Why the Springboks won the World Cup according to Smith the real guru in NZ Rugby

Pretty cool analysis. First guy who has identified the Stephanie rover role. And he has the angle that shows the Marx pass to Mapimpi is not forward....why did the video ref not show that?

But much of this was a known, the Boks have a pressure defence.. With all those guys coming up that fast,  the space behind was the key to unlocking the Bok defence, but the Poms hardly tried the short tactical chip or grubber.

As Oom Rugby demonstrated the Bok strategy of double tacklers and three man pods was hard to overcome. 

Sounds like Squidge thought Gatland out thought  Eraser,  but didn't have the player horse power. Although he credits Rassie for pulling Kolisi and bringing on Louw whose turnover he sees as the critical play. Sets up the Lions ' series nicely when the physical side should be more even.

Squidgie said:

1. Second least metres made in any world cup, by any team     (England)
2. Stephanie Marked George Ford out of the game

The whole story of Mozart about what happened is utter BS.  Erasmus loves the limelight - that is what one could call total rubbish,   It is the exact opposite of what he really is,   In the past there were criticism that Erasmus did the exact opposite in being not really giving interviews to the media,   In the present situation he was forced to do so.   A typical example is that even when Kolisi asked him to join him to receive the WC he refused.

Then there is the story about shareholders insistence on a line of action.  Who is the shareholders that would force him to change tack?   The media - the Public whom his ardent supporter calls the Plastics?   No the story is utter nonsense - Erasmus is a professional that would do exactly what his knowledge of the game would allow him to do.

AO and Mozart makes Erasmus look like he is a real dolt with a poor game plan - that despite the media mostly either be kept in the dark and their reports being rather vague.  If there was a loss against Wales there would have been a media storm - there was not.   There were some questions asked about the game plan in the match but that cannot be regarded as a media storm.  If there was a storm it was on this site with the two of Mozart and AO leading the "storm"    

Then we have the classic - Eraser was forced to adapt.   Was it not that Erasmus decided himself  on the best way to beat England and then went on giving the English a completely different indication what was coming and they took the bait?   

AO made such a fool of himself about Erasmus, De Allende and Du Toit and he has gone quiet - Mozart should have done the same.     There were as per normal the routine attacks on the three.  But there was total ignorance by both Mozart and AO as well.  Mozart started a thread on how De Allende was blamed for causing the potential loss of three tryscoring opportunities early in the game and Du Toit was made to look a loss during the game,   Du Toit being awarded the Player of the Year caused an uproar by the two on site.

There were numerous incidents  that actually happened that they  pretended not to see and never commented on.   I will just name two:-

*   There were two instances where the ball were in the Springboks 22 were not passed to forwards to carry up the ball into a better kicking angle position for a relieving kick.  The first receiver was De Allende and he made a meter or so over the gain line and he is always relied upon to make sure the ball is recovered and the relieving kick made.  There were other cases where De Allende was also the first receiver giving Pollard more space to operate in.   Not seen and not understood.  

*   The role of Du Toit in the Kolbe try was commented on once and the story told by AO when pointed out was that the pass  to Kolbe was inaccurate and that Du Toit's contribution was negative.   Mozart ignored the Du Toit contribution to the try totally.   

I think there were even a NZ member on site who got pissed off by their negative comments on site and told them clearly that they are wrong in attacking the coach and some players the way they did.    The real fact is that Smith gave some credit to the adaptability of the Springboks and that was too much for Mozart to take and he made allegations that at best are foolish.

I think that Draad and Dave realized what Mozart was about and gave him some real stick.   They were correct in pointing out how sick the discussion under this thread became because of Mozart.   

Then a final comment on the following:- 

"Our opponents are not going to sit on their hands. That final will be analyzed in depth...and new tactics will emerge, particularly against the defence. To stay on top we need to grow as well. I'm not sure if Eraser wants that challenge." 

If the opponents only analyze the Final they would be sold a booby trap.  There were changes in strategy in all tests played this year.   In the RC and warn up games there were  distinct differences between the two  games played against Argentina and the same in the case of the two games played against Japan. There were differences in the games played in the WC.   Take the semi against Wales and the Final.   Two completely different game plans applied.  In the Wales game there were mistakes made by players such as for instance Le Roux - which reduced the winning chances - but the Springboks still won the match.   In the Final there was virtually no such mistakes.    

