Why the Stomers are successful and the Sharks not so

The following article is interesing as the approach to success of the Stoemers and Sharks are concerned:-

OPINION: Should the fellow South African United Rugby Championship franchises take a page from the Stormers’ book to be successful without the availability of their top players who are on national duty?

This thought struck me while listening to two contrasting online interviews by Sharks head coach John Plumtree and Stormers forwards coach Rito Hlungwani.

Plumtree, ahead of the Sharks’ defeat to Ulster, which included 17 Springboks in their matchday squad, spoke about playing without his Boks in his side following two defeats and a draw on the road.

“We need to get to a squad that we can win without our Boks,” Plumtree said ahead of their clash against Ulster.

Yet even with all the returning players from national duty, they were still outsmarted and outclassed by the men from Belfast.

In contrast, the Stormers, who are currently unbeaten, demolished Leinster (35-0) and Ospreys (26-10) without players such as Damian Willemse, Sacha Feinberg-Mngomezulu and Cobus Reinach, who will possibly make his URC debut for the Capetonians this weekend against Benetton.

Hlungwani was asked in an online press conference whether losing players to the Boks disrupted their momentum as a team.

His responses were chalk and cheese in comparison to Plumtree’s

.“For us as coaches and a team, we want our players to excel and reach higher levels.

“We want them to become Boks, so we take it as it comes.

“We’re delighted that one or two guys are joining the Bok squad who haven’t been there in a while, like Ben Jason [Dixon] and Zach [Zachary Porthen, first call-up].

“It doesn’t really affect us. If anything, we celebrate it.

“We celebrate our guys moving to higher honours. It’s something we’re excited about.

“That comes first. As much as we want to do well, and we will do well, but we have to celebrate these guys making it to higher honours.

“So it doesn’t affect us at all. If anything, it gives us more pride and makes other guys hungrier to want to reach the same standards and levels.”

This sums up the Stormers’ mentality not to overly rely on high-profile Boks to achieve success.

The Bulls, to some degree, have managed to do the same under Jake White during the early stages of his tenure, and many of those players were capped at Test level at a later stage.

The Stormers will be spread even thinner at tighthead prop with Porthen’s call-up, but could be boosted with the services of Oli Kebble, who is yet to make his return to a blue and white jersey for the first time since 2017.

Currently, the Stormers’ development pathway is proving to be fruitful and keeping the majority of their youth in their system seems to be paying off in the long run."

I have been stating all along that the Sitormers are more successful by keeping their youngsters in their teams teams and using them better than the other SA Franchises do, So why did the Sharks fail in a match yjru dh i;f have won easily?

The answer is simple - the Sharks have too many Springboks - some really nearing the end of their playing careers in their squad and too many of those are over 30 years of age. In their planning as to player development the Stormers did better than the Sharks and Bulls did. The Stormers brought in youngsters from the Under 20 and even school leavers with potential in their contracting of players. The Stormers identifed in which positions they need to up their team strength - while the other franchises ignore those needs.

The article indicated that White started of correctly and then lost the plot afterwards. The simple truth is that has beens and never has beens are kept in the Springbok squad for too long and they weaken the provincial franchises when they are available to play for the franchises their performances are way below that of the new youngsters in for instance the Stormers and to a lesser extent use their younger players better than the Sharks and the Bulls did.

One can name players - but to do so would just strengthen the rugby sainthood of some players who should not even play rugby on franchise level snymore and rarely used on Springbok level. In this regard some Springboks playing rugby in foreign clubs - but wuld elease unsuccessful playes from conract because of epformance deficiencies and S A franchises lap them up and pay them salaries way beyond their real value.

,

Let's calm down on calling the Stompies "successful" just yet.

Still a long way to go.

Well - the Stormers will win on Saturday - while if the Sharks lose again it will be a rugby disgrace, The Sharks record is 4 matches played - none won the Bulls did better but them winning Friday eveniing is rather remote. If that does not tell you realities you must indeed be as thick as a brick when it oomes to rugby issues,

. .

Maaik,, there are no guarantees...take it a game at a time and hope for the best. We had a good start partly due to a favorable draw, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Uncle BS if Plum is thick, where does that leave you, huh?! Look in the Mirror man….

Up to date Stormers are the only SA Franchise to have won the URC. So that already makes us more successful.

