It was a strange but clear phenomenon; the Bulls getting their S14 campaign back on track for three consecutive years the moment they made Morné the first choice no. 10. This was of course in the years when Steyn was still liefling’s understudy.
In 2007 Morné began the season in the starting team with liefling being injured at the time; the bulls had a solid start and went on to win the competition. It was also the year -2007- that New Zealand decided to rest their All Blacks for the first part of the S14 season and that took the gloss, to some extend off the Bulls, won. The role that Morné’s played in that victory year got lost in the post won analysis and euphoria but also by the fact that Hougaard did came back and had one of his better seasons in the S14. Two years later -2009- the bulls won the S14 again after a year in between -2008- of coming to terms with a new coach. In the second S14 victory -2009- Steyn became a Loftus hero and he was so dominant that he literally forced the Springbok selectors to take notice and pick him for the series against the British and Irish Lions. What happened after that is history and one of those feel good rugby stories were hard work paid off for the second in line who was generally regarded as not being good enough.
However, there is still a tendency that Morné is seen as a sort of stand in no. 10 in the Springbok team and not the real deal. Morné certainly is not as fleet of feet as Quade Cooper neither is he a shrewd tactician nor has he demonstrated the mercurial running of a Gitua or Cooper. This last few weeks Morné had a few less perfect performances and some are quick to jump on that arguing; he was a one season wonder; he can’t perform away from Loftus; he is one-dimensional.
I’ve sampled some stats and created a few interesting tables in order to compare Morné with not only other no. 10’s in this year’s S14 but also with one of the greats of Springbok rugby.
Table 1: Comparison of the S14 flyhalf’s of 2010. (this table was created before the weekends games)
| Team | No. 10 | Backs outside No. 10 who scored tries | Number of tries scored by outside backs | Total amount of tries scored by backs | |
| Bulls | Morné Steyn | 177 points
5 tries |
V / d Heever
Olivier Hougaard Kirchner |
7
5 4 3 |
24 |
| Crusaders | Dan Carter | 105 points
0 tries |
Guilford
Maitland |
5
4 |
9 |
| Blues | Stephen Brett | 98 points
1 try |
Rokococo
Ranger Toeava Wolf |
7
5 3 3 |
19 |
| Reds | Cooper | 140 points
4 tries |
Chambers
Davies Loane |
4
4 4 |
16 |
| Stormers | Grant | 60 points
0 tries |
Habana
Fourie Pietersen |
4
4 3 |
11 |
| Chiefs | Donald | 129 points
2 tries |
Kahui | 5 | 7 |
| Brumbies | Gitau | 106 points
1 try |
0 | 1 | |
One can see which teams are succeeding in creating tries with backline play. It is quite interesting that the Bulls, Blues and the Reds seem to be doing well while the Brumbies and Chiefs are struggling badly. The fact that the Blues are not at the top of the S14 log is also interesting given the fact that they scored the second most tries with their backs.
Stormers and Crusaders figures are mediocre. The Stormers backline tries where also often the result of individual brilliance rather than creative backline play.
Most important in terms of Morné Steyn is that his outside backs are outscoring the backs of all the other teams. If this is an indication of one-dimensional no. 10 play then one-dimensional 10 play is probably what needs to be promoted.
This is obviously only half the picture as forward dominance create space for innovative backline play but in essence this clearly demonstrate that the bulls have changed the way they play; they are no longer a 10-man rugby side. To me it seems that the Bulls are by far leaders in the S14 when it comes to creativeness/innovativeness and adaptability to rule changes and with regard to out foxing defensive patterns. What is most impressive is that this adaptability is not restricted to either forward or backline play; they demonstrate constant adaptability and creativeness with both forward and backline play.
Brumbies on the other hand renowned for their creative and intelligent backline play were totally unable to adjust and have scored zero tries so far this season with their backline.
More refined comparison with Quade Cooper
To be honest the only other contender in this year S14 is Quade Cooper. He has really set the Reds alight along with Will Genia and is surely a very strong contender for the Aussie 10 Jumper. It has to be said though that his defensive efforts in the all too important 10 channel leaves a lot to be desired of.
