My opinions on the game of rugby have not won me many fans, and this one certainly won’t given the current trends in Springbok rugby.
When I started out in sport (after my playing days) I did sports analysis. This covered many different codes of sport but later (luckily) got me more involved with rugby.
Now as we all know, statistics in the wrong hands is a very dangerous thing, simply because of the fact that statistics are meaningless without a common reference point for collecting and analysing statistics.
As an example, having assisted many coaches in analyzing their teams, coach A would ask me to compile and analyze the statistics of let’s say his number 8. Another coach will ask me the same but the statistics supplied was as different as night from day, simply because their reference points for wanting the analyze the statistics were vastly different.
The reason for this is very simple, the teams they coached had different strengths and weaknesses, which meant that whatever they analyzed, or the ‘type’ of player they required at number 8 to compliment their strengths and game plan, were vastly different.
And it is this point, your strengths and your game plan which again leads me to believe South Africa is starting to fall into the trap of trying to play a game we are not good at.
This has nothing to do with Peter de Villiers so-called ‘expansive’ game plan. You can add any dimension, including an attacking dimension to any team if you have covered the basics of the game well, and ensure that you do the simple things right first to ensure you possession and territory to execute ANY type of game plan.
As an analyst early on I also realised one very important thing, rugby is a very simple game, and unfortunately statisticians or analyst only use figures and numbers to either confuse people, or cover their flaws.
Any coach worth his salt will firstly look at what he has available to him. He will then identify strengths and weaknesses and devise a plan (game plan) to compliment those strengths, and eliminate most weaknesses.
For all Jake White’s petty faults, he was damn good at this – and guess what, he was also at one time simply a rugby analyst… 😉
In 2006 there was an uproar in South Africa for Jake to include Luke Watson, at the time, the best ‘fetcher’ in SA Rugby according to most.
This year there was a similar outcry, for one Heinrich Brüssow, and the only difference between 2009 and 2006, is that the fans calling for his inclusion, got their wish.
Now where I lost most people in my point I have always tried to make is that I did not, and still do not claim or believe either Watson in 2006 or Brüssow today are bad ‘fetchers’. In fact, I do think they are and were the best we have in South Africa and is probably the closest we have if compared to George Smith and Richie McCaw.
the best we have in South Africa and is probably the closest we have if compared to George Smith and Richie McCaw…
Now perhaps if I highlight this people will understand my problem with this issue.
We should NEVER try and find players to combat the strengths of OPPOSITION teams because it affects our OWN strengths, and although our players will prove to be successful a lot of time against our opposition team’s individuals it will not be long before they figure out ways to eliminate this threat which is now already starting to happen – because you know what, opposition teams analyze us even more than what we analyze ourselves in my view!
And the main problem comes in that it is easy to eliminate a threat in any opposing team if that threat is a singular threat, and not a collective threat, I know, it was my job to identify this.
In simpler terms, if the main threats in your opposition is one or two players it is easy to combat it, it is however damn difficult to combat a collective threat or strength if 5 or 8 or 10 guys shares and combines their collective strengths!
Let me try and explain this from an analytical and practical point of view.
Two very important statistics coaches look at is positional (where on the field in relation to length and width), and strike rates of using possession in different areas of the park. Now from an analysis point of view the rugby pitch can be divided in up to 25 areas or zones, each with different outcome based scenarios according to the game plan you want to employ. A certain area of the field will be mapped out in blue for instance and the game plan strategy determine the action required in this zone, for instance blue areas will be defined as defensive kicking zones and the success of the ‘strike rate’ will determined by the outcome of the play makers (kickers) in this zone and how successful they were in executing their actions (kicks).
The only reason I made the above example is simply to illustrate that ‘strike rates’ do not normally apply to points scored alone but all of it, possession and strike rate success forms part of an overall game plan, and when a game is analyzed or game plan devised players are coached to these specifics.
Another quick example perhaps that will make you understand this better is that let’s assume green zones in the game plan, would suggest that if ever we get a penalty kick in that area (between opposition 10 meter and goal line), we take a scrum and not line outs as our scrum is a strength, and line-out is a weakness.
It is not complicated even if it may sound like it. It is a very simple approach to rugby and of course colour codes help the fatties understand the game plan better!!!
The importance is the possession and strike rate statistics which forms part of the overall game plan of the team – a game plan which compliments strengths.
Apart from these statistics and references which is positional related (where you are), the most important statistics is the relation of the ball from the ground in your game plan.
In simple terms it means whether your team is good at playing or attacking from playing the ball from the deck, or keeping it in the air.
Let’s consider a practical example.
Ever wondered why Australia (and to a lesser extent NZ) are very good in building phases? Up to 10 and 15 and even more at times?
Quite simple, it is the game they play and it is one of their strengths.
If you are a team reliant on building phases to break down defenses you are a team that prefers playing the ball from the deck, i.e. carry the ball, try and cross the advantage line, go to ground, and do it again and again.
Now quite simply, if this is the type of game you play, you need to pick the type of players to compliment this game plan or strength, and what better type of player to pick for deck play than a deck play specialist, or the ‘fetcher’ who specialises in this area of rugby?
