We’ve all heard it – defence wins rugby matches. Simply, defence forces mistakes and mistakes leads to tries for the defending team. Frankly, my opinion is: ‘defence is just another expression of SA rugby’s obsession with safety first’.
For SA it’s about Low risk rugby.
Traditionally, Springbok teams (and Super Rugby teams) have a low risk approach expressed as 10-man set piece rugby; kick and charge or soften-up first before moving the ball through the hands.
The substitution rule and improved fitness levels (due to professionalism and better training regimes) have nullified the soften-them-up with big forwards approach. The stricter application of the breakdown rule nullified the kick and charge approach to a large extent.
Mostly the kick and charge became too predictable and teams developed counter strategies like choosing wings that’s good under the high ball; catching and shifting the ball; quick throw-ins instead of line-outs and the back three hanging back too catch shift and run with the ball.
Being brutally honest my feeling is SA teams (especially the Stormers) have adapted to the stricter breakdown application by just finding another way to play negative rugby. There has been lately (as I will explain at the end) a delightful change with the Stormers. It is this change that had me pondering what went wrong. I believe after some contemplation that the lost against the Crusaders was a hang-over from the negative style over the last two years. The new approach will pay dividends if they proceed with it and select the right players in key positions.
Let me clarify this statement by explaining how I see the SA and New Zealand rugby evolution over the last two years in response to the stricter breakdown rule interpretation.
From SA teams came innovations of negativity; from New Zealand teams came innovations of positivity. And I am talking mostly about Stormers, Bulls and Springbok rugby under Heynecke Meyer. The Sharks and Cheetahs had other issues.
Focusing on their unique strength namely freakishly talented South Pacific players with speed, flair and size in the same mix New Zealand rugby saw the rule interpretation adjustment as an opportunity to play attacking rugby.
Keeping possession and patiently building tries has been the New Zealand style since the mid nineteen sixties. New Zealand rugby specialize in ball control at the breakdown; punching holes in the midfield and/or dominating the tackle line with big second five-eighths (No12 centres) and loose forwards.
They pull you in with midfield punches (originally with stampkar rugby but there has been a new approach since 2007 which I’ll explain in a moment) before exploiting the holes that open up with offloads in the tackle or on the outside.
Jake White realised that the only way to stop the midfield punches is to put the halfbacks under extreme pressure. He did that with the rush-up defence (he did not invent it he just made it his main approach) and that worked for a while but New Zealand adapted by firstly making sure they dominate the set piece and drive though the line-out. Set piece dominance provided more space for the scrumhalf but they also started shifting the point of contact with quick short passes between forwards standing flat on the d-line next to No9. The scrumhalf when under pressure will just shift the ball to a tri-pod of forwards standing flat on the defensive line. The first player receiving the ball would just shift it again -when under pressure- and that player then have options to either run into a hole or just shift it left, right or backwards to No9 doubling around.
Normally the second receiver will begin by attacking the line and offload back to the first receiver or just receive and shift to yet another forward standing on his outside. There are many permutations with this d-line tri-pod approach but essentially it pulls the rush-up defenders out of line and creates holes. As a variation they will send the ball back to the doubling round No9 who will then whip it to Nonu (or players like him) coming with speed from deep. Nonu then normally runs right into a hole because defending 12 has been pulled in to block the second wide standing forward. Another variation is No9 sending the ball behind the No12 (running up as a decoy) to the blindside wing coming from deep and angling wide to link with No15 and the other wing.
I wrote an article last year to explain how Argentina (in the first match against New Zealand) and England countered this approach (read here).
You can see how this approach will pull the rush-up defenders out of line and the holes opening up. Part of the problem for the defending team is the need to force the opponent back and/or to compete for the ball in order to create turnover ball.
The Stormers approach over the last two years (and on Saturday) was not to commit at the tackle (competing or trying to force the opponent back). Instead they pulled the opponent down and fanned-out making sure the defensive line stays intact at all times. Patience is then the name of the game as eventually the attackers will lose the ball or one will get isolated or they will be able to hold one attacker up to create turnover ball.
The Crusaders approach on the weekend was not to try and offload in the tackle or to try and play an expansive game. THey still did about sevn offloads in the tackle as comapred to the Stormers zero (just bashing into the defenders in the last 10 minutes) Mainly the Crusaders just kept on going straight through the middle. Pick-up and go. Done enough times the fanning defenders end-up defending on their goal line where they have to commit at the tackle.
The fan-out defence kept the Stormers in the game but their problem like last year started when they fell behind on the scoreboard. This forced them to go over on attack and to put it bluntly if you never attack you won’t be able to do so when you have to.
My point is that the defensive mindset is still a safety first approach and a form of low risk rugby like the kick and charge and the 10-man flyhalf dictating game.
