Brian O’Driscoll said after the 3rd New Zealand/Ireland test match that speed at the ruck is what matters most and that the scoreboard reflect (60-0 for the All Blacks) in essence what happened at the breakdowns.
McCaw on questioned what did the AB’s rectify, after the second test, to produce the marked improvement in the All Blacks game said: “We kept our line better and were more successful (as compared to the second test) to create forward momentum at the rucks”.
What both of them are saying is that tactics and counter measures at the tackle ball are what the modern game is all about. These statements (by McCaw and O’Driscoll) summarises, for me, the last three weeks of test rugby. Here in brief are my thoughts on the test matches played so far this year in the Southern hemisphere.
All Blacks versus Ireland
After absolute dominance at the breakdowns and a run-away victory by the All Blacks in the 1st test the Irish came-up with some very innovative and interesting counter measures and just missed out on an upset 107 years in the making. The counter measures were 1) to rush-up in defence and 2) to hold the ball carrier upright and 3) to position themselves between the ball carrier and his support. This not only slowed down the NZ ball but more importantly it prevented them from establishing any ascendency –an essential part of the NZ game- in the midfield.
The way New Zealand countered this in the third test was quite fascinating and produced a victory of surprising proportions. The counter measures were to hit contact faster and with lower body position carrying the ball on the hip so that the tackler could not wrap the ball up. The ball on the hip and lower body position also forced the supporting cavalry to enter the collisions with lower body positions allowing them to get the ball on the ground and ruck the Irish –positioning themselves between the ball carrier and his support- off the ball. The end result was more speed, precision and control at the tackle ball.
South Africa versus England
England’s tactic in the first two test matches was to attack the collisions with numbers and to blow the Springboks of the ball. It worked for most part in the first half of the 1st test. The Springboks identified what was going on and rectified it in the second half of the 1st test. They improved on that in 2nd test and totally dominated that test match. England was able to come back in the 2nd test match due to South Africa dropping the intensity of their effort at the ruck the result of a combination of replacements and running out of steam.
In the 2nd test Willem Alberts could punch holes because he got fast ball and the England team were still trying to ruck us off the ball by committing numbers at the rucks. In the 3rd test they changed this tactic; they stopped trying to ruck the Springboks off the ball but focussed instead on rushing-up in defence and tackling the first receiver behind the advantage line. This was an extremely effective tactic and even though we recycled pretty well we were unable to establish ascendency at the tackle ball. What we needed in this circumstance were halfbacks that could drop runners into the gap (like Genia and Cruden) or vary their game. Hougaard and Morné Steyn’s inability to do just that (create play) was glaringly obvious to the extent that Meyer subbed Hougaard after 50 minutes. Pienaar made an immediate difference because he varies his game more and manage his attacking runners with more authority. It was Pienaar who produced our only try with an outstanding pass to JP Pietersen and I would venture that we would not have scored that try if Pienaar was not on the field.
Australia vs Wales
This series evidenced two teams with very similar styles and very little variation regarding collision area tactics across the three test matches hence very even contests with less tries. Flap/flap stuff I like to call it like a paper bag in the wind against a fence. The emphasis being on ‘our pilfer is better than yours.’
The playmaking ability of Genia was ultimately the difference but Genia’s effectiveness was greatly reduced by mostly static ball at the rucks and the absence of Quade Cooper. Cooper’s presence makes Genia more effective because the defence have to watch both of them which is not the case with Barnes playing.
This brings us to the importance of having playmakers in the halfback positions. With the collisions so fiercely contested it is paramount that you have players and combos in the key positions of 8, 9, 10 and 12. The Cruden/SBW combo made a massive difference in the 3rd test between NZ and Ireland. Cruden’s ability to draw the defence and offload to SBW -on an angled run- produced almost all the All Black tries in the first 20 minutes of that test match. This was especially potent against the Irish rush-up defensive system and something that was a big problem in South Africa’s 3rd test match against England.
Hougaard is too predictable and one-dimensional and Morné Steyn well he is even worse. South Africa with Steyn on 10 are forced to try and create play from the scrumhalf and you therefore require a experienced campaigner that can vary his game in that position. The alternative is to select a flyhalf that can play flat on the defensive line and who can create play from that position like Aaron Cruden did against Ireland. This current South Africa halfback combination is a festering problem for South Africa with the 4 nation test matches looming. My personal feeling is that Pienaar, Lambie and Frans Steyn would consitute a more potent 9-10-12 axis; better suited for the modern fast pace trench warfare type rugby and will offer more variation and less predictability with ball in hand.
So in summary the absolute and non-negotiable importance of tactical astuteness and dominance in the trenches is the one thing that stood out for me in the 9 Southern versus Northern hemisphere matches over the last three weeks.
The other aspect that goes hand in hand with trench warfare nature of the modern game is having halfbacks that can play chess; wizards who are fast of the mark and who understand angles and who can offload. Danny Care outplayed Hougaard in the 3rd test and that worries me because I don’t rate him to be in the same class than either Genia or Aaron Smith. My gut feeling is that it is in this area (one-dimensional halfback play) of our game that we are going to struggle (and potentially loose) in the upcoming test matches against New Zealand and Australia.
Lastly on a side note, I was extremely annoyed with the Danny Care try in the 3rd SA/England test match. You could read Care’s quick tap and run by a mile. It is his trademark. He does it all the time. The moment he picked the ball up –after the penalty was awarded- you could see the quick tap coming, his body language was as clear as daylight. The fact that the Springboks got caught by that primary school tactic is just inexcusable.
Good post as always! I sometimes struggle with Meyer’s logic. According to reports, he prefers Marcel Coetzee, because he is bigger, but they differ in weight by a few kilograms, and Brussow is renowned for his upper body strength is. It is arguable if Coetzee is a better ball carrier than Brussow, Brussow is very strong on his feet, and does the few meters, that Coetzee may gain more, worth sacfificing the quick ball that Brussow generates?