And here ladies and gentleman is where the Springboks are starting to get it wrong again.
Our strength is not deck play or phase play, never was. Our strength is our ball carrying ability, strike running and brutal defense, which rely quite heavily on your bigger than average players. In short, our strength has always been, and is coached still today at all levels, in keeping the ball in the air as much as possible.
The much vaunted Jake White line-out philosophy as our premier attacking platform is an extension of this and it is something White realised very quickly when he became coach – as to where our strengths lie. Our maul currently has no equal in world rugby, it is a strength, and it is keeping the ball in the air. Which is why if we revisit the zones discussed earlier you will find that in most instances, the Boks will try and force line-outs in the game, as it plays to their strength. The kicking game we employed successfully in the opening Tri-Nations games takes their forwards out of the game and most importantly, their ability to start their phase plays.
When we are successful at rucks, we have always employed greater numbers to rucks and used physical strength to dominate this area. Which is also the reason all 15 players in our team are (or were under White) regarded as ‘fetchers’ and led to Jaque Fourie being the backline player with more impressive turn over ball and tackles than most loose forwards in international rugby.
It is simple rugby gentleman, and it is the reason why I am saying, and have been saying that neither Brüssow or Watson are bad players, or fetchers, they are in fact the best and have no equal in SA Rugby, they simply do not suit our rugby strengths.
I think it is foolish of us to try and play deck rugby, or take our opposition on in their strengths when we should rather focus on our own.
@Morné –
In the modern game a fetcher is a necessity. How many rucks do you have in a game? I went to a Crusaders coaching clinic and their rugby philosophy is all about turnovers and line-breaks those are the two most important aspects of the game. It seems like you are claiming in your article that Heinrich Brussow is not as good as Richie McCaw and George Smith which is absolute bull… In fact you’d find that the home team’s fetcher got out on top in all the Tri-Nations fixtures this year, which is interesting. Does Heinrich Brussow weaken the Springboks when included ahead of Schalk Burger? No he doesn’t, his workrate is great in fact only Tanerau Latimer had a better workrate than him in the Super 14 this year. When a guy like Heinrich Brussow doesn’t come to the party you have to look at the rest of your forwards, did they make the clean-outs? Without those forwarsd hitting the rucks your fetcher will always be useless.
Interestingly enough is that Australia employed two fetchers to overcome Brussow. Heinrich Brussow is a strength for the Springboks, and must not be seen as a weakness. He have been Richie McCaw’s and George Smith’s equal in every way this year. You don’t abandon a player because of one bad game. By your logic we shouldn’t worry about scrums because we suck there anyway… My opinion on rugby and life is that you must always strive to improve where possible. You can’t ignore the importance of rucks when there’s 60-80 of them in a game.
South African rugby since readmission have not been that successful because of our reluctance to adopt the latest trends. A guy like Tiger Woods reinvents his swing when he thinks it can give him an edge. Every sportsman should be like that.
28@Morne – I fully understand and hear what you say about dynamics… about dynamic “air-ball” ect….
I have one very astute counter-argument though… the Bulls style of play won them a spectacular Super 14 Title this year…. right…
Their game was a hybrid of mastery of all facets, of which groud-ball possession was a very important aspect. They moved seamlessly between the dynamics of ruck and maul, to dynamic attack… they just had more in their armament than the opposition.
This brings me to what I’m leading up to…. one can still be wonderfully dynmic in carrying the ball in the air, but compliment that type of play by being masters of static or ground-ball / deck-play as well.
This is what I want to see, a well-rounded Team…. and don’t tell me the Bokke cannot play like that… with those Key-Bulls players in the squad, amplified by a Brussouw, a Jean de Villiers, a Mossie…
You will remember that I called for Brussouw’s inclusion long before he was dragged into the Bokke…. and how strong a case I made for Morne Steyn, long before they employed him…
My wishes came true… and the Bokke grew tremendously with those 2 specific inclusions.
What I said about what a Loosie Combo should consist of, I said long before the B&I Lions Tour or the Tri-Nations…
One never plays “Oogklappe-rugby”, one adds to the armoury, one continually strive towards improvement…
At this stage… our next base for radical improvement should focus heavily on the scrum. It is a glaring weakness, now being exploited to the hilt by other Teams (B&I Lions, Ozzie, All Blacks).
@vanStraaten –
In the modern game the skill of fetching is a necessity. But that is just as much of a skill required as tackling with the aim to turn over ball.
The Crusaders are not leading the way or revolutionizing modern play with their philosophy to try and cross the gain line or make line breaks (most teams work towards this) and turn over ball – you will remember Jake White being accused of only coaching his team (to play without the ball) and score of mostly only turned over ball – forcing their opponents into mistakes. The question here is if a specialist player forces these turn over balls, or your general approach to the game? Given fetchers in modern rugby only turn over 3 balls on average I beg to differ that the role of a specialist player is a necessity, rather your game plan approach like White had (with no specialist fetcher remember but scoring mostly only off turn over ball).
There is no question turn over ball is the most precious of possessions you get in modern rugby as defenses are disorganised.
