The following is a very interesting article that really is or major interest insofar as SA Rugby is concerned:-
"If it is true that one learns more from defeat than from victory then this country’s rugby IQ must have shot through the roof during round eight of this year’s Vodacom Super Rugby tournament.
In fact, as educational opportunities go, we couldn’t have asked for anything better than this last weekend’s results list. It’s been more than six years since we last saw South Africa go through an entire Super Rugby weekend without a single win (the last time it happened was in March of 2008 when we also had three losses, a draw and a bye for the Sharks).
Six years and a bit; it’s more than most of us spent in high school.
The opportunity is rare then, but it’s there and not even here at the Wrap desk are we foolish enough to let it go. We’re going to grab it like the opposition does a Deon Fourie lineout throw.
We’re going to have to start somewhere, though, and we couldn’t think of a better place to kick off this earnest pursuit of knowledge than with the ancient Greek philosophers.
They weren’t like us, that lot. Back then, when you had your chin resting on your hand, you weren’t learning unless you were thinking of one thing: what is the right question to ask? According to them the right answer never came to the wrong question, and they may have had a point.
So, as true scholars of the game, we had plenty of that more refined knuckle-to-chin action this week. The best we could come up with, however, was: “what the hell is wrong with South African rugby?”
We wish we didn’t.
Even the deep thinkers of ancient Greece would have struggled with a question so profound. A question with the same number of answers as this forsaken piece of earth has braaivleis fires.
We’re going to have to try, though. If the Wrap doesn’t, who will?
Let’s explore some of the more popular braai-side themes:
1. The South African gameplan is outdated:
No it isn’t. If the standard South African gameplan is to keep the ball closer to the pack and only advance it up-field via the boot then our way of playing is relatively new. William Webb-Ellis started running with the ball back in 1823, Bennie Osler only started playing for the Springboks more than a hundred years later.
Even the debate over whether a rugby ball should be run or kicked was already old by the 1980s when the great Currie Cup sides of Western Province and Northern Transvaal so often saw their various approaches clash so spectacularly. No one philosophy won out back then and neither will it today.
The most damning proof that our way of playing is still relevant? The fact that it is so often used so effectively against our sides. The most prolific out-of-hand kicker in this last round of Super Rugby action wasn’t South African, it was Beauden Barrett; the man in charge of an attack that forced the Bulls into making 175 tackles. The most effective maul on display at Newlands on Saturday? The Waratahs’.
Kick this one to touch, will you?
2. South African players are not fit enough
This theory does at least have some backing from the men in the know. Springbok coach Heyneke Meyer spoke about it after his team’s poor second half and eventual loss to the All Blacks in Johannesburg last year.
From where we’re standing it looks like our players are conditioned to take 50 minutes worth of contact while New Zealand players, in particular, look ready for 90 minutes of sprint work.
The Chiefs gave it some on-field credence too by staging comebacks in Pretoria and Bloemfontein recently that would have had even Lazarus nodding in approval.
The problem we have with this line of thought is that at Super Rugby level our conditioning levels were sufficient to win us three titles and get us into numerous playoffs. Can things have changed so dramatically for all our teams almost overnight? We doubt it.
This one gets a hesitant “plausible” from us.
3. South African players lack basic skills on attack
Now here is one that is difficult to disprove. Other than the Cheetahs, our teams simply don’t attack enough for us to judge properly.
How bad is our lack of ambition? Sanzar’s 2014 team statistics show the following:
- Tries scored: Top three teams from New Zealand, three of the bottom four from SA.
- Clean breaks: Top two NZ, four of the bottom five SA.
- Passes made: Two of the top three NZ, bottom two SA.
If we have any skills outside inside centre, we’re certainly doing a great job at hiding it.
It’s a problem that starts at school. In this country our coaches and selectors favour pure athleticism over skills, and they do so in almost all positions. The size and speed advantage is normally enough to secure results at that level meaning skills development fall by the wayside.
When these schoolyard giants make the step up to professional rugby, however, they’re no longer stand-out physical specimens. Everyone is as big and as fast as they are, meaning most of them spend most of their time at age-group level trying to get even bigger and stronger. Once again skills acquisition takes a backseat.
Yes we agree, a good big one will always beat a good small one, but our big ones aren’t that good. It’s time South African rugby, at all levels, start becoming as good at equipping our players with all-round skills as it is at getting them to new personal bests at the bench press.
