If anything, the Sharks Currie Cup success has allowed me to revisit a favourite old topic of mine.
Following the Currie Cup victory in Durban last Saturday, I was pleased to read a piece by Gavin Rich on SuperRugby where he repeated what has been mentioned quite often in 2010, the game plan or strategy of the Sharks throughout the season and how it was very similar to the All Blacks.
The reference was mainly to the ruck or tackled area, and how possession under the new laws are key.
Most of you that read my columns will now that I am quite amused by South African’s fascination of the ‘fetcher-theory’ in rugby, something that is a favourite media topic in criticising specifically Bok selections and something that has become even more of a hot topic since Heinrich Brussow’s stellar year in 2009.
A couple of months ago already I wrote a column on how I believe we are reading too much into this area, or specific role and position in the game of rugby union.
Not to take anything away from those unfortunate souls who are categorised as fetchers, but thanks to the Sharks I think this point is again re-enforced.
In the final, as was the case for most of the season, the Sharks went into the game without a recognised or specialist fetcher. Ho-hum how could they!!!??? I mean given the media fascination regarding this position or role I was sure that I would see inches, no wait, meters of column space dedicated on the fact how Western Province’s loosies with Springbok ‘fetcher’ Francois Louw in their team was going to murder them at the breakdown… Low and behold, there was not a single comment, let alone a feature piece.
Why would that be then? Would it be that guys, like Gavin Rich in his column realised the effect and importance of the way the Sharks adopted their game in similar fashion to what New Zealand did this year, has had us clutching at straws in the last couple of years with regards to the importance of such a player?
Of course some would say the law-changes has had an effect of how the game is played and officiated in this area, but then again, the so-called ‘fetchers’ we measured our players against in Richie McCaw and David Pocock (before him George Smith) was as effective, if not more effective, than what they have been before these law changes! Could it just perhaps be that we got it wrong?
I mentioned to Sharks supporter last night that if anything, I wish the Sharks would dominate South African rugby for the next 5 years just so we can get over the fascination of the role of a fetcher in rugby as a specific role or specifically assigned position within a team – if that happens, at least the loss of the past weekend would be worth it!
Dan Retief also ventured into the unknown in a column he wrote recently where he identified the strategy New Zealand seem to be using at the breakdown and for my money, he was not far off. In short it again re-affirmed that being proficient at the breakdown, has a hell of a lot more to do with the team’s strategy as a whole in this area, than one guy.
Does this mean the end of players like Brussow? Not in the least, in fact I would like to believe that since they would have this fetcher bogey of their backs they would even become more effective in playing towards the ball, which is, and has always been, the primary role of a forward flanker.
Maybe, just maybe the Sharks victory in the Currie Cup and the way they went about doing it and played the game in this area, will make other teams, and coaches wake up to the fact that rugby union and the all important area of the ruck in the modern game has more to do with total team strategy and commitment, than individual role definition.
Now can I get someone to fetch me a beer please?
(You can access the columns referred to in this piece by clicking on the highlighted sections)
Morne, was Jake right after all?
In my opinion Bismarck was the best “fetcher” on the park saturday.
@ Loosehead:
IMO, he has always been right…
Good win for the Sharks well done! But I certainly don’t want to see them dominating for the next 5 years that place belongs to us 🙂
This was the first game of Lambie I had watched so was keen to see if he could live up to all the hype, wow he is even better than they said what a star performance from him. The only thing I think he overdid as the game went on was carry the ball into the collision area/attack the space I think is the term folk would use (although normally for the likes of Olivier the negative term boring crash ball is used by detractors). Its great to see he has guts but in the long run if he carries on doing this it will curtail his career he is too small to take such a lot of hits from the big guys for too long.
Interesting to see the comparison between the Sharks and All Blacks, one thing I seemed to notice was how the Sharks at times were clearing Province players away from the rucks far away from the ball, we saw a lot of complaints and even video footage highlighting this unsporting aspect of the All Blacks play during the past Tri nations. Would be interesting if someone here noticed it as well, unfortunately I have no way of watching the game again.
@ Bullscot:
Read Dan Retief’s article (click on the link above in the main article).
@ Morné:
Thanks Morne had a read, think I read it before, but it doesn’t address the issue I have of
players being taken out of the game off the ball, the laws have changed so much I haven’t been able to keep up with them but if this kind of play is within the laws then something is wrong, how can you be allowed to tackle or drive a player away from the ruck area in such a blatant way in the name of “protecting the ball”, yet at the same time if you are running into space without the ball and have someone block your path and run into you its obstruction, for goodness sake you can’t even run into your own player and its “accidental offside”. So I’m questioning whether this is the new direction of the game within the laws or were the refs missing something that should have been blowed up for, as I said I can’t rewatch the final so it may be a wrong perception I had of the Sharks. But how can they be so strict on someone tackling a player with the ball, having to release immediately but allow players to be tackled without the ball at rucks. Is this rugby morphing into grid iron???
Well Morne we have discussed this at length before and to put it simply your fetcher is the guy who wins the ball and it does not matter what number he has on his back!!
You are exactly right and it has always been about the team strategy at the tackle and breakdown.
I also have been fascinated by the inability of some people to see this and to try and put players into little boxes!!
@ Bullscot:
I think Retief addresses this quite nicely in his article where the ref’s given the sheer numbers the AB’s commit to the ruck gives them the benefit of the doubt.
What he does not mention is something that was highlighted earlier this year where over 80% of penalties at rucks by the same referee that blew in the CC final, Joubert, went against the defending team.
This basically means little attention is paid towards the ball carrying team and what they do, and more is paid to the guys trying to turn it over.
@ tight head:
There seems to be a lot of folks that would disagree with us.
I agree by and large with the article. A “fetcher” is no bloody good at all if his backup doesnt arrive timeously. For my backrow for Saturday I chose Alberts, Spies, Smith…someone immediately asked “wheres the fetcher”…I replied, Bismarck can be the “fetcher”….as long as there is someone on his feet at the point of breakdown who gets his hands on the ball, then his backup arrives and the downed player does not release…bang, we have the penalty. Without go forward commitment it cannot happen. Lets see if Div has learned anything on Saturday and if he lets our guys play to their strengths at the breakdown. nee wat…this site is again at snails pace! now i cant post at all?
Geez I had to re boot and copy.
weet iemand iets van philip burger? Ek hoor roumors dat hy terug kom cheetahs toe
@ smallies72:
Dis korrek
Users Online
Total 234 users including 0 member, 234 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,443,826 Page Impressions
_