Plum indicated that England could not change their game plan  at half time because the Springboks could change theirs to a model based on the Welsh test - so the English coaching staff and players were in a trap.   The real question is which game plan used by the Springboks would be analyzed and dealt with by opposing teams?   Not easy that one because of the Springboks  adaptability -  Smith in his comments were clear about that,   What came out further again is that predictability is the worse "sin" in rugby and that is where the Springboks this year tried to move away from.  

Mozart's latest contribution is just another silly assumption - so he is still persisting on a path to nowhere,   Was Farrell any better than Ford in the second half?   I doubt it very much.   And toc compare Ford with Jantjies is totally delusional.   Does he think that Jones is a complete idiot in making a team selection without a strategy is total nonsense as well.   Jones used the Ford - Farrell combination regularly in tests and England won the matches he used them together in.   Farrell under pressure is really no better than Ford under pressure.   Who should have been playing at center?  Slade whom Mozart at one stage praised as the best center in the world  who under pressure ended up effectively  losing possession and then found there was a try scored by Kolbe?                 

So lets praise the coaching staff and the players for a job well  done and not try and criticize them in a way that shows that assumptions by individual members are  a silly basis for attacks on them.            

THE MAIN REASON FOR THE SPRINGBOKS' OPENING RUGBY WORLD CUP MATCH DEFEAT TO THE ALL BLACKS WAS?

Vote captured.

15%    The referee!

21%     All Blacks are simply a better side

18%    Costly mistakes on defence

9%      Not enough potency on attack

37%    Kicked away too much possession

This is a countrywide poll with potential inputs from abroad.   The findings need to be individually itemized  since there has been given different version on site for the loss:-

Kicked away possession   (37%)

What is evident here is not only the kicking - but even more importantly the quality of the kicking as well as whether kicking was aimless or not.

Nobody can argue against the fact that kicking is an essential part of rugby.  The problem with SA Rugby for at least the past decade has been the following:-

*    The quality of kicking, 

*    Objective aim at putting the opposing team recipient under pressure to the benefit of the Springboks

*    Easy possession turnovers

*    Predictability

On site this issue was mentioned - but more as a side issue than not the major reason as indicated by most contributors to the poll.   

The AB's Just being a better team   (21%)

It is not necessarily the case.   What is the case is that the AB's is good in defense and much moire effective in utilizing opposition mistakes - like happened in the case of the two tries they scored, 

Costly mistakes on defense  (18%) 

There will always b missed tackles in games - but the norm should be too limit those to a maximum of roundabout 15 to 18% of the tackle attempts.  In the game on Saturday the situation was a s follows:-

*    Tackles made     -      106

*    Tackles missed   -        35

*    Missed tackle ratio      33.01

That is obviously twice as high as it should be and a very real problem for the Springboks

So lets look at the worst defenders on the day:-

*   Vermeulen           -    1 tackle made -   3  tackles missed   -    MTR   75%

*   Jantjies               -    2 tackles made -  2 missed               -    MTR   50%

*   Am                     -    5 tackles made  - 3 missed               -    MTR   37.67%

*   De KLerk            -     8 tackles made  - 4 missed               -    MTR   33,34%

*   Mostert               -   10 Tackles made - 4 missed               -    MTR   28,47%

*   Kolisi                  -    8 Tackles made  - 3 missed               -    MTR   27,27%

*   Du Toit               -   13 Tackles made -  3 missed              -    MTR   18,75%

If 7 of the 23 players contributed 22 of the missed tackles out of 35 there is something seriously defective in defense by 6 of the 7 players mentioned.  What is especially bad is that two players in the high tackle problem area missed tackles leading to the two tries scored.

Referee Deficiency  (16%)

Already discussed comprehensively on site.

Not enough Potency on Attack    (9%)   

Most of our members on site mentioned this problem - but the large majority of people think it is one of the lesser problems.  Part of the problem relates to handling errors - but in the case of the site members the argument in the main relates to certain players getting blamed all the time by certain members of being deficient.   

"I think that Draad and Dave realized what Mozart was about and gave him some real stick.   They were correct in pointing out how sick the discussion under this thread became because of Mozart.   "

Maaik, don't read more into my comments than what was said. We tend to come across too emotional.  We are supposed to be able to have discussions without getting upset if others have different opinions...nothing sick about that.