This theory alone does not explain our predicament, however. Some lesser physiques do make it through our system based on attacking prowess alone. Currently we have examples like Willie le Roux and Gio Aplon, to name but two, but it’s always been the case. Do we use them properly? That’s another question altogether.
The SuperWrap’s Grand Unified Theory
The answer to our question of what’s wrong with our rugby is of course not any one of the thousands of fireside speculations given by everyone every weekend. If anything it’s “all of the above” and more, but only for now. The game of rugby is a constantly evolving creature that will never reach one indisputable final form.
That doesn’t mean it is pointless talking about it. So, before the school bell rings, allow us to ‘braaib’ you with our point of view:
- There shouldn’t be one particular South African game plan. Every team at every level in this country should be selected first before a game plan is tailored around that specific team’s strengths and weaknesses. Currently we force players into set patterns of thinking regardless of what they bring to the table as individuals. It’s the wrong way round. If our coaches aren’t good enough to do this, well there’s your problem.
- A lack of skills is a weakness every bit as debilitating as a lack of pectoral muscles. Our fascination with athleticism must stop. An athlete should be taught skills and the skilful smaller ones should be turned into athletes. At the end of the day all our players should be both as big and as good as they can be.
- 'Structure' should be more than just a comfort zone. Yes, the basics of the game will always stay the same. It’s ill-advised to run against a set defence from inside your 22. Yes, it’s easier to punish opposition mistakes if you’re on the right side of the halfway line. Currently we use these as an excuse to structure game plans that is focused solely on not losing, though. It should be so much more.
One of the most fascinating rugby conversations you could ever hope to have is with the aforementioned Heyneke Meyer when he starts talking about how his Blue Bulls side set up plays to allow the late Etienne Botha to twinkle-toe his way to the tryline during his record-breaking Currie Cup season. It is the perfect example of what 'structure' should be. It’s not something to hide in; it’s a platform to launch your most potent weapons from. - Drop the either or. If you’re good at kicking it shouldn’t mean that you can’t run. If you’re good at running it shouldn’t mean you can’t tackle. What our game needs more than anything else is variety. The SA gameplan may not be outdated, but it sure is limited.
Really good teams do everything equally well and there is no reason other than our own black-and-white thinking why all our teams can’t be that.
Well there you have it, our answer to that wretched question. School is out and we’re off to the bonfire that is the comments section below. Join us there if you have anything to add."
Reason for practical problems
The above article refers to some serious problems directly relating to some players and I wish to summarize same here:-
The Size issue without skills
There are two issues here - although the article merely refer to skills - the second one being the lack of ability to read games and take positive instinctive decisions. We have a real fascination with size in SA Rugby - as is evidenced by selection of players like JJ Engelbrecht. Francois Steyn, Willem Alberts to name a few.
With them size is the only factor 0 their skills level is virtually non-existent and they do not have enough ball sense to fit into a hole of a needle. Ask JJ to do anything in reading of the game and playing effective rugby either in attack or on defence - and you end up with a zero. Ask Steyn (despite his "presence" to not run straight at the first defender and try to create space for outside players and not lose ball possession and give away penalties - and the answer is zero. Ask Alberts to read games and try to do some tackle ball protection/recovery or pass or catch balls in open field play and you get a zero as well.
In the cases of many players size is the only factor that counts. I have written repatedly in the past that the ideal players are -
* Big players with ball skills and sense
* Smaller players with ball sense and skills
* Big players without ball sense and skills
* Small players without ball sense and skills
There are way too many of the category 3 players in our franchise teams -making their way into the Springbok team as well. This mean no way any game plan can be implemented effectively.
Game Plans
In essence the article stress a very important point - namely VARIETY. Only over the last two days there was insistence that we must have a one-dimensional game and keep the game TIGHT
i agree totally with the concept of variety - but then we need players at 10 and 12 especially who -
* can read the game and decides when to vary their game;
* can create space for outside players - something which is severely limited by the crashballers;
* who are good ball handlers and can pass balls accurately,
* loose forwards with the necessary speed to become involved in attacks and be there to protect and recover tackle ball; and
*. especially bear in mind that variety does not mean that defense should go out of the window.
Our present Springbok flyhalf has none of the required attributes to carry play and of the franchi se flyhalfs the only one capable to read games and play instinctive rugby is in fact Goosen. Time to end the reign of the kicking and crashballing dunces if we want to achieve anything as to variation of play in games.
