The Crusaders said before the match they had a specific game plan, they’ve spotted a weakness and have a game plan to exploit that weakness. As it is they won every facet of the game except the match. They scored more tries, had more possession, wasn’t beaten in the line-outs or the scrums, made more turnovers and spent more time in the Bulls half of the field.
So what was the weakness they saw and what was the game plan?
The weakness they noticed was the Bull’s vulnerability in channels 3 (between the outside centre and the wing) and channel 4 (outside the wing). Specifically the fact that neither Hougaard nor Van den Heever are great defenders, mostly because they are relatively small and light, and that J-L Potgieter is too slow for an outside centre. They exploited this weakness both on attack and as part of their defensive strategy.
In my previous Article I speculated on what the game plan could be and mentioned things like quick throw-ins to avoid line-outs, the back three hanging back to counter the Bulls’ kicking game, playing the ball wide away from the Bulls forwards, switching Carter and Bowden on attack and using Carter and Bowden as tactical kickers to pin the Bulls in their own half. The Crusaders did most of these but they did some other quite innovative strategic measures, which I think is quite educational to review and ponder about.
So let’s dissect the Crusaders game plan:
On defence
- The back three hung back and waited for the kicks and retaliated occationally by kicking it back into space, forcing the Bulls to kick out. This allowed them to get the throw in and secure the ball in the line-out. Mostly they ran at the bulls and set the ball up and played it wide.
- They threw the ball in quickly when the Bulls kicked it out, occationally they kicked the ball into space after a quick throw-in but mostly kept the ball in hand. They had players catching the ball outside the field of play on numerous occasions in order to be able make a quick throw-in. There were always back-up players waiting for the quick throw-ins.
- In the scrums they stepped sideways on the Bulls feeds to ensure the Bulls got poor ball.
- Turning the scrums was another ploy they used with success on the Bulls scrum ball, forcing Du Preez against the sideline.
- They waited for Spies’s annoying habit of breaking away against the turn off the scrum and nailed him.
- In the line-outs on the Bulls ball they didn’t really compete but drove the Bulls back the moment the ball catcher landed, forcing the Bulls back and preventing them to go forward ball or starting a rolling maul. This also put Du Preez under pressure. A large part of their line-out tactics was to avoid line-outs by making sure they didn’t kick the ball out to prevent Bulls getting a line-out throw.
- When the Bulls tried to maul they pushed the maul to the sideline and turned it so that the ball carrier, at the back, was forced against the sideline limiting his choices and space whenever he tried to break away.
- They stepped away from the driving maul on occasion, which forced the Bulls to end the maul or get blown up for obstruction.
- They countered the “Pods” very effectively with two strategies, firstly they waited for the pods on the edge of the offside line in numbers and secondly they rushed up and hit the pods just when it started to form. The moment the ball carrier received the ball and before he could set himself properly and start running, with pod support from the rear, they rushed into his face and smothered the Pod. The result was that the pods couldn’t gain momentum and speed and in most cases the Bulls players were still in an upright position, busy setting themselves for the forward charge when the defenders rushed onto them. This was so effective that the Bulls could never get over the advantage line with the pods and eventually stopped using the pods.
- Their most important defensive strategy was to keep the ball in hand and not allow the Bulls to get momentum with the ball in hand. They prevented turnovers when running with the ball by playing it wide and avoiding going to ground with it. This took the Bulls’ turnover specialists (Stegmann and Potgieter) out of the match, to an extent.
On attack
The main game plan and attacking strategy was to play the ball wide and attack channels 3 and 4 with numbers. They did this in the following manner:
- The backline lined up a little deeper and they used blockers (forwards standing flat on the defensive line in front of the backline players) which allowed them to get the ball wide.
- They used long passes (mostly only two or three passes) to quickly get the ball wide.
- They had numbers waiting in depth out wide (mostly No 15, the opposite wing, the centre’s doubling around and one of the big forwards). They always had more players than the Bulls out wide. Three of the four Crusaders tries were created out wide because they attacked the outside channels with numbers.
- They varied the strategy of taking the ball wide with two long passes by having players (mostly the flankers and no 8 or Brad Thorne) coming from outside inwards on an angle to set the ball up. This drew the drifting defense in. They then quickly recycled the ball and send the ball wide with Ellis breaking on the blindside and 15 coming in at speed to create the man over situation.