Table 2: Comparing Morné Steyn with Quade Cooper
| Tries | Setup try | Line break | Turn over | Goal kicks | Miss goal | Go forward | Catch kick | Tackle made | Lost ball | |
| Steyn | 5 | 7 | 10 | 1 | 61 | 21 | 21 | 9 | 74 | 10 |
| Cooper | 4 | 11 | 24 | 5 | 48 | 22 | 32 | 15 | 35 | 15 |
| Winner | MS | QC | QC | MS | MS | MS | QC | QC | MS | MS |
Cooper is clearly the better play-maker (11 Tries setup vs 7 for Steyn) and also he made a lot more line breaks (24 vs 10). The try scoring ability is very even at 5 for Morné and 4 for Cooper. Creating go-forward-ball also shows figures in favour of Cooper (32 vs 21)
In the goal kicking department we all know that Morné is way ahead of Cooper.
Defensively, Steyn has made a hell of a lot of tackles while Cooper is often not in his channel to do defending. Cooper is also more prone to lose possession of the ball when making contact (see table below)
Table 3: Steyn and Cooper on defence when Bulls played the Reds
| Assisting | Forced turnover | Tackles made | Tackles missed | |
| Cooper | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 |
| Steyn | 4 | 1 | 14 | 1 |
Steyn versus Gerald Bosch
This is an interesting comparison because they played almost the same amount of tests. Steyn played a few more but came up in his first two tests as a reserve. For this comparison I am using the first 9 matches Steyn played as first choice namely started the match. Considering the modern tendency that players are subbed –which did happen with Morné in his first matches- this comparison is quite revealing. Being subbed means of course that he missed out on opportunities to kick penalties, conversions and so forth.
| Gerald Bosch | Morné Steyn | ||
 |
 |
||
| Height | 1.79m | Height | 1.83m |
| Weight | 75kg | Weight | 91kg |
| Tests played | 9 | Tests played | 12 (brackets= first 9 tests) |
| Tries | 0 | Tries | 1 (1) |
| Drop kicks | 2 | Drop kicks | 5 (4) |
| Penalties | 23 | Penalties | 33 (28) |
| Conversions | 7 | Conversions | 12 (9) |
| Matches lost | 2 | Matches lost | 4 (3) |
Now Gerald Bosch was not considered the best running flyhalf but was definitely regarded as a man who could win a match for you. I don’t think Steyn is in the same class as a tactician or dictator of match outcome but he certainly is outscoring Bosch in every department.
There are those that would argue that Bosch played tougher opposition and that he had less scoring opportunities because the game was played differently; specifically that the Boks now have a style of forcing penalties which was not the case in previous years. So let have a look at that:
1. Bosch played tougher opposition:
This is unfortunately not the case. Bosch played 1 test against the British and Irish Lions; 4 against France and 4 against the 1976 All Blacks. Now France in 1974 and 1975 was a really poor side. Not in the least of the same calibre than the French team of 2009; the same apply with regard to the 1976 All Blacks as compared to the 2009 All Blacks.
Morné played 3 test against the British and Irish Lions; 3 against NZ; 3 against Australia; 1 against France, Italy and Ireland.
In Morné’s first 9 tests he played the Lions, the AB and the Aussies. The Lions were harder opposition than the 74/75 French team and the 2009 AB were also a much better side than the 76 AB.
2. Boks played differently now namely forcing penalties which they did not do in previous years.
I don’t agree with that at all. Bulls went back to traditional Springbok rugby last year and the Springboks of 2009 adopted that style of play.
The Springboks have always been criticised as a one dimensional team forcing penalties. This tendency existed since the time of Bennie Osler. The 1937 and 1951/52 Springbok teams were probably the only Springboks teams in our history whoplayed more open rugby. Currently we seem to have been able introduce a more balanced approach; playing closer to total rugby; using the forwards or running with the ball in the same game or adjusting to the opposition. In Bosch’s time we won tests with penalties and drop goals. Now we do that and score tries. Here is a comparison of tries scored by the Springboks with Bosch on flyhalf and Morne Steyn on flyhalf.
Boks scored 12 tries (2 – 1974 France; 6 – 1975 France; 4 – 1976 NZ) with Bosch on flyhalf and 16 tries in Morné first 9 tests (excluding Italy and Ireland) that are 6 tries against the Lions; 5 tries against the AB and 5 tries against the Aussies.
