in doing that was promptly sacked by them.

The real fact is that the Springbok backline players scored more tries under Erasmus than they did under both Meyer and Coetzee in their first 8 tests.   The fact is also that Meyer could never comprehend the concept of 15 man rugby  and he said himself that the players do not have the ball skills to play that brand of rugby.

Practical facts again trump the cloud 9 stories you write on site.LMAO          

Duplication

Duplication

You said, and I quote: 

"Traditional Springbok rugby always encompassed a game for 15 players and not the distortions that has limited the game over most of the past two decades."

Jake's Boks were very good attackers. Far better than  most people think. Even in their 2006 slump they were able to use the ball. Jones did very little, as stated by him! If you think he made a discernable change, show me. All of the World Cup games are on YouTube, point these things out. 

As for Peter. He definitely left his fingerprint on that team. Though there was a touch of Gold for the last two and led a half seasons. Peter and Meyer shared the same vision. There is no evidence of players coaching themselves or game planning on their own. Zero. 

Morné won tests throughout the Peter reign. He was far from a one test wonder. He was a very consistently good performer. Juan was iffy, at 12. I never backed him at 12. Lambie was the myth born in this time period. He was very poor. 

Your interpretation of Meyer's game is embarrassing. You demand a flatter game, then when it is provable that his Bok team played flatter and more efficiently ball in hand you bemoan the threat if intercepts. How many intercept were concede under Meyer? I bet you can't cite a single example. Anyway, that's the risk of playing attacking rugby. You can't have endeavour without risk. As for the attacking play in the World Cup. Your recollection of what actually happened is particularly embarrassing. When I posted the Japan game you ran away. I challenged you there and then to show me where your claims could be proven true.

I can point to very specific things in each era or Bok rugby since Mallett. Why can't you do likewise? I can cite many things in every Bok test since you 2004. Why can't you? Your recollections are unreliable. Either that, or tainted by bias.

No other Bok coach in my lifetime has resorted to kicks so often. Of course, Dunedin aside. As that was dominated by Pienaar's boot. The lengths you go to defend the problems in Rassie's gameplan destroy your credibility. On one hand you berate past coaches for what you deem poor play, which they often didn't do, but then a blind eye when Rassie does the very same thing and worse than those before him! There has been more aimless kicking under Rassie than under Meyer, Coetzee or Jake. Neither of the three restored to it so readily. Ever. 

AO

Forget about even responding - for one I never advocated flatter backline play because it really is stupid and I gave you one reason why - the other one need to attack at pace - which is gone out of the window with flat attacks.   You are he one who came up with flat attacks,   

By the way - you still do not know what an aimless kick is.   Let me give you a brief description:-

*   Kicking is an integral part of the game on rugby.

*   Kicking should always be made with a specific objective - in defense it should be effective relief kicks and in attack it should be made to ensue that potential recipents are under ressure when they have to field the ball.

*    When is kicking aimless?   In general it is when kicks are made for the sake of kicking - in other words when they are made without any real objective in mind.    Kicks who are relieving kicks allowing for a quick throw-in and used for counter-attack purposes change the kick into a aimless kick.   Kicks which cannot effectively be followed up and allow for only possession turnover and counter-attacks or even more accurate and effective  counter-kicks from the opposition kickers  are also aimless.

*     A major problem is when kicking is inaccurate and poorly executed.   That is one of the worst deficiencies, which normally result from kicking straight towards a recipient.

Kicking must always be a variation when it comes to attack.  Most important are corner kicks and dribble kicks in the opposition 22.  Unfortunately those kicks are often enough inaccurate.  Cross-kicks should never be made if the opposition has huge expertise in the air.   The problem is those kicks demands a high degree of accuracy as well.     

There is a huge difference in the kicking game under Meyer and the one under Erasmus.   In the case of the Meyer most of the out-of-hand kicking can be regarded as too far ahead to allow for effective follow-up and became inaccurate and consequently aimless.

In the case of Erasmus the major proportion is effective and allowed for proper follow-up.   I am not saying there were no aimless kicks under Erasmus - there were, but those are a small percentage of the total kicks.

The real king of aimless kicking  always was Morne Steyn and he had the distinction  by accusation of making BS kicks  by commentators on the air and was also boo-ed by SA supporters in a test.   Poor inaccurate and useless out-of-hand kicking caused him being dropped from Meyer's squad in 2012 and twice in 2014. 

Under Meyer the kicking regime continued and caused major problems for Morne's  successors - even though you claim it never happened.   The performances  of  both Lambie and  Pollard deteriorated because of the seriously defective game plan of Meyer.  

Lambie and Pollard couldn't kick because the gameplan put them in a position where they were expected to kick? This is disgraceful. Do you actually believe what you are saying? If they are put in a position to kick and fail, it's an error on behalf of the player. If hit continually happens, it's a skill deficiency. Ende. 

