“I’ve Never Seen an Attacking Side Win Any Competition”
(says Stormers’ coach, Allister Coetzee)
By – Famed schoolboy coach, Basil Bey, provides an alternative argument in his column, Read on.
Perhaps the Stormers’ Head Coach was not able to watch France defeat Italy by playing attacking rugby from the start of the game, (Italy who beat Scotland last week and gave England a hell of a go) but, then, none so blind as those who don’t want to see! And guess what! France are going to win a competition this year! Coetzee is extremely fortunate to have picked up Jacque Fourie and that wonderful rugby player, Habana, who have put a bit of much-wanted spark into the Stormers this year (I believe, too, that Robbie Fleck has had something to do with the resurgence of the backs – I say resurgence but that implies that they used to be good but I don’t think they were; perhaps I should have said ‘emergence’ rather than ‘resurgence’). I am glad to see that the ball is now passed to Fourie!
John Dobson, the very successful UCT coach, has just this moment sent me this quote from Roy Campbell’s book, “Broken Record”, in part of which he reminisces on his time at Oxford (fortuitous that John should send it to me now):
“Anyone who has seen that great rugby, the fury and fire of the attack, with the ball flashing from hand to hand, and everywhere caressed by great sculptors of motion; and above all the triumphant gaiety and humanity of men like Payn; anyone who has seen that kind of rugby laughs at the modern edition.
“The Australians have taught us a great lesson: they nearly beat us, and by generous spectacular play. All play should be spectacular; it should take for granted the intelligence of the spectator…the great player is a sort of priest or poet and he should always parade his excellence.”
Uys Krige (a SACS Old Boy), also a South African poet, and Roy Campbell, great friends, both loved rugby; one has only to read the quotation above to understand just how much Campbell did. In those days poets played rugby – and coached it, too, but now?
“All play should be spectacular; it should take for granted the intelligence of the spectator…the great player is a sort of priest or poet and he should always parade his excellence.”
We have lost something in the playing of this game, something infinitely precious, have we not? It has become wooden, obvious, monotonous and is not at all poetic. Dross for the most part.
What the French proved to us, as they do from time to time, is that running, attacking rugby is effective but, of course, you must have skill to be able to play that way and be intelligent enough to make difficult decisions, risky decisions.
How did the French manage to break that deadly, smothering defence system that Mallet’s Italians used so effectively against both England and Scotland?
They lined deeper than most other modern sides, thus making loop support possible.
They supported in depth.
They passed before, and sometimes in, contact, BEFORE GOING TO GROUND!
Their passing was incredibly (by modern standards) accurate.
They employed long passes to stretch the opponents from quick rucks but also used the short-pass with great effect.
Quick hands were employed in the passing.
On approaching contact, their players would use their feet to dominate the situation, enabling them to get a good, creative pass to the supporter before the ball carrier was hit.
When, inevitably, the odd ball-carrier was taken to ground, because he had used his feet to dominate the tackle, he was able to place the ball where he wanted it, so nearly all rucks were quick rucks.
Fifty-fifty passes were made and taken with confidence and so were extremely successful.
The scrum half passed off the ground immediately the ball emerged, giving his outside man quick ball in space (despite the flat-lining of the Italians).
I really could go on and on but I believe my point is made. The French have a coach who is prepared to take risks, who is happy to create, to avoid contact in order to pass and to run rather than to kick. He allowed his players to use their own judgement on the field but they have been skilled in training to do that. Dick Muir tries to do the same thing but to break the old habits of a dour people takes time. Stormers certainly have the capability to play a similar game but I do not believe they have the heart to do so, as the French do have. I therefore dare to predict that they will lose games that they should not. They are too drilled in their thinking and most players lack the individual initiative that would enable them to crack tightly set defences (we are too flat in attack, anyway).
Our South African men in Blue from the North are a different matter, though. They want the bonus points and so, prepared to take risks to score, they give away tries that a negative approach would block -but the point is that with that approach, they score more than they give away.
By Basil Bey
Mr. Superbul…I believe that your rationing is flawed…
I also believe that Mr. Alistair Coetzee has been quoted out of context.
What you fail to mention in this article, is the small matter of talent and ability. Dick Muir probably also read Roy Campbell, and his romantic notion of attacking rugby, but for this to be plausible, you at least need the players capable of playing this type of game, and obviously some foundation.
The Bulls didn’t achieve what they currently have by playing attacking rugby, no World Cup was won by attacking rugby, and the same goes for the Tri-Nations and the 6-Nations.
I will eat my hat if the Bulls continue their current type of play throughout the competition and remains successful, starting this weekend.
To run 6 tries by the Stormers and the Crusaders will not be easily achieved, and then, they will return to the ways that made them successful. They will revert to winning rugby again.
Look at the Chiefs / Lions game, I am sure Mr. Campbell would have loved it. All out attack, positive rugby. But you and I know it was a farce.
So ja, the Stormers could probably play that type of rugby, but that will see them end up where they always end, somewhere mid-table, adventurous, but rubbish. I’d rather they win.
Oh, and really, the French vs. Italy? Even the Boks easily beat Italy on the Year End Tour, they are about as consistent as scrambled eggs.
