Back to basics
10 Feb 2009
The extent of England’s humiliating defeats against South Africa and New Zealand surprised former Bok coach Jake White.
I never thought England would beat either side, but I did think it was going to be a lot closer, because Twickenham as a home venue traditionally is worth 15 points to England.
The Tri-Nations teams dominated the November internationals and the two teams with the greatest player depth – South Africa and New Zealand – were the most convincing.
New Zealand, impressive at times, never put together 80 minutes in one match and still won all four Tests easily. Their defence was organised, they scrambled well on the odd occasion that their line was broken and not one of the home unions looked like scoring a try against them. To not concede a try in four successive internationals is an achievement.
South Africa conceded one try against Scotland, but their defensive effort against England was outstanding, and physically they were in control of the Test. I have always advocated the best defence in the game will always beat the best attack. In saying this, I have been accused of not being adventurous enough in my approach to Test rugby, but I reject any criticism that emphasising the necessity of a quality defence comes at the expense of any attack.
In Test rugby you play to your strengths and with a team like South Africa, defence is a form of attack. England, when they were at their best under Sir Clive Woodward, played similar rugby to the Boks’ 2007 World Cup side. They were settled in their selections, they had a pack with no weaknesses, an exceptional leader (and lineout player) in Martin Johnson and a flyhalf who controlled where the game was played. You did not score easily against them and they refused to give any team soft points through playing in their own half. They would only open up once the scoreboard gave them enough of a cushion. I’ve never understood how people could call this dour or dull rugby. I think it is intelligent and logical.
We played a certain way in the World Cup final because all that mattered was winning it, and we knew that a high-risk approach would favour England because it would allow them to potentially feed off our mistakes. It did not mean we couldn’t attack, or didn’t attack, and in some games we played brilliant attacking rugby in getting beyond 50 and 60 points.
England will always have good forwards and they need to build a team around that. They must also realise that a halfback pairing that understands percentages tortures the opposition, and sporadic bursts of flamboyance win you nothing if there is no consistency to how and where you want to play the game.
England’s players, like South Africa’s, prefer structure and don’t easily play off the cuff. In order for England to advance they need to get back to structure, improve their fitness and settle on team selections.
I’d also always play a fit Jonny Wilkinson and I don’t understand the fascination with Danny Cipriani, because he is not in the class of Wilkinson. Cipriani has played a handful of games at international level and has been poor in the most basic aspects, yet he is being compared to Dan Carter, Matt Giteau and Wilkinson. It baffles me that a player who has done so little has had so much written about him.
While on the subject of flyhalves, I was very pleased with the way Ruan Pienaar played in the No 10 jersey and it gives the Bok selectors options for the British & Irish Lions series. I wouldn’t discard Butch James, plus he has the added advantage of playing with and against the best British and Irish players every weekend.
There is no doubt that South Africa will have gained a psychological edge in winning all three autumn internationals in preparing for the Lions, but it is also no guarantee of success.
South Africa, when compared to each one of the four home unions, have far greater playing depth, but when you put four countries together there is enough depth to pick 15 players capable of making it one hell of a series and the highlight of the 2009 season.
– White writes a regular column for SA Rugby magazine
11 Comments
10 Feb 2009, 07:42 am
Hope pdv gets the credit this time around if he wins a test and not the players who take the gameplan in their own hands.
10 Feb 2009, 10:21 am
Methinks Jake is fishing for a job here and who knows when MJ gets the chop (yes when) JW may just be in.
10 Feb 2009, 10:26 am
“It baffles me that a player who has done so little has had so much written about him.”
So when Jake takes over from MJ the show pony Cipriani is out.
10 Feb 2009, 10:45 am
Cipriani was always a piece of overhyped, rubbish shite. On top of that he still has the audacity to start **** with a english world cup winner on the wasps training ground.
10 Feb 2009, 14:56 pm
It will be interesting to see if Div’s slightly more expansive strategy bears fruit during his second year as bok coach.
In 2008 the team struggled initially with Matfield, Habana, Spies, Du Preez and James playing horrendous rugby during the Tri-nations after the WC07 hangover and some players moving to Europe. Matfield and Smit is back in SA and a new flyhalf chosen.
2009 has the potential to be a very good year for the boks.
10 Feb 2009, 14:56 pm
RedLion – I have to agree. I can’t see MJ lasting too long and i think JW will be in pole position to take on the England role.
10 Feb 2009, 16:28 pm
I thought that much was obvious
10 Feb 2009, 20:56 pm
MJ is better than JW and will go ahead and prove it
10 Feb 2009, 21:01 pm
Unfortunately if you stick to basics, you also “basically” stagnate. In the professional era, teams have to explore their potential to the fullest extent – and that potential varies with the quality of their players and depth in the various positions that pertain at the time. No team is abundant forever in the same positions and thus varieties of tactics have to be designed to cater for the existing strengths (and rules that prevail at that particular time). JW had a particular focus and succeeded ultimately with his particular strategy – but that does not mean that that strategy (sticking to the basics) is the B-all and end all of what the game, the players and the spectators need.
10 Feb 2009, 21:04 pm
Thank you so much grunk for your invaluable input. Why cant the boks use the expansive approach?
13 Feb 2009, 15:00 pm
i am actually quite dissapointed by this article, which stresses defense to an unbelievable level. There are as usual some interesting things and defense and structures are no doubt very important, but i really believed JW was more open-minded than this.
i personally did not have this impression of his coaching style, rather it appeared to be an impression foistered on him by sections of an impatient demagogue fan base and the media during what was clearly a building operation.
however, imo any side that focuses on defense to such a degree is going to plateua out very quickly and this approach will be found out under the ELVs as the popularisers suggest.
on a secondary issue, as a Bok fan i was personally very dissapointed with JW’s offer to coach the British Lions against SA a mere few months after leading the Boks to RWC success.
It would be great if JW could clear up these points.
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.