To think that Faf never made aimless kicks is also shocking. We're he playing under Meyer you would gleeful raise the issue in every thread. You're lying to defend Rassie. Most of our kicking has been aimless and achieved nothing. We've had one good game as far as kicking is concerned. One all season, thus far. Pollard has never been a tactical kicker at any level, under any coach, playing any kind of game.

The flat attack wasn't invented by me. It predates me. You bemoaned the lack of flatness dozens of times over the past three months when berating Morné. I think you might have twigged when I repeatedly pointed out how the backs setup. At least you've learned something. 

AO

Try and quote me where I said De Klerk's kicks never were aimless,  Read carefully what I said about aimless kicks made in the Erasmus era.   Fact is I wrote the following:-

 "In the case of Erasmus the major proportion is effective and allowed for proper follow-up.   I am not saying there were no aimless kicks under Erasmus - there were, but those are a small percentage of the total kicks." 

Fact is that Meyer started panicking in November 2014 when it became clear his coaching of teams, his nightmare selections and his lack of a proper game plan failed badly.    He then reverted to a game plan in the WC where only about a quarter of the balls passed by the scrummie went to the flyhalf - the rest went elsewhere,   Most of the passes made to the flyhalfs were forcing them to make relieving kicks.   as much as it was a disaster for the team - it also was a disaster for the flyhalfs concerned.   Both flyhalfs' performances took a dip as a result.

This is another of your daydreams and cloud 9 inventions.  You described very accurately the real deficiencies of Morne Steyn and then pretends it was applicable to Pollard.   Wonderful of you - you have a real talent and mastery in describing a negatives in performances  of players  and where you went wrong is identifying the player(s) whose deficiencies you descried to another player.

I never claimed you discovered  flat attacks.   You wrote the following iro the case of backline usage under Meyer:-

"Compared to Rassie's Boks, his payed flatter and passed wider more quickly."

I interpreted that as " his teams played" flatter - which in fact is what I referred to in my subsequent posting.   Your flowery description of what happened in the Meyer  era was in fact what virtually never happened and which in Meyer's own words he would not have allowed to happen - but leave that aside.

You linking my comments to Morne's deficiencies and then claiming I favoured flat attacks  is utter baloney.    I do not think Morne ever had any idea about what is required in resect of attacking backline play anyway.   

Are you trying to mislead members the way y ou lately tried desperately to ascribe the deficiencies under Meyer as wonderful achievements?         

There is nothing like traditional SA rugby because rugby is not a tradition in SA.

Now there is stuff that may be called typical SA rugby.

Mozart

Agree with you.  Even the Government is realizing soccer is a national disaster in SA.

Considering the record from SA people, it would not be surprising to find out that football does not cost 10 times the resources of rugby.

So many tales told, the wall of deflection at work.

Football is a disaster in SA. Stated many times already.

That noted, football could have been a profitable venture in SA. It should have been. Nimble and small football players are high demand and other african countries have managed to put out a few of world class players.

The reason why football is such a disaster in SA stems from the brilliant decision of favouring rugby over football to make a quick and easy political statement.

Countries that put rugby first do not grow strong football teams.

The decision to go for rugby was an uneconomical one at its best, with no long term thinking, just short term and immediate satisfaction thing.

Terminate football in SA, it is a missed opportunity.

Do not forget to terminate rugby in SA. As, contrary to SA football, SA rugby is a shame on the rugby world, a disgrace that keeps tainting the soul of the rugby game.

Once it is done, it will help preserving the game.

Thugs are not welcome in rugby, and SA rugby rely on thugs, like that prop thug who took the first opportunity to ram one of his team mates into the ground.

From what I have seen, New Zealand rugby is struggling to keep up with their expenses. If South Africa, for whatever reason, left the scene, New Zealand would be bankrupt very shortly thereafter . New Zealand is limited by it's small population. So, if you got your wish Trad, SH rugby would collapse, dramatically altering the face of the game, forever.

Think before you speak Trad. 

So many tales.

1. Rugby in NZ has more popular support than it has in SA as it is a tradition anchored in NZ and the vicinity.
2. In SA, kids are dying from starvation and half the population can not afford an average food basket.
3. SA rugby keep running at a loss, it is an industry of debt, a non profitable venture. NZ rugby work at a benefit.
4.  SA rugby are a source of discord, have no social benefit,bring no unity. One SA rammed another into the ground at first opportunity. NZ rugby works to support social cohesion.
5. SA rugby is close to bankrupcy. Dying for air. SA is going to be a large Kolmanskop. Rugby is not sustainable in SA.
6. SA rugby keep threatening the SH of moving up north to try to leech their way to survival. Depicting NZ rugby as  collateral damage is non sense as SA keep threatening that way

Poor Trad.