South Africa lost the first two tri-nations matches against NZ at the breakdowns, in my opinion. We were totally annihilated at the breakdowns – on attack and on defence. This intrigued me so I’ve been pondering about this issue since Saturday and it was the main topic of my conversations with Kiwi’s whenever we talked about the rugby. Thing that I wanted to figure is what exactly made the difference; what did the AB do at the breakdowns that made them so much better and efficient? 

Some of the more clearly observable factors were the AB’s speed of the line; making sure they make contact on our side of the advantage line; making sure they were entering the collisions with more speed and force than the Springboks.

Another clear factor was that they had more numbers committing to the breakdowns; essentially blowing us over with numbers, speed and explosive hits. There was however more; some less clearly observable things they did which made one hell of a difference and no it was not using illegal tactics for which they didn’t get penalised. I don’t really want to go into the issue of Northern Hemisphere refs and inconsistent ruling at the breakdown -altough I do believe it was a factor- neither do I want to whinge about Richie McCaw and the All blacks falling over the ball -altough I do think it happened occationally.

To argue that the hiding we got at the breakdowns was entirely due to the NH refs, Richie mcCaw and illigal tactics is a form of denial, I think. We got a rugby lesson at the breakdowns and we need to take a serious look at why that happened without getting caught-up in whingeing about McCaw and NH refs. 

Note the following remarks by Owen Franks:

“Everyone knows the South Africans are big guys. Once they get some steam on they’re pretty strong runners.

“So the easiest way is just to kamikaze yourself at the knees,” he said. 

“Getting them behind their advantage line just makes a huge difference. We were putting everything into those tackles and trying to dominate.” 

There is much to be read in the following two remarks “Kamikaze yourself at the knees” and “putting everything into the tackles and trying to dominate”. 

They hunted in pairs; first defender goes for the knees making sure he knocks the attacker down which means the second player can stay on his feet (doesn’t need to go to the ground) and can get his hands on the ball; forcing either a penalty or preventing the Springbok from placing the ball. 

The next arrivals made sure the AB dominate by driving over the ball; this is in essence how they stopped our momentum. Hitting low making sure the first tackler doesn’t end-up in a wrestling contest and making sure that there are always two players at the tackle situation namely one low and the next one high. Task of the first one is to make sure the ball carrier goes down while the task of the second defender is to get his hands on the ball (sometimes while the attackers is still on his way down). 

Now it didn’t always pan out exactly like that but if your intent is to have two defenders on a ball carrier -each one with a certain task in terms of stopping flow, creating turnover and dominating- then even if the second player is a fraction late he has a certain urgency to get to the point of contact and he knows exactly what to do once he gets there namely getting his hands on the ball (to stop the ball getting placed and recycled by the opposition). And that is enough because the incoming support is going to blow him over the ball meaning he doesn’t need to dislodge the ball to win it. This is crucial namely that the fetching was a collective act and not the task of one particular player. Also the first player is not really trying to dislodge the ball his job is just to prevent the ball carrier from rolling over and placing the ball.  

According to one of the local coaches I’ve talked to this is the latest strategy that is aggressively enforced and practiced on all levels in New Zealand rugby namely first defender tackle the legs and take the ball carrier down, second defender go high stay on his feet and get his hands on the ball, next defenders just drive over the ball. The second defender then becomes part of the forward drive. In cases were the second defender goes down he would then keep on driving or crawling forward -helped by the support form the rear. The second defender and all other players driving over the ball then become a block or barrier as they are then between the ball and incoming supporting players from the opposition. 

What did the All Blacks do on attack at the breakowns?

On attack the strategy was firstly take the defender(s) off their feet which means the defender(s) then had to release the ball allowing the ball carrier to place the ball; it also allowed the needed time for the cavalry to arrive and drive over the ball. 

Two Springboks going down in the tackle with McCaw in support to secure the ball. Notice the high tackle and the fact that neither of the two Springboks have their hands on the ball.

When faced with two defenders they attacked space namely running in between the two defenders which take both of them out of the contest at the breakdown when the three players goes to ground. The intent is always to take both defenders down. In this way they made sure that there was no Springbok on his feet at the point of collision. 

Rene Ranger running in between two defenders and forcing them backwards with strong leg drive. He is looking down which shows his intent to take both of them down or to break through the middle. If they go to ground the Springbok No7 has to release the ball which allows him to place it. If one of these two boks went for his leg the one going high can prevent Ranger from placing the ball.