Ok, I am out, will chat again later.
hmmmmm
a bull posting a helter skelter thread?
😯 what has this world come to? 😀
Well it isn’t difficult for the French to play attacking rugby, but it doesn’t always come off! The wheels come off sometimes. Agree with The one and only Saint – they will change their style on tour.
Now that I have time!!!
Should I go Blues over Brumbies – Sharks over Highlanders and Stormers over Cheetahs. Struggling with my superbru.
Will pop back later.
6 – Irish, I am the last one to tell you picks on bru. Just have to see where I am sitting there. That is cause I went with the heart. Sharks and Lions last weekend.
I have a feeling that Blues may beat Brumbies as it is on their home turf. Though if I remember reading that one of the Blues players are out injured. Not just can not remember which player.
I have gone with Sharks every week except once. Cause there I am just going with the heart. Highlanders are a better team than what people think. They could beat the Sharks they did beat the Bulls on in NZ last year. So have to think about that one. Will have to go with the head now with these picks.
Stormers should beat Cheetahs. Cheetahs without Brussow is not the same. Well my feeling. Then again Cheetahs are Sharks bogey team and it seems maybe Stormers bogey team too.
ID, dont ask me advice on picks, i guess all the time.
3 – Ash 😆
Hehe, daais wat my ook puzzle, Ash!
Julle twee moet wakker word , ek is dalk die ou wat die berigte plaas maar ek skryf nie julle altyd af nie, dis my job om post te gooi om julle sensitieewe siele te stimuleer. 😆
Julle weet flokken goed ek is unbiased 😀
It’s all about BALANCE!!
A purely attacking team will see it’s arse, a purely defending team will see it’s arse….. it’s inevitable!
Last year the Sharks were great on defense and because of that neglected creating their own sufficient attacking phases… it initially resulted in win after win but no bonus points, then later in the season it backfired on the Sharks. Now in 2010 that mindset has spilled over and the Sharks have lot 5 on the trot…. all because they are impotent on attack.
This year the Stormers started out like that, all defence and very little attack, causing 2 wins without bonus points, one loss…. and suddenly when they decided to attack more 2 bonus point wins followed.
Looking at all out attck and neglecting defense, one only needs to look at the Lions to see what that would achieve………….. a balls-up of note!
Even the Bulls are a little too attack-minded, causing an imbalance on defense… and one certainly hope they tighten down their defense, even if ever so slightly at the expense of a bit of attack. The exact balance is hard to perfect though!
A team NEEDS to rake in as many bonus points as possible, there are 13 bonus points available for 4 tries during the competition, that on it’s own equals 3 extra matches won.
First priority is to win, second priority is to score the bonus point, third priority is to deny bonus points against you…… in that specific order.
13 – GBS, First paragraph exactly true, need combine the two really. Simple as that.
@1 – What a load of bull. There are more tournaments than the world cup. The Tri-Nations almost get won every year by the most attacking side, the RWC have had two great attacking sides win it (1987 and 1991). Yes the 1991 Wallabies might not have played all out rugby in all the games in that tournament but anyone who doubts their class on attack is a fool, and they could’ve easily won that tournament just by attacking.
The Crusaders plays attacking rugby and they’ve won more Super 14s than any other side. The Bulls plays attacking rugby (They’re always one of the top try scoring sides in the tournament, although some critics will always try and convince you otherwise, but you don’t get scores like they did in last year’s final by defending).
The Sharks played “finals rugby” every week last year and it didn’t win them the tournament (The Waratahs did the same). When you’ve got guys who can attack and put 50 past the opposition it’s a waste having them defend all the time.
The 2007 Boks could’ve easily beaten England by a record margin in the final if they didn’t play Jake’s kick away the possession game. They weren’t exactly a poor attacking side, and I’m still sure the All Blacks would’ve beaten them had they met in the RWC. What happened to NZ in that world cup was a nightmare.
15
Yes agree with you on the part were you said , if you have the personnel to attack , just do it. Now the thing is the Lions dont have that , The Shark neither. So lets see what happens between the Stormers and the Cheetahs.
Going to be a great game of chess, i wish old Rassie was still the coach, that would have added more spice.
@16 – Wonder where John Smit’s supposed great leadership is now? The Sharks just doesn’t have any bite in their backline. The Lions… They should quit Super rugby, they’re just a big embarrassment. Carlos Spencer, Burton Francis, & Earl Rose have been woeful. I obviously was wrong about Francis. He doesn’t have the head to make the step-up and perform at any level above Vodacom Cup level. Although I hate the Lions I’m disappointed after the promise they showed towards the end of the CC last year. Bet they’re kicking themselves for choosing Dick above Heynecke!
GBS @ 13 – I agree with your comments, mate. Attack over defence or vice versa? It all comes down to BALANCE. That’s why I like the sound of the current phrase being thrown around the grounds at S14 games this year: before you can run with the ball, you have to earn the right. That right encompasses defence and structured rugby – not too much, we don’t want to watch stodgy, English-style repetitious and boring games, decided by place kicks or drop goals; we want to see ball in hand, at the right time. From my own personal perspective, I don’t want to see endless scrum resets, that’s rubbish and a blight on the game. Go back to the roots of rugby: someone changed the world, because he picked up the ball and RAN!