- Whenever they went into contact they recycled the ball only once or twice which kept the Bulls big players and fetchers out of the game and limiting the risk of losing the ball.
- In the line-outs they didn’t take any risk and went for the safe throws on 4 and 5 and then spread the ball wide at speed away from the Bulls pack.
Generally the whole Crusader team knew the strategy was to attack the outside channels and everyone made sure they supported on the outside. They never allowed the Bulls to get momentum because they kept the ball in hand.
The Bulls was tactically outsmarted and generally extremely lucky to come away with a win. The fact that they did pull through is probably due to the confidence in the team. The general expression of “a good side even wins on a bad day” applies.
This is one of the best games I’ve seen in many a year. I was absorbed and totally fascinated by the tactical stratagems happening as the match unfolded.
Now doing all these smart things and still lose, does that mean the Bulls is the best team?
I don’t think anybody ever doubted that the bulls are currently the top side in te compitition. Much is the be learned from teh way in which the Crusaders appraoched the match. The general feeling about South African rugby since the 1940’s is that we are technically very good but tactically indifferent.
I think generally speaking we’ve made some progress but this match just proves how far behind we still are in terms of tactical preparation and out foxing your opponent.
@ McLook,
Meeste van die goed wat jy daar noem is vanselfsprekend mnr.
En ek sal nou nie juis se dat Stegmann uit die stry uitgehaal was nie, ne?
Dankie vir ‘n goeie uiteensetting.
Probleem met al hierdie lang ingewikkelde en moeilike game plans, is dat dit moeilik is om uit te voer teen ‘n Bulspan wat ‘n eenvoudige 3-punt gameplan het:
1.W
2.E
3.N
😀
BKW@3 natuurlik is meeste van die goed half vanslefsprekkend. Daar is net soveeel wat jy op ‘n rugbyveld kan doen. Dit gaan oor wat jy teen wie doen en hoe klinies jy is met betrekking tot toepasssing van jou plan(ne).
Punt is hulle het die bulls se swak en strekpunte geidentifeseer en met ‘n wedstrydplan opgekom wat amper gewerk het. Die plan was so vanselfsprekend dat nie een ander span vanjaar daarmee kon opkom nie en dat die bulls dit glad nie gesien kom het.
Die ding wat oorpronklik was en wat in wese die primêre strategie was en wat uitgestaan in terme van outentieke uitvoering was die manier hoe hulle die buite kanaal met nommers aangeval het. Die Force het byvoorbeeld ook die bal probeer wydspeel teen die Cheetahs maar het nie nommer op die punte gehad nie en die vleuel was nie diep genoeg sodat hy met spoed op die opponente kon afhardloop nie. Die gevolg was dit het nie gewerk vir die Force nie.
In die skrywe was my doel om so volledig as moontlik te probeer wees met betrekking tot wat die Crusaders gedoen het. Om bloot te probeer sê dat die Crusaders die bal wydgespeel het of dat die Crusaders se wedstrydplan eenvoudig was om met die bal te hardloop is nie korrek nie en skep die verkeerde indruk.
Spelrs soos Spies en Potgieter asook Stegman het minder goeie wedstryde gehad (as gewoontlik) en die rede daarvoor was al die ander vanselfsprekende goed wat die Crusader gedoen het om hulle te neutraliseer.
bdb@4 ek dink nie dit was ‘n vreeslike lang en ingewikkelde plan nie. Hulle het met teenvoeters vir die bulle se sterkpunte opgekom en dit verweef met ‘n plan om die bal wyd te speel. Mens hoor baie van harloop die opponente van hulle voete af of speel die bal wyd weg van die voorspelers af. Wat vir my uitgestaan het was die manier hoe die Crusaders dit gedoen het. Die bal is nie eenvoudig wydgegooi nie dit is planmatig en gestruktureerd en met groot vaardigheid gedoen. En laat ons nou maar eerlik wees die bulls was baie gelukkig om die een te wen.
Hougaard se eerste drie het FdP nie deur die hek gekom toe hy die bal gegryp het nie. Menige ander skeidsregters kon hom daarvoor opgeblaas het.
Die laaste drie van Hougaard het Marco die bal agtertoe gegooi? As mens na sy handbeweging gaan kyk en hoe die bal die hande verlaat is daar twyfel want dit lyk bepaald of die bal vorentoe gaan uit sy hande uit. Baie gelukkig dat daardie bal ‘n Crusader hand geraak het. Die bulls het die wedstryd met meer geluk as vaardigheid gewen.
