Everything considered a really entertaining match with both teams leaving nothing on the park. The Crusaders was in the final analysis just that slight bit tactically more astute and probably a bit more desperate for a win.

All credit though to the Stormers for trying hard and one would hate to be critical after such a splendid effort. That said I was keen to see just how the Crusaders are going to counter the Stormers’ defensive system and there is much to be learned by dissecting just how they (the Crusaders) accomplished this victory.

The Crusaders game plan was essentially to play the game in the Stormers half of the field and although their tactical kicking was not outstanding they won the battle by forcing the Stormers with quick line-outs to kick the ball into the stands. The second part of their game plan was to speed the game up and offset the Stormers rhythm on defence and on attack.

They ran with speed onto the ball forcing the Stormers to tackle behind the advantage line and the speed and aggression with which they took the ball up allowed them to take the tackler to the ground. This countered the Stormers defensive strategy of holding the attacker upright and driving him back. The result was that they forced the Stormers into penalties on the ground. They also recycled at such a pace that the back pedalling outside Stormers players could not hold the defensive line.

It was in short a rugby lesson on how to run with speed onto the ball and how to drive with speed and low body position into the rucks. The Crusaders not only had more numbers at the collisions but they maintained lower and better body positions and came into the rucks with such force that the Stormers were often blown off the ball.

The speed of the game also forced the Stormers into uncustomary handling mistakes and mistakes at the collissions. The Stormers was all together not bad but the differences with regard to speed onto the ball and into the ruck with better body positions swung the game into the Crusaders favour.

One of the reasons why the Crusaders were able to take the ball up with speed was their structure and stability at set piece (scrums and line-out) as well as at the rucks. They were never under pressure at set piece or at the rucks and that provided the base from which they could launch players running with speed onto the ball and hitting the advantage line at full tilt. The Stormers on the other hand struggled to maintain structure at the scrums and was constantly tackled behind the advantage line. They had real difficulty to force the Crusaders on the back foot and consequently found themselves unable to get momentum on attack. The rare occasion that they did accomplish this -as was the case with Habana’s try- it resulted from individual brilliance and not from structured play.

So in summary if I saw four major reasons why the Stormers lost this game:

• Unable to dominate the set piece 

The set piece is still the foundation from which you attack or defend. This was the Stormers first match this season in which they did not put the opposition under pressure in the scrums. The Crusaders were never under pressure while the Stormers struggled to maintain structure on own ball. This essentially provided the Crusaders with front foot ball which they used splendidly by running with aggression and speed onto the ball. The first receiver took the ball in 80% of the cases at full tilt flat on the advantage line.

• No speed onto the ball 

The speed at which the Crusaders ran onto the ball was in the end the difference in the match. It forced the Stormers on the back foot and broke-up their defensive line because it allowed the Crusaders to recycle at speed.

The Stormers on the other hand were awfully poor at taking the ball up. The first receiver got the ball standing still in 95% of the cases even on the rare occasions that they did succeed in recycling the ball quickly. They were unable to get that initial forward momentum because they were in essence not able to dominate the scrums. The line-out was better and they got the mauls working but the Crusaders avoided kicking the ball out -rarely giving the Stormers the line-oui throw in- thereby negating the Stormers line-out strength. The Stormers ball also came back way to slow from the line-out mauls and almost always to a player standing still and not to player running with speed onto the ball. This is the reason why the Stormers struggle to score tries, in my opinion, and I believe it they can rectify this (more aggression and speed onto flat passes forcing quick recycled front foot ball) they will score a lot more tries.

• Losing the contest at the breakdowns 

They lost the contest at the breakdown because on the first two factors. They were on the back foot at each and every collision for 90% of the game. Part of the problem is their tendency to tackle high and to try and turn the opponent. This strategy worked well last week against the Highlanders but with the Crusaders it was ineffective because of the speed and the low body position with which the Crusaders hit the collisions. If you are upright an attacker coming in low and with speed will almost always force you backwards.

The Crusaders were able to create quite a number of turn-overs at the tackle ball because of the speed the they hit the rucks with and the low body positions they maintained. See for instance the two pictures below showing Owen Franks creating a turn-over. He went in lower that the Stormer player and with more speed essentially pushing the Stormer upwards which allowed him to scoop the ball back to his side. Not much but marginal differences in body position and speed makes the difference on this level. 

 Also the Stormers commit only one player to the tackle because they try and maintain a flat defensive line. This and their system of staying upright in the tackle by tackling high so they can force the opponent back makes them vulnerable at the collisions and the Crusaders exploited that by going in with low body positions and real speed. You had situations where one Crusader blasted three Stormers off the ball because the Stormers where to upright and not accustomed to compete on the ground. The problem for the Stormers is that if the first ball carrier hits the line flat and fast and go to ground their whole defensive line need to back track. Their defensive sytem is dependent on set piece dominance. If they can’t dominate at the set piece they need to tackle lower and commit more people to the breakdowns.

• Losing the territory kicking battle

The Stormers line kicking was not bad but the Crusaders back three were waiting for the kicks and kept sending it back. The quick throw-in prevented the Stormers from forcing line-outs in the Crusaders 10 meter area.

Some other options like rolling kicks around the fringes of line-outs, rucks and scrums or stab through kick just behind the Crusaders backline was not attempted. This is probably something the Stormers could consider as a variation to their game.

I was dissapointed that the coaching staff didn’t pick up what the problem was (not running with speed onto the ball) and recitify it at half time. Granted it would have been difficult to rectify because they were struggling at set piece. Nevertheless, I would have liked to see them trying some stab through kicks to set-up quick rucks just behind the defensive line as an alternative way to create fast recycled ball especially because the long line kick were not paying dividents and they got forced back at the trenches when they took it up.