That doesn’t look like an exclusively forcing penalty type game to me.
Of course the game has changed. This post was not meant as a comparison in the sense that I want to argue that Steyn is the better player. The idea is to illustrate how well Steyn is doing on the international stage.
Yes the game is played differently to some extend but kicking goals (place, drop) and scoring tries have not changed. You still need to get the ball over the crossbar and you still need to be at the right place at the right time, catch the ball and beat an opponent if you want to score a try.
Bosch is regarded as one of the three great Springboks 10’s the others being Osler and Naas Botha.
Generally speaking Bosch is seen as a greater flyhalf than Steyn. Now I don’t disagree with that mostly because I believe Bosch was a greater general/tactician and game winner.
It was for exactly that reason (my regard for Bosch) that this “comparison” of Morné with Bosch is so interesting and revealing.
The point here is essentially that Steyn is doing exceptionally well and not that he is the better player of the two.
I liked the article up and till Morras was compared to Bosch! 🙂
What didn’t you like about the comparison with Bosch? Main aim with the comparison is -as said in the article- is to show that after having played almost the same amount of matches for the Boks he comopares very well with what has always been considered to be on of the legends of Springbok rugby.
Well here are a few reasons;
* Professional rugby v. Amateur rugby
* Different laws
* Different law interpretations
* Different competitions
* Different opposition
* Different coaching techniques and technologies
Those are main points, which could well be broken down to secondary points which they influence.
Effectively, you are doing both Morne and Bosch a disservice by such a comparison.
Morné@3. That is all true and I think something that we all know and appreciate and therefore not something that I wanted to discuss as the aim essentially was not to compare but rather to illustrate or to put Morné achievement as a Springbok in perspective. Thanks fot your thought though I does help to clarify and empasize that comparisons of previoous players with modern players is hard to do.
It was facinating to me that Steyn has already scored more points that Bosch and I thought that would be interesting to most readers.
No stress it is just a personal thing – I know people love doing it, just simply a personal thing for me.
As far as Morne goes, in 2009 he was still limited in his game for me.
This year he has a much more all-round aspect to his play which I enjoy quite a bit. Injuries apart, he has to lead us to the World Cup from 10 because there is no-one else close.
Morne, I also have a general dislike of comparisons (best guitarist, best goalkeeper, fastest bowler, etc), but stats (yes, I know….) well laid out as these are, more often than not makes for interesting reading.
Congrats McLook!
#5 Morne,
“This year he has a much more all-round aspect to his play which I enjoy quite a bit.”
Do you think he has a natural rendancy to run the ball or has Slappes’s backline gameplan got more to do with the change in Morne?
I agree with your second sentence. Morné certainly did come to age this year. In terms of any one else who can play at 10 in 2011. I like what I’ve seeing from Peter Grant the last 4 weeks. He starting to bring a bit more variation into his game, his defence is good and is line kicks have improved dramatically.
Jaque Fourie’s two tries this weekend agianst the Saders from set play (srcum on both occasions) were in particular quite impressive. Grant handled the ball on both occations and created the line breaks with clever running and passing.
Fender,
In my opinion coaches hardly ever ‘change’ players – they just change their mindset.
So yes Pieter might have had a big influence on his game as coaches have to create the environment for players to perform.
Morne however has always had the ability, just possibly did not back it or was never in a position to play with more freedom.
Thing that has always stood out for me about him was how calm he always is – he never gets flustered which is a massive compliment to any player, least of all a 10.
McLook,
I remain unconvinced about Peter.
Sure he has nice touches at times, also not a bad defender and a better kicker than Lem – but Peter for me lacks the application to control a game of rugby – he is more of a link with decent qualities which to my mind, makes him a far more effective 12 than a 10.
Well put Morné in 10. I tend to agree with that sentiment. As a back-up for Steyn in 2011 with FdP on 9 as the player to control the game I do think he could be useful. Steyn has also not convinced me that he is and no10 who can dictate and control a match though I do think he is sligtly better than Grant in that department. Bulls rely exculively on FdP to make decisions on the field.
#9 Morne, got to agree with you about the man not getting flustered. And he’s a hard worker….