I have always been a fan of Dobbo and it’s clear that his plan of building no name Players, is working well.

Like the article states, Jake was the only other coach that could do that successfully. Let’s see what Akkers can do.

The answer is simple - the Sharks have too many Springboks

Genius. Another rugby mystery cleared up.

Pakie

The fac is you are indeed an idiot. I did not say the Sharks have to many Springboks - I said they have too many Springboks going down in performances, They contracted players with total disregard with respect to performance of players, Some fo he older players are jus going through the motions - esecially backline players are vlnerable in that regard,

So what happened on Saturday - the Sharks forwaards totally dominated the Ulster team wilhile some of their backline players fucked up royally.and was totally lost as to what to do with the balls they got from the forwards, The Ulster backline ran circles around them and they did not know how to counter it, The fowards got penalties from virtually every scum and even got to penalty tries as a result, What did the Sharks came up with - one big zero fo value, The backline managed to score tw tries - one when Williams cut out the shit in between the abckline by passing the ball dorectly to Mapinpi - the oher by Esterhuizen afte the match was already lost and just ignor the isse and fgot a try as a result,

But you lot carried on about how good the backline was - while in reality they were poor and starved Hooker and Van der Merwe got the ball in atatcking play, So drem on in your felisonal world/

Mpower

Like the article states, Jake was the only other coach that could do that successfully. Let’s see what Akkers can do. .

ake was good in his first year - but never won any trophy and as in norml Jke started buggering around afterwards and for that reason he got fired after his third year of coahing as was a normal wiih Jake White,

,

Too many Springboks going down in performance - like who?

Uncle BS, it doesn’t matter whether Jake got fired or if his first period with the Bulls was better.

The point is, he Joins Dobbo, Akker as Franchise coaches, who’s managed to turn no-name players into Springboks….

Mpower

And he got fired - not once but 4 times - because he could not manage teams properly - he normally start of ell and lodst the plot. Every time he got fired was for exactly the same reasons - no proper game plans - causing discord amongst player and making a public spectacle of himelf in disaparaging the players and his assistant coaches, The ultimate coach when it comes to 10 man rugby,

Lets sart with he Bulls team:-

1. Pollard - was contracted by Montpellier for 3 years - they let him go after two years and contracted by Leicester for two years and released, His eprformances for the Spring boks did not set the house on fire and las week for the Bulls he was pathetic.
2. Le Roux
3. Serfontein
4. Van Staaden
5. Coetzee
6. Mapimpi
7. Am
8. Esterhuizen
9. Kolisi
10. Orrie
11. Koch

So last season the Bools were our best team…..I guess Jake got it right. But he made a few emotional comments after the loss in the final and then was back stabbed by Nortje and his cabal. As I said at the time, let’s see if they do any better without Jake. Maybe there is a team that did better the year after Jake left, but I can’t remember one

Mapimpi is in his twilight, but still highly competitive and who is better at the Sharks? Maybe Edwill, but they're a fullback short with Fassi out right now, so what do you do?

Am is past it, not in the Bok mix anymore, but who do you play with Esterhuizen and Hooker away with the Boks? Venter is probably a better bet at 12, but hardly a massive gain.

Esterhuizen is fine

Kolisi is Kolisi, same as he's always been

Orie is not Bok quality to start with

Koch is also in his twilight but the Sharks scrum looked pretty handy with him and Ox, didn't it?

Yes, there are a few Boks at the end of their careers, but who are the clearly better players to replace them with? And that still doesn't come close to addressing the elephant in the Sharks room.

No

The Stormers think they needed back-up in teh center positon so they ecruited a youngster from Grey College tos trengthen their backup strengthened and none of t he other teams weould touch the deadhead Eterhuizen - one of the main reasons why they lost the match on Saturday last week. He is no invesment in the future and is not really of any value at all in the longer term. He was NOT FINE on Saturday .anyway - a key reason why the abcklie flopped on Saturday - if he and the flyhal was fine on Saturday there was no way the Sharks would have lost the match.

Hooker did play on Satirday - but got totally outrage whaat happened to balls that never reached him of Vand der Merwe at full-back. So try again prejudiced dimness,

.

Mozart

The problems Ackerman has this year was wth squad selection and contracting by Jake and it is not the first time he got fired beciase of team mismanagement. in fact it was the fourth time. It will take a year before Ackerman will get the team management and selection improved to a relasitic situation. So accept it - in the end always ends up as a shit coach.