On the positive side the Stormers did start to work hard on their attack after having lost their first 3 games this year. They came-up short against the Crusaders -who has some of the best defence in the competition. I believe however if they keep on working on their attacking moves they will crack this bunch next time they play them. So even though they lost I feel positive (for the first time in a long time) about Province rugby at the moment.
A few key players had poor games as well which had a significant impact on the game and scoreboard at crucial times. Poor tactical and line kicking as well as below par line-out throws in particular were problematic and that cost the Stormers I believe the match as much as anything else.
It was a good show by the Stormers against a classy outfit. Why they have to wait until they are behind before they start attacking is just beyond me. Hopefully they will get more confident in their attacking game and we’ll see more of it as the season progress.
Well its simple. Deon Fourie is not a hooker and we were beaten by the better team simple
I have a slightly different view. They have a fantastic flyhalf in Elton Jantjies, but on Saturday they barely let him have the ball. It was either the forwards banging it up, or the ball was passed to Pietersen to kick. Yes, Jantjies did drop a few balls, but those balls he received were surprise passes. It was as if he did not expect his team to pass to him. It is actually shocking that such a talented playmaker is treated that way. If the Stormers cannot utilise him in his strengths, they must release him immediately, and let him play for a franchise where his attacking skills will be put to better use. Or even better still release him back to the Lions, so that he can get his confidence back.
If the hooker can’t do the basics you have no front foot ball
If the fly-half then goes and knocks the few you have get and kick the rest as per coashes instructions you can be lucky not to loose by 30
Plain and simple as that
The Stormers have shown time and again that their defence oriented game will take them far in the league, but not over the line in the play offs.
@ Lion4ever:
Jantjies plays better when he get’s frontfoot ball. He needs a scrumhalf like Pretoruis that asks questions from the defence. That will pull him closer to the advantage line. The Stormers’ fan-out defensive approach is the problem, in my opinion. They got badly beaten at the breakdowns and Jantjies was forced to sit deeper into the pocket and made poor decison from there due to a combination of lack of condifence, pressure and playing a game plan that does not suite him.
Jantjies is not a dictating type flyhalf (at this stage of his career). He reminds me of Jannie Barnard. Barnard was a brilliant playmaker. One of the best I’ve seen but was terrible under pressure because he always tried to beat his man or to create play. His career was ruined in the 4th test of the 1965 series when he tried to run with back foot ball in his own half and made terrible mistakes on three occations; each one resulting in a try against the Springboks.
I saw much of that in Jantjies on the weekend. He tried to send his backline away with backfoot ball; he kicked to high into the wind with the result that the wind pushed his kicks in field; he lost the tactical kicking game, in fact, he was really poor in keeping the ball infront of his pack.
Nick Groom should be played at No9 if Jantjies play on 10 becuase he’ll take the pressure of Elton with his line kicks and sniping ability.
Mostly the Stormers need to start man-up at the tackle ball both on defence and on attack. Second get a more accurate line out thrower and third get somebody else to make the line out calls. Bekker get obsessed with beating his opponent once they take a ball off him. He keeps on calling on himself and the more he gets beaten the more he calls on himself.
Yet when he plays for the Lions, he has the freedom to play the situation. And even when the Lions forwards are giving him poor ball, he seems to have more time to make his decisions. I got the feeling on Saturday that he is not a happy camper in Cape Town at the moment. Nick Mallet and Naas, mentioned after the game that all Jantjies has become is a passer of the ball, and no longer a decision maker.
I will not shed a tear if they send him back today, he has done nothing to justfy his loan deal, might as wel take the over rated Taute with him back to the Lions.
Look they both took the loan to stay in Bok contention, they should be taleneted enough to fit into any gameplan if they are of international quality.
Gary van Aswegen will do more in the Stormers pattern of play, pity the Greek is now at the Kings
Elton Jantjies was plain shit on Saturday, it was not about game plans or fitting in or the Lions or the Stormers.
He kicked like shit, he defended like shit, he knocked, he could not get his backline moving…. face it, Jantjies had a shit game, before that he had a good game against the Brumbies but before that he had some more shity games.
Like Gena says, both Jantjies and Taute would not be missed at the Stormers.
But then one must realise that they are not alone to blame… Deon Fourie had a real STINKER, his throwing in at the lineouts was abysmal. Andries Langbek also had a shocker after a great game the week before.
Juan de Jong was shitty too on Saturday, things were quite different when Damian de Allende stepped up, suddenly even Jean de Villiers started looking sharp.
…. and of course don’t underestimate the role the Crusaders played, having analized the Stormers correctly and playing them like an electric fiddle…….
Oh, and lest we forget, when Nick Groom came on at scrummie for the Stormers, suddenly the line kicks found distance and direction, hell he made Dewaldt Duvenage look quite good at flyhalf (which he is’nt).
@ Gena_ZA:
Jantjies is not on a loan deal. His contract with the Lions says that if the Lions lost out on Super Rugby participation, he could play SR for another franchise. So if Stormers make the semis, Jantjies will stay. Taute is a loan player, and will be required to come back to the Lions in the event the Stormers make the play offs.