And this:

Sep 21, 2019, 13:55

Willie le Roux   -    6

Kolbe                    7

Mapimpi                4

Am                       5

De Allende            6

Pollard                 5,5

De Klerk               5

Vermeulen            5

Du Toit                 6,5

Kolisi                   4,5

Mostert                 4

Etzebeth              6,5

Malherbe             5,5

Marx                    5

Kitshof                6

Time to get a proper lock in the place that does not missed crucial tackles and dopes not stand up well ion line-outs - physically not strong enough to achieve anything in ball carries - 8 carries making 1 meter.

For the rest I am unhappy with Faf's passing game and I would prefer to give Jantjies another start,  

The referee was severely criticized by Mallett,  Must agree as to scrumming specifically.

So no Faf, Am, Vermeulen and Mostert for the great Bok supporter.

And this classic:

Razor

Eddie Jones is a very good coach - but like to rile opposition coaches up, but Hansen refused to take the bait..   I think he will be in ashes soon  - tomorrow that is.  

Before you joined the site there was a long discussion of how weak Southern Hemisphere rugby is and how the European and Japan rugby is now the real deal.   I obviously told some members they were talking BS,

There are still members on site who repeat the nonsense, but they are very quiet now,  Go  All Blacks go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.       

Mozart

Nice try - but this was not the discussion topic at this stage.   I was the person who made the above  comments and also on the issue of defense in the AB test.   

It was one of the major reasons why for instance Mostert was left out of the subsequent starting line-ups in key games.   Of the seven players mentioned six were really poor with MTR's way over 25.    It was clear that Nienaber got into the six and they never repeated that deficiencies in later  tests,   

Anyway the AB test was not really an issue at this stage.  What has been under discussion was the Final an that is what the thread dealt with initially/

There is one thing that is clear - I criticized when there is real justification for criticism,   Others base criticism on their prejudice and imagination.   .          . 

Mozart

Nice try - but this was not the discussion topic at this stage.   I was the person who made the above  comments and also on the issue of defense in the AB test.   

It was one of the major reasons why for instance Mostert was left out of the subsequent starting line-ups in key games.   Of the seven players mentioned six were really poor with MTR's way over 25.    It was clear that Nienaber got into the six and they never repeated that deficiencies in later  tests,   

Anyway the AB test was not really an issue at this stage.  What has been under discussion was the Final an that is what the thread dealt with initially/

There is one thing that is clear - I criticized when there is real justification for criticism,   Others base criticism on their prejudice and imagination.   .          . 

Mike, if you stare yourself blind against your beloved MTRs, you miss what the blitz defense actually achieves even if a tackle is not completed.

A while back I demonstrated this when highlighting Am cutting off an AB overlap on the outside and forcing the carrier back into traffic even though he didn't complete the tackle. Same as Squidge also demonstrated in one of the videos above, can't remember it it was the Wales or England one - the blitz defense at the very least slows the attack, prevents the ball from getting wide quickly to where the space and extra men are, allowing the inside defense to drift and cover.

That's why you'll almost always see Faf with a 30-50% MTR, but that doesn't mean he is a defensive liability. On the contrary .

Spot on. The blitz is about disruption, not getting perfect defensive scores.....just as the shift defence  is about creating a wall, not about an individual marking a specific player. Muck has never understood this stuff

Pakie

I always write about what actually happen in matches and MTR is not the alpha and omega anyway,   A missed tackle ratio of above 25% is usually a matchloser though.

So lets get back to the present thread,   Mozart got himself  into deep shit when he started having another  go at Erasmus.   In doing that he imagined things he cooked up in his own mind.

This issue was based originally on an opinion of a real expert on why the Springboks won and the key was adaptability for which Mozart refused to give Erasmus any credit for,   He made wildly inaccurate claims and is now falling back on issues I criticized after the AB and Welsh test.   I do not deny I was critical and deservedly so.

I am not averse to criticizing the coach and the players of they deserve criticism and will continue to do so.  ,What I am against is the type of IF criticism made up by some members.  In most cases it is imaginary and based on prejudice.          

Oh I gave Erasmus plenty of credit for the Pom match. The style of play was exactly what I have been promoting for years.....while chaps like youwere denying that defence wins matches. Sorry Tokkie, saying you support the coach when everything you have demanded was contrary to what makes him successful just doesn't have much credibility.