But then again, if you look that you get 110 up to 150 rucks in a game (Super 14) and not only 60 or 70 I again ask why the fascination with a specialist fetcher if he only scores 3 turn overs on average in a game where he is involved in let’s say at least 30 rucks the return does not justify the need for the ‘specialist’ position you guys advocate and that is what I have a problem with.
You can compare Heinrich to the top ‘fetchers’ in history let alone the past couple of tournaments – the most telling statistic is he scores less than 5 turn overs a game, and ‘fetchers’ concede (including Heinrich) the most penalties and free kicks (under the ELV’s).
My point is simple. There is a difference between a specialist skill, and a skill you expect most players to have.
A line out jumper is a specialist skill for instance, Heinrich is not a line out jumper.
Turning ball over at rucks or tackled situations is a skill in rugby all players need to have a learn, same as tackling.
If a coach tells me through media reports that 60% of forward play is based around one player (Schalk) and you ask me whether including Heinrich adds more value than Schalk through inclusion in a team (scoring less than 5 turn overs in a match) then the maths is pretty simple as to who adds more value.
@grootblousmile –
As mentioned before, in rugby the ball will always go to ground, so a fetching skill is absolutely necessary. But I cannot see the value of making this a specialist skill in a team to one player (or two) alone given the simple statistical averages!
Leading the way in rugby, and how rugby is played, does not mean you need to copy your closest opposition. You need them to copy you.
We still get the rucks wrong (we go to deck too quickly and Schalk is one of the main culprits in this) but where we need to advance and become leaders, is to develop our strengths in dynamic rugby which is our strength (ball in the air) to nullify the role of the SPECIALIST deck player.
Complimenting our strengths, combating theirs. Leading the way.
Like I mentioned to Van Straaten.
Fetching in my eyes is a skill needed as much as good tackling technique is needed (and we still need to get better at this too), but since all 15 players need to tackle we do not, like American Football, employ specialist defensive sets or players, we expect everyone to be able to do this.
One last simple question.
How did we manage to dominate world rugby under Mallet without a specialist fetcher?
And no, the laws did not change that much from then till now.
94 & 95@Morne – You know what…. you’re almost as stubborn a I am…… flok !
@grootblousmile –
Hehe.
I was thinking the same thing just now!
But you know what, as I said in the article, it all depends on your point of reference where you debate from!!!
And as much as I hate this cliche, we might just have to agree to disagree on this.
It is actually just a question of what type of rugby philosophy you and I subscribe to which means no-one can ever be right or wrong as we are not directly involved with the team!
At least we get people to think and consider alternatives!!! 😉
Oh heavens, I have stumbled onto the very ‘serious’ and intellectual thread, I am out of my depth here!!
@carol –
No ways!!!
We are just more adapt at talking kak!!!
But I need to go put my 2year old to bed now.
Later all, have a goodie.
@Morné – 99 You do it with such style and panache though!! 😉
@Morn̩ РGoodnight Morne.
@carol – Hi Carol
@Morné –
You make a strong argument. But like you said it all comes down to different philosophies.
Yeah the 1998 Springboks played Andre Venter openside, but they looked after the ball better than the current Springboks. Its actually something I’d hope would change with the introduction of Heinrich Brussow at openside, but without numbers at the breakdown you’re not going to keep possession.
Thanks for your opinion. I actually enjoy your different views on certain aspects.
Morne
Thanks, this is a very insigtfull article.
I take it that you think your namesake (Morne Steyn) fits in very well with the Boks?
@vanStraaten –
Similarlym Heinrich makes it damn difficult to fault the current approach.
Fine player, huge heart, and impossible to fault in application to be honest.
As always, comments and debate compliment the thread or article, so don’t thank me, thank you for offering your views.
Good night all.
@LondonBul –
Like a glove!!! 😉
@Morné –
Ek voel ook so.
Nag
You guys are keeping me up!
But as for Morne Steyn, I have always been fascinated how people reckon a ‘kicking’ (read tactical) flyhalf takes away anything on attack for a team.
To my mind, he adds more than a Larkham or Lem ever would (with respect to those two very fine and legendary players).
Give me Naas anyday.
(My dad just did flips in his grave being a staunch WP supporter)…
OKay I am shutting my notebook off, so this is the final cheers.
Wow that was very interesting and informative, i never knew the game was so technical. Must say it will take a bit of fun out of the game for me because you start looking at the game in a new light
Morning all, anyone here?
“It is not complicated even if it may sound like it. It is a very simple approach to rugby and of course colour codes help the fatties understand the game plan better!!!”
…….
tighthead, my friend, i think that one was for you!! hehehe
@Ashley –
Hello Ash.
Gaan jy Bolandpark toe?
Wens ek was daar, my hart staan nou met n punt Kaap toe, ek se jou…
Nou toer ek maar so bietjie hierdie wereld vir oulaas, baie plekke waar ek nog nie was nie, hier teen die Yellow Sea se kant.
Nogal ok seekosplekke ook, sien ek.
Praat later.
Users Online
Total 184 users including 0 member, 184 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,440,986 Page Impressions
_