,

He was NOT FINE on Saturday

No, but he is still one of the best 12s in the world as evidenced by his performance against the All Blacks. One below par performance in a malfunctioning side doesn't define him.

Hooker did play on Satirday - but got totally outrage whaat happened to balls that never reached him

Heard that from Meyer Bosman's mom, did you?

Saw h inm s houtin g at the ot her backline paklyers on TV dimness, "

By the waym I am not aware of any experts raing Esterhuizen as one of he ebst 12 in world rugby - but on thsi site eh si king. So lets accept - in the world of the blind - cockey is king. On this site Estehuizen is king.

.

Maaik, you are really wrong about Esterhuizen...what happened? At the start of his career, you were an avid supporter of his, with Moz being the one dragging him down...What gives?

Gosh now there I thought you were arguing that Jake had this great squad and wasn’t getting results, but now that he’s gone, the squad is a liability.

Mozart

You misrepresented totaslly what happened. The additions to the squad he made before his firing was not up to standard and is aprt of what Ackerman inherited, They included Willie, Serfontein, Pollard and Coetzee - all past thir sell-bye date, That turned the otherswise good backline into a disaster.

Jke was the master of ten-man rugby and neve knw anything about backline play. In all t he games of the Bulls the attacks were always based on forwads hammeing away unsuccessfully. That si why he could never win torunaments since the 2007 RWC - where a lucky draw and results had the Springboks play only teams ranked below them in the tournament, Enan in the Round Robin phase and in the final was the result of results in other matches eading up to the final. In teh Trinans leading up t teh RWC - the A B's eatteh S pringboks 33-6/

John Snith in his book wrote that in the 2007 final the Springboks had no game plan and that was proved by the result in the final. In touraments his teams played in they sometimes got to the play-off stages and that happened in th e last three URC tornaments - where the Buls lot bcause o no game plans. There was always onlmy ne style of rugby you used to call "Taditional Springbok Rugby" - nemly 10 man rugby woth no option of alternatives,

Since 2012 that sht was re-inforced by Meyer using players who retired and he got back to play, Meyer was foired necause he was incompetent and so was Coetzee wihrecordlosses being the rule. After losing to Italy in 2017 Coetzee was fired by SARU and yu wrote on site that it would have been better for SARU to retain Coetzee than to appoint Erasmus, quoting a string of lies about what Erasmus was involved in since 2006-07 to 2017. Tata cconts for shtspreading by you on site,

Erasmus turned the Springboks into a winning team and since then your shit increased massively every year,

As far as I’m concerned and I admit I’m old school about these things, when Erasmus left the Boks in the lurch in 2007 because he had the job he wanted, he disqualified himself as a Springbok coach. In all the years I have followed sport I can recall no other case of a coach putting his own interests above that of the National team.

Saw h inm s houtin g at the ot her backline paklyers on TV dimness, —

Huh??

It did happen and Hooker seemed to be a disilltioned player when ot happened. But then you are always inventin g things that did not happen and seeing in matches want you want to see and ifnore anything else you do not want to see,

Uncle you do realise that 50% of your posts is not understandable….

OK

Let me get a real answer - you tell me why the Sharks backline malfunctioned last Saturday and Utster wwon the mqtch despite virtual total control in the Tight 5? I know the answer from yu woud be Plumtree caised the loss - bt that wyld not help since the failures happened on field and was not controlled by Plumtree at any stage during the match,

bt that wyld not help since the successes happened on field and was not controlled by erasmus at any stage during the match,

Thanks for that Clever, about time

Fuck wit

You have no ideas because the Spribngboks played in terms af plans they are trained to execute - while faults on the field can impact on outcomes to a limited extent and normally does not have direct impact on outcomes. You again showed that you have no idea about coaching and does not understand the game plans ito of matches,

Tell me when did the Springboks lost while their forwards totally controlled that component of the game simpleton?

Must be a new record as th most stupid comments on site ever. ,

. ,

‘Tell me when did the Springboks lost while their forwards totally controlled that component of the game simpleton’

Australia 1 and NZ 1, I wouldn’t call it total control but we had them in reverse in the scrums.

Kaiser of the simpletons don’t sell yourself short.