Deservedly, we now have a much-vaunted Cup named after him!
Baie interessant MAAR… daar is baie veranderlikes, soos…
* die ou reels
* nuwer ELV’s
* nuwe intrepetasies van ou reels
* spanne wat bekend is daarvoor om swakker te wees onder hoe bal sal meer
teen geskop word en omgekeerd.
* ens ens ens…
Ek dink soms die analiste wil dinge te ingewikkeld maak.
Die groot argument is aanval teenoor verdediging…
En dit maak nie saak vanuit watter hoek jy daarna kyk nie…as jy vyf tree vorentoe en drie tree terug en jou opponent die omgekeerde van 3 vorentoe, vyf terug, gaan jy eerste by die wenpaal wees. M.a.w. of jou verdediging/aanval goed of sleg is die basiese beginsel bly doodeenvoudig om meer punte aan te teken as jou opponent
Verseker kan elke span na elke vertoning of elke paar vetonings weer alles in oenskou neem en kyk in watter areas hulle kan verbeter,en almal glo ek doen dit…
Maar om die tipe stellings te maak soos Allister is in my opinie ,slegs dit…’n opinie.
Weereens ‘n opinie van my… huidiglik glo ek die Bulle sal ‘n game teen die Stormers wen waar albei huidiglik verskillende sterkpunte het i.t.v. verdediging en aanval…
Die vraag is, wie gaan eerste alby fasette so naby aan perfeksie bring na hul onderskeie vermoeens…
Tyd sal leer, maar Allister sal dalk net sy opinie moet verander…
‘n Voorbeeld vir my is bv. die Bokke wat op ‘n stadium (toevallig toe Allister betrokke was) baie “games” gewen het op verdediging…
Waar ander “games” tussen die Franse en ander spanne onder andere die All Blacks baie keer hoe tellings was maar bloot op die aanval deur die Franse gewen is.( Hulle het baie punte afgestaan, maar bloot op die ou ent meer aangeteken)….
So Super, the Bulls have it and the Stormers dont, I wouldn’t expect any less from you, funny that, were nipping at your heels. Maybe it’s our time to dominate like the old days, yes Fourie and Habana are great finishers, but don’t give them all the credit.
manlybok are you commenting on the main article? If so read carefully its not my words, and also it is not necessarily my view. My views are in the comments.
But its OK , you must come read here more then you would have picked up that since Saturday i said i like the current Stormers game plan more than the Bulls.
No hard feelings, just dont attack the writer attack the message. Thats how we do it here.
No I’m not attacking Super, only waiting for a compliment for the Stormers, I thought the article was good, I was only picking on your personal observation of the Bulls vs the Stormers play and that was done by the writer.
Manlybok
Whats your take on this weekends Stormers/Cheetahs game ?
super…
Jy moet nou nie al jou verlof opgebruik nie hoor… 😉
17: VS, jy sal laat ek in my koffie verstik. Francis nie meer jou hero nie ? 😉
1: Ja, ou Saint, jy was so teleurgesteld met die HARDLOOP wenrugby wat die Bulle gespeel het in die S14 finaal van 2009, dat jy skoon vergeet het om dit te noem ?
Kan nie glo wat ek deesdae lees nie, in die jare toe Baas Naas die een CB na die ander met goeie tienmanrugby (en baie goeie verdediging deur die res vd span!) gewen het, toe was dit nie ‘mmmmmooooi’ genoeg vir die kritici nie … nou skielik dat die Ballerina’s van die Kaap skielik beter rugby begin speel, en ook goed verdedig (ek gee dit toe), nou skielik is ‘hardlooprugby’ nie meer belangrik nie ?
Wat word van hierdie wereld ?
Nee man, besluit nou wat dit gaan wees ?
Ja, die belangrikste is wen, verseker. Watter soort rugby ookal. En ek sal graag wil sien dat my span net so goed verdedig as aanval, dit is waar. Maar, ek wen liewers elke wedstryd 50-35, as 3-0.
Go Bulle !
Go Cheetahs, wys die Stormers ‘carrots’ (want die klomp van die Kaap gaan die Canes vrydagaand ondersteun, dit is verseker)
Super 14 power rankings after round 5 (Rugby Heaven):
1. Bulls: The new law interpretations seem to suit the defending champions. They average nearly 50 points a game but need to tighten up their defence for the Australasian tour starting next week.
2. Stormers: It would be ironic in the season where Sanzar have tried to open up the game, that the most claustrophobic defensive outfit wins the competition. The Stormers may be that team.
So, die Bulle is ‘n klomp avonturiërs en die die Stormers ‘n klomp banggatte ! 😉
28: “Bulls: The new law interpretations seem to suit the defending champions”
Sien, ons kan verdedig, daar staan dit in swart en wit: ‘DEFENDING champions’ !
Ai, BDB, hoe lekker gesels ons nou.
Users Online
Total 163 users including 0 member, 163 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,452,272 Page Impressions
_