@McLook
Ek sal nou weer se ons flanke het fantasties gelyk op verdediging, en gedoen presies wat hul moes doen onder die omstandighede. Pierre het ook maar gewys dat hy wel hard kan tekkel as hy weet n drie is op die spel.
Nee wat, ek het gedink Stegmann het ‘n uitstekende wedstryd gehad en maar net gedoen wat hy altyd doen as ‘n meer verdedigende soort flank, Potties lyk asof hy nie soveel meters in kontak maak soos hy hoort, nes Spies, maar hulle is absoluut puik in elke ander afdeling en sit net so bietjie vas in die verkeer deesdae, maar dit dink ek is ‘n goeie ding.
BKW@7 ek dink nie die flanke het swak gespeel nie. Hulle het hulle harte uitgespeel maar hulle was minder doeltreffend om die Crusaders se momentun te stuit -in vergelyking met hoe effektief hulle normaalweg is- as gevolg van die manier hoe die Saders gespeel het.
Spies vorm ‘n belangrike deel van die bulle se spel met sy spoed en vermoë om die lyn te breek. Die Crusaders weet dit en weet hoe gevaarlik Stegman is om omkeerbesit te bewerkstellig.
Die Crusaders het met hulle wedstrydbenadering daarin geslaag om hierdie drie spelers (Stegman, Pottie en Spies) baie minder effektief te maak; daarom dat hule daarin geslaag het om meeste balbesit te hê; Spies het nie sy gewoontlike lynbreke en meters gedoen met die bal in die hand nie.
Crusaders was in die wedstryd omrede hulle die bal van hierdie sleutelspelers (vir die bulls) weg gehou het. Stegman kon moeilik omkeer besit bewerkstellig (en hy dit paar keer goed gedoen) omrede die Crusaders kontak vermy het en in gevalle waar daar kontak was het hulle die bal net een of twee keer “gerecycle” alvorens hulle dit weer wyd gespeel het.
@ McLook
Verskoon tog McLook, die aand het my in die rede geval.
Wat ek bedoel het met “vanselfsprekend”, is dat omtrent alles wat jy noem gebeur elke wedstyd inelkgeval.
Hulle het al hulle buite agterspelers in ‘n massa aanval omgebring na 2 of 3 fases aan een kant van die veld ‘n keer of wat en die Bulle vroeg van hulle voete af probeer hardloop, as gevolg daarvan het hulle ons geblitz in die eerste helfte, maar in die tweede kon hulle net een drie vroeg aanteken en toe wat het toe gebeur?…Toe hardloop hulle effens uit stoom uit, en hulle kon nie eens behoorlik keer toe Hougaard sy driee wou druk nie.
Dis nou jammer Gerhard vd Heever kort nog net so bietjie ervaring, ek voel hy moes net-net kort geval het (of net regs teen sy momentum) vd doellyn en gestrek het i.p.v. heeltemal oor hol. (Dieselfde ding het teen die Hurricanes gebeur nadat hy briljant gehardloop het–en in die Crusaders wedstryd sou dit dalk vroeg vir ons die bonuspunt drie verseker het.)
Maar i.t.v. die eintlike impak van ons flanke, Hulle effektiwiteit moet mos nou gemeet word aan hoe hulle hulself nuttig maak onder die omstandighede, en onder die omstandighede was hulle die beste spelers op die veld (Hougaard het wel die wendrie gedruk en was uitstekend om die bal op te volg en hulle buite agterspelers onder druk te plaas, maar manne soos Matfield en Stegmann het die grootse deel van die vuil werk gehad.). As Spies homself nie behoorlik aangewend het nie, is dit maar sy saak, maar hy het ‘n paar mooi plettervatte uitgevoer.
Die besit was maar so 50/50, ons baldraers het seker verwag om meer lopies te kry, ‘n ou soos Spies het bietjie minder as gewoonlik die geleenthede gehad, en ons het ook bietjie balbesit weg geskop met Kirchner daar. Hulle het seker dit maar verwag (geen groot geheim regtig nie) en vlak gestaan op verdediging om ons om in ons gesigte te boer en die bal te smoor, McCaw was uitstekend in die sin.
