Following the Springboks victory of England this weekend, I read with interest how the English press announced that South Africa showed they will be a force in the World Cup.
The performance of the Springboks have been described as dogged, ruthless and any other physical adjective you can think of. More to the fact, it has been described as ‘traditional’.
Springbok coach Peter de Villiers eluded to the fact when he mentioned in a post-match interview that they tried to play a game that does not suit the Springboks (referring to the Scotland shocker I would imagine) and that the England game would be the blueprint for what they take to the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand next year.
The English press suggested in their assessment of the match that the way to beat the Springboks is to match them physically, specifically upfront, and that if you manage that, you will easily outmanoeuvre their ‘boring’ one-dimensional backs.
It is true, throughout 2010 the Springbok backline looked lethargic, one-dimensional and at times pathetic, not able to use the platform their forwards provided for them and not converting opportunities into points.
Conversely, the All Blacks looked slick, strong and full of running.
The general consensus surround this issue was apparently that the game has ‘evolved’ and the All Blacks ‘evolved’ with it.
I am not so sure I buy into that.
The main argument used in this regard is that the new interpretations to the laws favours the teams that keep the ball in hand. Well two things springs to mind here.
Firstly, in rugby union you can only score if you have, or win the ball – so nothing really evolutionary for me there.
Secondly, if this is the case, why has the All Blacks and specifically Dan Carter been the team and individual who has kicked the ball more out of hand than any other team or player?
I watched some highlights packages of the All Blacks and Springboks to try and find the answer and two things jumped out at me.
Firstly, the All Blacks have really upped their game in the tackled area. It has been discussed ad-nausea this year and although they seem to get away with a bit, their approach is brilliant because thanks to the new interpretations (focus is on the defending team and tackler releasing) the odd obstruction and cleaning way beyond the ball largely goes unnoticed.
Secondly, through their dominance in this area, they have become more lethal than ever as a team who wins turn-over ball – and this to me is the biggest difference between the two teams.
The speed and execution from turn-over ball the All Blacks win is phenomenal, and in my view largely thanks to the genius of one Dan Carter who directs everything in that team.
Of course, the All Blacks ability to support the ball carrier plays a massive part in this but this is also hardly evolutionary, they have always been good at this.
I read a statistic recently which said the All Blacks averaged almost 4 tries per match in 2010, which is phenomenal at test level, but then I could hardly remember tries scored from set plays or first phase ball.
In comparison, a situation in the test against England summed up the Springboks performance of 2010 for me. They were 10 meters out from the English try-line hot on attack, ball came out from a ruck and somehow Victor Matfield and Frans Steyn got in the way of each other, bumbled the ball and they ended up 20 meters back.
It is not that we are unfamiliar with Matfield or any other forward standing at first receiver, he and others have done this very successfully at the Bulls with their infamous and very effective pod-system method of attack where two or even three pods are spread out next to rucks gaining meters upon meters on attack and also sucking in defenses and creating tries.
The difference was the execution of these plays (ball in hand) and of course, our tactical kicking which has come under the cosh quite a bit throughout 2010.
I know, one swallow does not make a summer (or any other cliché you want to throw in here), but rugby genius can also simply not be replaced – just ask New Zealand after the Hong Kong test when they substituted Carter and his deputy almost single-handedly losing them the game.
No matter what is written or said about this Springbok team in the local media, I tend to agree with the English press (for the first time in my life no-less) in believing that come Rugby World Cup 2011, and having players like Jaque Fourie, Heinrich Brussow and of course the genius Fourie du Preez back in the mix to direct play with the same authority as Carter does for New Zealand, the Springboks will be a massive force to be reckoned with.
@ Blue Bird:
Hello BB
You enjoying the snow?
Sorry, ruining then Afrikaans feel here!!
59@ Blue Bird:
Hello
60@ superBul:
Yes, wie het die 1ste semi tussen die Knights en die Dolphins gewen?
@ grootblousmile:
Warriors, with a great comeback
I had a hard day today, the veld looks great but the humidity was killing me today , could only manage 2 repairs today. Distances in the bush a big problem, but i felt great helping 2 friends back on air.
OK, I’m outa here… got to go look interested in the house where they’re slogging on the thesis
Laasjaar val die AB’s uit die bus, Bokke wen alles moontlik, met FDP aan die voorpunt … en mr. McCaw is IRB speler van die jaar.
Hierdie jaar, val Bokke uit die bus, maar Matfield word nie gekies as IRB speler van die jaar nie, al weer mr. McCaw.
Nou hoe nou ?
@ bdb:
het hulle klaar gekies?
68: Ja, hier is my brief aan die Souties van die IRB:
Dear IRB,
Can you please explain how you choose the player of the year, is it the country (NZ?) that pays the most money or what ?
Last year, the Boks were the star team, with Fourie du Preez the best player in the world, recognized by all, but mr. McCaw were chosen, part of a mediocre team who lost 3 times in a row to the Boks. Why were FDP not chosen, because he is not from NZ ?
If you argue that McCaw still played very good, although loosing against the Boks last year, then I ask you, why not Matflied, who has been a tower of strength the past few years, even this year in a mediocre bok team (Man of the Match in WC final 2007, dominating line outs all over the world, good captain, winning the S14 3 times in 4 years, winning the Currie Cup in 2009, etc.)
Why did not Matfield get it this year ? O yes, he is not from NZ …
Or maybe the IRB are ruled by all the English lord’s that were so upset about their great loss last Saturday (under the leadership of … Matfield) against the Bokke, that they decided to vote against anything South African ?
Julle klomp eenogige bleeksiele !
Greetings
Ben
@ bdb:
Hahahaha BdB se die moere, hoe kan hulle onse Victor so rob. Het jy die paneel gesien wat gekies het?
The IRB Player of the Year Award is selected by the IRB Awards independent panel of judges, comprising former internationals with over 500 Test caps between them.
Will Greenwood,
Gavin Hastings,
Raphaël Ibanez,
Francois Pienaar,
Agustín Pichot,
Scott Quinnell,
Tana Umaga,
Paul Wallace and convenor
John Eales
watched over 78 hours of action from 59 matches, awarding points to the three players they thought stood out in each match.
71: almal van hulle is, kop in een mus, teen die Bulle 😀
@ bdb:
Ek kan nie wag om weer die Bulle te sien nie. Dan sien ons weer hoe n SA span sy game kan afdwing en afwissel soos laasjaar. Toe ons eers die K%k uit hulle gehardloop het en toe die games gewen het met ons beproefte lae risiko spel.
Wel ek gaan nou bietjie doeks my oge is moeg, nag ou grote.
@ superBul:
64
Nashua Dolphins (Semifinal 2 Leg 2) v Chevrolet Knights 40ov Sahara Stadium Kingsmead, Durban 16:00
My answer was wrong the Warriors is not playing in the semis.
It was the Knights who won that game.
The Knights looked to be struggling as they limped to 179 for six, needing 48 runs to win off 24 balls.
But Van der Wath blasted his way to 29 not out off 14 balls while striking one four and three sixes while Pienaar was no less effective as he strode to 31 not out off 20 balls which included four fours and a six.
The right-handed duo plundered 17 runs off the 37th over before they tore into seamer Kyle Abbott in the 38th over as they pummelled 25 runs off the unfortunate bowler as the home side reached 227 for six to secure victory with 10 balls of their innings remaining.
Van der Wath and Pienaar eventually added 54 runs off just 3.5 overs for the seventh wicket as the Knights took a one-nil lead in the best of three semifinal series.
Users Online
Total 62 users including 0 member, 62 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,235,237 Page Impressions
_