FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  What is wrong with the Sharks

What is wrong with the Sharks

Started by clevermike0 REPLIES50 VIEWS· 28 Jul 2014, 19:44
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
28 Jul 2014, 19:44
#1
28 Jul 2014, 19:44#1

In th studio discussions after the game between the Crusaders and the Sharks - Mallett severly criticized the game plan of the Sharks.   He said the emphasis on kicking to the exclusion of real backline play is detrimental and would never win through in the long run.  


Mallett stated that through out the series White played according to a plan that kisicking for position and the hope that the opposing recipients make mistakes is just not working and that even after set pieces - when recipients are geared  to receive kicked balls - the kicking game was the key to the whole plan.   There was no idea to really keep the ball in hand and try to play more constcutive rugby.


Looking back at the games played one cannot help but think that Mallett really has a point in his comments.   It was evident that the Sharks had a feeding frenzy kicking plan.   It is only necessary to llok at the performance of Steyn to realize what a limited plan White in fact used.   In analysing Steyn's stats for the season - when he played at flyhalf  he constantly kicked away more or less 50% of the balls he received - he carried rather unsuccessfully circa  23% of the balls and  passed circa 27%  - often ineffectually since he he in cases used skip passes thus eliminating  potential overlaps and some passes were inaccurate as well.   At center Steyn tends to hog balls and not past any if he could help it.   He crashballed constantly and in for instance in  one game - he at center handled 16 balls - he kicked twice, carried the ball 9 times and passed it 5 times.   Only onr og the passes went to a player outside of him in the backline - the rest went to forwards.   


In essence the above information shows that Mallett is a point.   The Sharks backline was rarely used and the role of th backline players mostly was there to defend only.  It also explains one point - which I could not understand all along - and that is why White was so addicted to the idea to have Steyn in the backline - especially since except for goal kicking - Steyn was really useless in both attack and defense.


I think that acccrding to the game plan of White the whole game plan was scripted in a way because White though Steyn was imperative to make it work.     None of the other flyhalfs really made the grade insofar as the kicking component is concerned.   


The plan went haywire because the kicking game allowed for too many inaccurate and ineffective kicks and often enough was merely a handover of possession to opponents.


In essence I believe that   a kicking game must also have an objective - and since the kicking was only aimed at long distances down the center of the field - making follow-up of kicks a dead loss for the Sharks.   Kicking must always in in such a way that opponents should  be under pressure - for the kicking game to bear fruit.  For that type of plan you need accurate kickers and that is where the whole pl fell apart. .                 


   

— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news