Ek kry die gevoel ons manne was nie opgewasse genoeg om hul vlak verdedigingslyn uit te buit en heelwat meer gebruik te maak van rolskoppies en kort chippies. Hulle het ontsettend meer hardloop meters as ons aangeteken en ons het ons energie spandeer aan laterale “scramble defence” om te keer dat dit bars met al die teen aanvalle wat ons per gawe aan hulle gegee het. En rakend die punt, wil ek se ons het beter bal in hand gehou as hulle wanneer ons wou (gelyke besit, maar meer geskop en meer in ons helfte gehou met die bal deur fases gehou), terwyl ons gewag het om onsself in die posisie te kry om veld op te skop.
Een vd swak punte wat hulle raak gesien het was seker die dat ons buitespelers binne toe gevlous word en steelkant ooplos vir die ekstra ondersteunende aanvaller.
Ek dink dit is uiters amateuragtig van ‘n span soos die Bulle, (alhoewel dit ongelukkig afkom op die individu, in meeste gevalle Kirchner, en ‘n paar keer Van den Heever).
Great analysis BigMac! Perhaps a bit too technical for some people who are only interested in who wins and who loses, so that’s why not the deserved appreciation. In summary the bullyboys were lucky to have won. As you say thanks in large part to their supreme confidence of winning at loftus and getting the better of the referee calls.
Some people don’t understand the value of constructive criticism and interpret it as an attack or insult and then become defensive. The only way to improve guys is to work on ones deficiencies, not to imagine that you are perfect and don’t have any, because you can be damn sure your opposition are not just going to sit there and take it for ever and ever!
McLook,
Good and constructive analysis… and correct for the most part, except that I think Stegmann was a BIG SHINING LIGHT in this match for the Bulls… as echoed by all the Journalists who were in the Press Box with me… also echoed by Frans Ludeke’s sentiments after the game.
The fact that the Saders created so much space, runners and gaps out wide was truly evident… and worrying!
I’m a bit surprised by the big focus on Saders play though because the Bulls themselves also created brilliant play and pulled it off successfully… also some very astute preying on Saders weaknesses.
One MUST remember, the Bulls still won… and like some consider the last try lucky I also consider the Saders very lucky not to have lost Richie McCaw to a yellow at a very critical time (on their own 5m line, for a professional foul).
Whatever the situation, the game’s in the bag…. the score is on the board!
Bulls better go focus on defensive shifting out wide though, or employing an umbrella defence out wide…. and the Bulls better rush up better, in an organised line, on defence.
No team is perfect though, as was seen from the Stormers and Reds…
Stormers are now faced with a MUST WIN against the Bulls this coming weekend just to make the semi’s… and should they win, they’ll still end 2nd on the Log.
The Bulls are already on top of the Log, nobody can push them off top spot…. a full 8 Log points clear (that is 3 more Log points than the Lions managed in a full season).
I want to congratulate the Sharks… they played clever rugby against the Stormers, identified their weaknesses and pounced, in spectacular fashion!
Thank you McLook. I learned a bit of rugby here today. I hope the Bulls did too.
GBS@11, Stegman seems to be quicker to the breakdowns than Pottie and Spies. He is smaller than the other two so he scampers better from one spot to the next. He was therefore the only bulls loose forward who kept up with the pace of the game. From a Bulls prespective he therefore did have a massive game.
When I say they (the bulls pack and loosies) were taken out of the game I am refering to the fact that the Crusaders avoided contact and kept playing the ball wide away from these bulls players who thrive in a physical game. The implication is not that they (bulls loosies) were poor but that the game plan of the crusaders countered their (the bulls loosies) strengths and natural style of playing.
I agree the bulls did adapt well which is a compliment to their leadership on and off the field. The focus of this article was of course on the Crusaders game plan so I didn’t refer to what the bulls did; that might be an interesting article too. In essence I saw that Olivier was moved to outside centre to improve the defence on the outside and that they started to kick the ball into the pavilion. This slowed the game down. Considering that the bulls played for 20 minutes with 14 men this win is a massive achievement in a game where they were behind and outsmarted for most parts of the match.
gbs @ 11
“Stormers are now faced with a MUST WIN against the Bulls this coming weekend just to make the semi’s”
….
not true … to do that we only need 1 point from the game.
we need to win to ensure a home semi though!
Users Online
Total 53 users including 0 member, 53 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,433,699 Page Impressions
_