Hougaard is definately not the answer at 9, and an opportunity has been lost to give van Zyl game time. Ruan Pienaar, is unlikely to be released for the RC, and seeing as most pundits agree, that Goosen isour future at 10, his combination with van Zyl at the Cheetahs is crucial in building a combination at halfback. Now I understand, that Meyer surrounded himself with players he knows, and his priority was to get on the winning note early, but surely with a misfiring Steyn, and an equally dissapointing Hougaard, it would have been minimal risk, with a higher chance of gain, to have given Jantjies a run.
Going forward, the front row is pretty settled, with Coenie showing his impetus. With guys like van Dyk, Kitshoff, Marcel vd Merwe, Cilliers, and Malherbe in the wings, we have quite a few front row options. Eztebeth passed his test, and Kruger was industrious, but we lack depth, with only Bekker knocking on the door.
The balance of the loose trio is a problem. Alberts on form is a must at 7, and Brussow imo at 6, so either Marcel Coetzee must shift to 8, or be an impact player. Kolisi,is unlucky, and the return of a fit Vermeulen next month will be a relief. It waill be hard tounderstand the exclusion of Duanne Vermeulen on form, and a loose trio of Brussow, Alberts and Vermeulen could do serious damage.
Van Zyl and Goosen, will be my first choice 9/10 combo, with Habana, showing he can still add value. Frans Steyn, with a playmaker like Goosen could be deadly at 12, with Serfontein at 13, and JPP at 14. Lambie or Taute at 15.
Hello McLook good analysis thanks, I was also wondering about the Danny try and thinking that this is a problem for the Boks, maybe one of concentration? This could be exploited by other teams if they don’t sort it out as I think the other England scrummy Youngs also caught the Boks napping in the 2nd test and scored a try off a tap and go penalty.
Only one thing, you forgot about the 3 tests that Scotland played in the southern hemisphere
I guess getting footage of the tests would have been hard, did you watch the win against Aus? The whole Scotland game against Samoa is on youtube and this site has a link to the footage http://www.scottishrugbyblog.co.uk/2012/06/watch-scotland-vs-samoa/ would be interesting to hear your thoughts if you get time to watch it, I have only watched it in parts and certainly in the beginning of the game Samoa looked really good running the ball with good interpassing play between the backs. Samoa broke through Scotland defence quite a lot and at times it took some last ditch desparate defence to bring them down with Richie Gray (number 4 lock) prominent quite a few times in putting in big tackles, but haven’t had a chance to watch it all, just forwarded to try and catch the tries that were scored. Keep an eye on Gray, I think for a lock he gets around the field so much and almost plays like a loose forward and should be a Lion next year, but I guess thats with my blue Scotland tinted glasses on 
I disagree. The whole team played badly, not only Morne Steyn and F. Hougaard. The forwards didn’t play as a unit, which freed Englands loose forwards up to put a lot of pressure on Hougie and Morne. This forced them, together with the rush defence, to kick more.
South africa’s loose forwards did not gel. They played like individuals and could not get good forward momentum. The ball was effectively slowed down every time they attacked the gain line. When the boks managed to get some good momentum they made a handling error.
When Ruan Pienaar came on, South Africa changed strategy. They started the driving maul, the forwards played tighter which pulled Englands loose forwards in, which gave Ruan more space.
Just my opinion.
@ Cheetah4eva:I would also like to see Brussouw in the team. Marcel Coerzee look like a good find but don’t overplay him and don’t chuck Brussouw’s experience out the back door. The balance in the loosies is a problem. What is hppening with Schalk Burger; he and Alberts could rotate well on no7. Spies is a one or two run player who dissapears when the going get’s tough. Not sure Duanne is the solution with the injury he is carrying. He was not the same player he was last year in the matches he played so fr this year. Depth at lock is another concern. Bekker back would help but Flip has been a bit quiet to say the least.
I have always quietly had my concerns about Hougaard on No9. If Ruan can’t play go get Fourie du Preez. The modern game require playmakers on No9 and 10. Goosen has impressed so far this season but we’ll have to wait and see how he shape on return after injury.
@ Bullscot:
Yes I did forget about Scotland. To be honest I didn’t really watch their games. Saw some bit of the game against Australia and thought they played particularly well in the set piece and very stood up at the rucks. The rain helped and I thought they played tactically better in the conditions hence the victory.
@ leon:We could not get forward momentum because england rushed up in defence and smothered us. That of course put a lot of pressure on Hougaard and really tested him in terms of his ability to handle the rush-up on to his firss receivers and he was dissapointingly one-dimensional in his approach, was my feeling. Pienaar did not do much more but he played the ball constantly to different players alternating between flat and deep passes. Pienaar also communicated better with his chargers and start to organise them with more authority, I thought. In the mist of all this Morne Steyn did not create any play around him. It was hard because of the rush-up defence but go and look how Cruden did it in the AB/Ireland game. Yes they (The AB’s) had better frontfoot ball but Cruden was so effective because of the Irish rush-up defensive system. He play’s flat on the line and are fast off the mark and understands running lines and can offload. Morne Steyn in contrast does none of those and the result is we play very narrow around the No9 and are therefore very predictable.
6@ McLook:
Yes there has been a bit of talk about how Scotland’s scrum has improved and done quite well on tour which as good as in the recent past this has been a weak area. It seems like former Italian prop Massimo Cuttita who is now scrum coach is doing well with the pack, plus maybe also a bit more competition for places in the front row playing a bit of a part as well.
Users Online
Total 48 users including 0 member, 48 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,806,258 Page Impressions
_