McLook,
You will find in the last 15 years South Africa, for some unkown reason, have played and selected (and inevitably developed) scrumhalfs who technically, would or should have been flyhalfs in the way they play the game and dictate matters.
Joost
Kockett
Ruan
FDP
Tewis
Hoffmann
and some other names
Which to me, is part of the reason we have not had a classical 10 in the mould of a Carter in years in SA – our 10’s are simply not expected to dictate games anymore.
#10 Morne
Do you still believe that it is imperative that a fly-half control the game?
I ask this because I’m not even sure what that means anymore. These days practise ground routines are called from setpieces and basically any backline player or even the captain who might be a forward can do that.
From broken play it often seems that any player who fields the ball has the opportunity to dictate the next move. From rucks and mauls it appears as if guys like FdP are making more calls than their fly-halves.
Has the job description of the modern fly-half not changed?
Morné@13 you should read the article I’ve posted on 2/5/2010 titled “NZ coaches – scrumhalf the new kingpin”
Fender@14 I do think the 10’s job description have changed with the new rule changes see also the article mentioned above.
IN SA it has, but I do not believe this should be the case.
Very simple reasons for this.
Firstly the skills of a 10 (or 12) should be that of good peripheral vision, ability to kick (of both feet preferrably), good distribution, solid defense.
To me the roles of a 10 and 12 are interchangable in the modern game, not a 9 and 10.
As first receiver you have the ability to ‘dictate’ plays – better than a 9 because of a better field position and given your field position (away from opposition) more time.
You can also much easier dictate the pace and flow of the game, as well as the direction or lines of attack.
So in my mind, your first receiver is still vital, and for my money, should ALWAYS be your 10 or 12.
I cannot stand (unless field position dictates it with driving pods) first receivers being forwards or outside backs.
If one wish to write an article, at least go and make sure about the facts.
Derrick Hougaard was the no 1 flyhalf during the 2007 season. Morne only became the no towards the end of the 2008 season.
Ek moet ongelukkig met dWeePer saamstem. Hougaard was die vark wat in 2007 die S14 titel vir die Bulle gewen het! En net daarna het hulle hom soos ‘n vrotvel gelos toe hulle nie meer in sy dienste belanggestel het nie. Maar dis ‘n storie vir ‘n ander dag…
Go Stormers!!
Het Derick nie self besluit om oorsee te gaan nie ?
Derick het inderdaad self besluit om oorsee te gaan, maar in daardie stadium was Morne alreeds die eerste keuse. My probleem met sommige mense is dat hulle Derick onnodiglik in ‘n swak lig wil stel terwyl hy ‘n baie goeie speler vir die Bulle was.
Onthou hy was op die voorpunt gewees destyds toe die Bulle onder was en almal hulle uitgelag het. Morne het ingekom toe die die Bulle alreeds ‘n sterk span was. Baie makliker as met Derick.
Nice article, thank you. Just one question. Why do you say that Morne was the nr 1 flyhalf in 2007?
Waar val jul armsalige WP ondersteuners nou uit. Dereck was die liefling van Loftus, julle die flokken simpel loser Stormers ondersteuners was aan die voorpunt om hom af te kraak. Een dimensioneel , kan net skop,….. maar hy het julle gatte behoorlik geskop, keer op keer. 75-14 . 43- something ….
Hy is saam sy mentor en boesemvriend Heinecke Meyer na Leicester toe. Hoe kort is julle flippen geheuens.KP(#18) dit was n lam poging ou maat
Liefling, kan ons nie maar vergeet en vergewe !!!
Morne het gespeel in die 75 – 14 game.
Die Nokia game !!! 😆
Bliksem Super – na al die jare sou mens reken julle sou julle saviour se naam reg kan spel.
Dit is HEYNEKE
En lees Bloues se post… 😉
Super and Blouste,
Just help me here: when was it when WP klapped the Bulls at Newlands by about 60 points. I can remember it was a CC match…..
26@ Kitaartjie – Seker so 104 jaar gelede…. hehehe
26@ Kitaartjie – Ek kan wel vir jou sê wanneer was daai 75 – 14 game…. dit was in 2005…. goeie vintage jaar daai gewees…. hehehehe
fender
Nee se maar, ek weet nie van so score nie…
Fender
2003
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: 41,185,422 Page Impressions
_