9 @ Lion4ever:
Would the Stormers want to keep Jantjies? I would not!
@ grootblousmile:
As badly as the Stormers played, and I hate to give them credit for anything, they were able to keep the score line to 5 points.
And the way Jantjies and Taute are playing, I have long maintained that whenever any players move to Cape Town generally, and specifically Lions players, their games go backwards. There are some exceptions. Take Bryan Habana for example. When he left the Lions for the Bulls, his game improved, but when he went to Cape Town, he had a very lean few years, and is only now starting to look like an international quality wing ( up till his latest injury)
kk, thanks for the correction there
Still sticking to my view on both of them, if they were so good at the Lions and so poor at the Stormers makes me just wonder how damn bad the Lions actually was <- don't want to cause a fight here but think on it for a while
Fact is they are there for the season and for possibly longer, for the sake of the Stormers and both players I sincerely hope both find form and keep it
@ grootblousmile:
On current form, I would not either, but looking at the young man’s talent and proven ability, I would retain him.
@ Gena_ZA:
I think it has to do more with different team cultures etc. Look at how well Franco van der Merwe is doing at the Sharks, and Mapoe at the Bulls. So why are Jantjies and Taute not performing at Stormers? There is more to what is happening with them that meets the eye.
You could have valid point here, I have always said tongue in cheeck if you want to f-up a centre’s carreer, get him to the Bulls – Snyman, Jaco Pretorius, in a sense JJ Engelbreght now as well, just hope Jan Serfontein will tuern this around
We will never know what happenees behind the scenes but I can’t for the life of me think that the WP union and the players will NOT do all possible to make it work.
Verdict is still out on Pat Cilliers and Michael Rhodes, we should not just pout a blanket on all players between these two unions
Let’s give tem a fair go and if unsuccessfull, ban all Lions imports as it just not working
@ Gena_ZA:
Haven’t seen Rhodes play since he’s been there, and Cilliers has not set the world alight, and has not had many starts.
Hi guys, away with the family this week so my internet access in intermittent, but wanted to say excellent article, McL.
@ Lion4ever:
Jantjies is not brilliant. He can’t tackle plain and simple.
@ Lion4ever:
Oppose to the game they are playing now which is run it from your own half no matter wot turning over ball and and conceding points which will not even get us close to last year? Stormers were never defense orientated. They had a loosie crisis and had to do best with what they had. Minimizing risk and play in the oppositions half. Because the chances are good that at some ruck they will make a mistake where you can either score a try or get a penalty. Go watch Habana’s try last year vs Crusaders. Does that look like defensive orientated to you? Crusaders play same game as the Stormers. They been doing it for ages. Even the Kiwi’s call them boring
@ Bliksem:
I am not the only one that says the Stormers are defence oriented. That is what Alistair Coetzee learnt under Jake White. How many 4 point bonus point wins did the Stormers achieve last year. You mention one try, which shows what they are capable of, yet very seldom achieve. I disagree that the ‘Saders play the same way that the Stormers do. What they do is play multiple phases, punch out wide, and then bring it back to the center, until they suck in enough defenders to create the overlap. Yes they are boring in that you know exactly what they are going to do.
Very good article,thanks, McLook
@ Lion4ever:
Jake White wasn’t defensive oriented? Just because he was a brilliant tactician and a very good analyst who realized most tries get scored from line outs. He had a guy like Matfield who could steal the opposition ball almost at will. So he decided to use one of the best tactical kickers in world rugby to get us a instant 40 to 50 meters in opposition ground and nick their ball. Just because the opposition decided to commit offences to stop us from scoring tries and we take the points on offer doesn’t mean he was defensive. Not scoring many tries and winning on a massive amount of penalties tells you that the opposition infringed.
Stormers were far from defensive. They played sensible rugby. That is play in the oppositions half. That is what the Crusaders did to them. Though Stormers had more ball and stats look identical you will note the Crusaders made sure the play is in the Stormers half of the pitch because Bleydendaal is a much better technical kicker than Jantjies. Also with the ruck laws these days and the amount of it, the ruck has become a coin toss. Offensive teams get more penalized than anything else like the Stormers did. The Bulls the one time they did not boot it and try to run out of the half they got penalized and lost the match.
As for Habana getting better at the Bulls and a lower performance at Stormers its obvious. He was a younger at Lions developed and live up to his potential as well as was in his prime when playing for the Bulls. When he left he’s best years were behind him and Habana at the Stormers were one in getting into twilight of his Carreer.
As for Jantjies doing well at Lions? Excuse me he was a huge liability and when Mitchell dropped him they beat the Sharks. Oh yes you can’t drop Jantjies or discipline him 3 tried. 2 were fired 1 was reprimanded.
Users Online
Total 45 users including 0 member, 45 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,799,811 Page Impressions
_