Be honest you are a ball in  hand, defence is secondary to attack proponent. Now you want us to believe you are one with a coach that  led with defence and field position and relied on counter attack from turnovers, as in Kolbe's try.

  At least have to basic honesty to admit you were wrong.

PSDT was was given an outlying role as far as the Bok defensive system went. 

A) murder their 10 and B) carry out a roaming defensive role to blunt attacks early.

It's this exact role that caused him to cop some abuse from Moz when he would dart out of the line and occasionally leave a gap.

He did this to perfection in the final though.

Mozart

I am not anything of the sort you claim I am.   I am a supporter of comprehensive rugby - meaning in essence  proper usage of  all 15 players in the game - be it in defense or attack.   I am for strategic kicking as part of the game of any team - but against aimless and inaccurate kicking leading purely to possession handovers. 

I sincerely believe in forward and especially Tight 5 dominance - but that should never be the only game in town - it must be supplemented by all players playing a more comprehensive game as well.   

In essence I am strongly against predictability which tormented the Springboks and lower teams for decades now.

In essence there is not much real difference in viewpoints on strategy - the differences relates more to opinion on individual players, where I do not have the same level as prejudice as you and AO seem to have,.      

Players? I'm amazed you want to go there Muck....nobody has been more wrong. Take this cringeworthy effort:

.......

'One would have thought that they would learn something about the decline in performances of the elderly and the useless.   So now they are again raving about three 33 year-olds.    

*    When it was pointed out that Beast's scrumming power is on the decline - they went bananas and insisted that he should be in the starting line-up u to the WC.

*    Then there is Louw - who has failed repeatedly in test matches this year,   The cover-up of the failures were amazing and the praise-songs even more so.

*     The third player is Vermeulen.   He was brilliant in the first two English tests in June and struggled to be average in the third test.   He then went off to play in Japan missing out on the whole SR series,     Now it is rumoured that he may be in the EOYT squad and that he would play Super rugby next year,   We all know that players coming back from Japan is notoriously unfit and as a result injury-prone.   What will happen in his case - but cannot see how he as 34 year-old will meet performance requirements in the WC next year.

So carry on and keep us amused - petty ignorance is always a joke.' 

..........

How do you feel about the Beast's scrumming now....or WC MOM Vermeulen or Wales winner Louw?

You were at odds with Eraser on tactics and players. And now suddenly you were always simpatico?

I think Dreck has his clown pants on too tight. 

Unlike than 2018 somehow or other Beast's scrumming was superb in the WC  - of the best in his whole career,   He went out of rugby in a blaze of glory,

Vermeulen was other than the first two tests last year very average throughout 2018 and the RC in 2019.   He was good in most WC matches and superb in the Final and there was good reason as to what I wrote and you so generously quoted above.

I do not go on make-believe.  Louw was average and in some tests even poor throughout the last two years and him winning the Wales test is a myth.  Nothing above being an average bench player in tests in the WC.  

I believe that anyone has to be critical about coaches and players if they do what they believe is wrong.  I was critical about what happened in the Wales test because of perhaps mistakes by individual players.

As for the rest Errasmus did well in all tests in 2019 bar the AB test where there were two instances where he was let down by players,   In the final his planning and technique was executed to perfection by the players and the result was the best win in any of the WC finals the Springboks played in.   Looking at how he rebuilt the Springbok team from a dispirited players, whose believe in themselves and the team was gone = no one can but admire how he managed to turn the team around.   There was nobody who believed that when Erasmus took over there would be any chance that the Springboks could end up being competitive in the WC leave alone winning the trophy in that series.   For that he deserves praise and not constant belittling like some site members are guilty of.          

But you asked me to 'keep on ...keep us amused'. I'm just obliging you.

You give us stories, not references Schmutz. 

AO

The only two members who dreams up things and then claim it is factual are Mozart and you.  fact is I have an open mind on players - like stating early in 2018 that De Allende should not be in the the Springbok team and then found there was really not a replacement that came even close to him in performance,   My suggestion has been proven wrong and I always admit when I was wrong,     

"My suggestion has been proven wrong and I always admit when I was wrong,"

Are you sure? One hundred percent sure?