My opinions on the game of rugby have not won me many fans, and this one certainly won’t given the current trends in Springbok rugby.

When I started out in sport (after my playing days) I did sports analysis. This covered many different codes of sport but later (luckily) got me more involved with rugby.

Now as we all know, statistics in the wrong hands is a very dangerous thing, simply because of the fact that statistics are meaningless without a common reference point for collecting and analysing statistics.

As an example, having assisted many coaches in analyzing their teams, coach A would ask me to compile and analyze the statistics of let’s say his number 8. Another coach will ask me the same but the statistics supplied was as different as night from day, simply because their reference points for wanting the analyze the statistics were vastly different.

The reason for this is very simple, the teams they coached had different strengths and weaknesses, which meant that whatever they analyzed, or the ‘type’ of player they required at number 8 to compliment their strengths and game plan, were vastly different.

And it is this point, your strengths and your game plan which again leads me to believe South Africa is starting to fall into the trap of trying to play a game we are not good at.

This has nothing to do with Peter de Villiers so-called ‘expansive’ game plan. You can add any dimension, including an attacking dimension to any team if you have covered the basics of the game well, and ensure that you do the simple things right first to ensure you possession and territory to execute ANY type of game plan.

As an analyst early on I also realised one very important thing, rugby is a very simple game, and unfortunately statisticians or analyst only use figures and numbers to either confuse people, or cover their flaws.

Any coach worth his salt will firstly look at what he has available to him. He will then identify strengths and weaknesses and devise a plan (game plan) to compliment those strengths, and eliminate most weaknesses.

For all Jake White’s petty faults, he was damn good at this – and guess what, he was also at one time simply a rugby analyst… 😉

In 2006 there was an uproar in South Africa for Jake to include Luke Watson, at the time, the best ‘fetcher’ in SA Rugby according to most.

This year there was a similar outcry, for one Heinrich Brüssow, and the only difference between 2009 and 2006, is that the fans calling for his inclusion, got their wish.

Now where I lost most people in my point I have always tried to make is that I did not, and still do not claim or believe either Watson in 2006 or Brüssow today are bad ‘fetchers’. In fact, I do think they are and were the best we have in South Africa and is probably the closest we have if compared to George Smith and Richie McCaw.

the best we have in South Africa and is probably the closest we have if compared to George Smith and Richie McCaw…

Now perhaps if I highlight this people will understand my problem with this issue.

We should NEVER try and find players to combat the strengths of OPPOSITION teams because it affects our OWN strengths, and although our players will prove to be successful a lot of time against our opposition team’s individuals it will not be long before they figure out ways to eliminate this threat which is now already starting to happen – because you know what, opposition teams analyze us even more than what we analyze ourselves in my view!

And the main problem comes in that it is easy to eliminate a threat in any opposing team if that threat is a singular threat, and not a collective threat, I know, it was my job to identify this.

In simpler terms, if the main threats in your opposition is one or two players it is easy to combat it, it is however damn difficult to combat a collective threat or strength if 5 or 8 or 10 guys shares and combines their collective strengths!

Let me try and explain this from an analytical and practical point of view.

Two very important statistics coaches look at is positional (where on the field in relation to length and width), and strike rates of using possession in different areas of the park. Now from an analysis point of view the rugby pitch can be divided in up to 25 areas or zones, each with different outcome based scenarios according to the game plan you want to employ. A certain area of the field will be mapped out in blue for instance and the game plan strategy determine the action required in this zone, for instance blue areas will be defined as defensive kicking zones and the success of the ‘strike rate’ will determined by the outcome of the play makers (kickers) in this zone and how successful they were in executing their actions (kicks).

The only reason I made the above example is simply to illustrate that ‘strike rates’ do not normally apply to points scored alone but all of it, possession and strike rate success forms part of an overall game plan, and when a game is analyzed or game plan devised players are coached to these specifics.

Another quick example perhaps that will make you understand this better is that let’s assume green zones in the game plan, would suggest that if ever we get a penalty kick in that area (between opposition 10 meter and goal line), we take a scrum and not line outs as our scrum is a strength, and line-out is a weakness.

It is not complicated even if it may sound like it. It is a very simple approach to rugby and of course colour codes help the fatties understand the game plan better!!! 

The importance is the possession and strike rate statistics which forms part of the overall game plan of the team – a game plan which compliments strengths.

Apart from these statistics and references which is positional related (where you are), the most important statistics is the relation of the ball from the ground in your game plan.

In simple terms it means whether your team is good at playing or attacking from playing the ball from the deck, or keeping it in the air.

Let’s consider a practical example.

Ever wondered why Australia (and to a lesser extent NZ) are very good in building phases? Up to 10 and 15 and even more at times?

Quite simple, it is the game they play and it is one of their strengths.

If you are a team reliant on building phases to break down defenses you are a team that prefers playing the ball from the deck, i.e. carry the ball, try and cross the advantage line, go to ground, and do it again and again.

Now quite simply, if this is the type of game you play, you need to pick the type of players to compliment this game plan or strength, and what better type of player to pick for deck play than a deck play specialist, or the ‘fetcher’ who specialises in this area of rugby?

And here ladies and gentleman is where the Springboks are starting to get it wrong again.

Our strength is not deck play or phase play, never was. Our strength is our ball carrying ability, strike running and brutal defense, which rely quite heavily on your bigger than average players. In short, our strength has always been, and is coached still today at all levels, in keeping the ball in the air as much as possible.

The much vaunted Jake White line-out philosophy as our premier attacking platform is an extension of this and it is something White realised very quickly when he became coach – as to where our strengths lie. Our maul currently has no equal in world rugby, it is a strength, and it is keeping the ball in the air. Which is why if we revisit the zones discussed earlier you will find that in most instances, the Boks will try and force line-outs in the game, as it plays to their strength. The kicking game we employed successfully in the opening Tri-Nations games takes their forwards out of the game and most importantly, their ability to start their phase plays.

When we are successful at rucks, we have always employed greater numbers to rucks and used physical strength to dominate this area. Which is also the reason all 15 players in our team are (or were under White) regarded as ‘fetchers’ and led to Jaque Fourie being the backline player with more impressive turn over ball and tackles than most loose forwards in international rugby.

It is simple rugby gentleman, and it is the reason why I am saying, and have been saying that neither Brüssow or Watson are bad players, or fetchers, they are in fact the best and have no equal in SA Rugby, they simply do not suit our rugby strengths.

I think it is foolish of us to try and play deck rugby, or take our opposition on in their strengths when we should rather focus on our own.