Boks lack Plan B
The European tour has underlined an old concern pertaining to South Africa’s inability to think outside the box.
The Boks only know how to play one way, but when it doesn’t work for them, they don’t have an alternate plan or means of breaking down the opposition. Brutal physicality will always be the bedrock of South African rugby, but the attacking play is in dire need of a revamp.
They were exposed in Toulouse and again at Croke Park. The French had them under pressure up front early in the fixture, and by half-time it was clear they couldn’t be beaten using typical tactics. In Dublin, the Boks employed the right tactics but their inaccuracy at flyhalf and in the set-pieces let them down badly. What was worrying about that match is that no one decided to change tack.
Marc Lievremont was wise to the bully boy tactics, and the talk in the week preceding that Test was about the Boks’ physicality. It seemed obvious what the Boks would do even before they left South Africa, and surely the Bok coaching staff should have expected this kind of response.
When asked about preparation in the aftermath, however, several Bok players said the French caught them by surprise. Come on. You come to France as the world champions and you have a reputation as the bullies of world rugby. What did you think France were going to do? Give you their lunch money?
Naivety aside, the senior Boks should have realised things weren’t going to work early on in the game and made a decision to change to Plan B. That’s what they should have done if there was a Plan B to change to.
Morne Steyn has had a fantastic year and I’m sure the IRB got it wrong – it wouldn’t be the first time (cough-Richie McCaw-cough) when they nominated Frans Steyn as a Player of the Year nominee. But Morne Steyn has been uncharacteristically shaky on this tour, and one wonders how bad his decision-making would have been had Fourie du Preez not been around to guide him.
Steyn was striking the ball horribly in Udine, but saved his worst performance with the boot for Dublin. He missed a few penalty punts and his tactical kicking left a lot to be desired especially since the Boks were playing with the wind in the first half. John Smit said it best when he pointed to two missed penalty kicks at the end of the half as potentially game-costing. Steyn, who sinks them from 50m on the highveld and at sea-level (ask Western Province) knows he should have done better.
Kicking is Steyn’s strength, but it worried to see him utilising so few of his other talents. By neglecting these, he underused his dangerous runners out wide. Jaque Fourie has been a force since returning to the starting line-up but has not received enough chances. Bryan Habana is living off scraps while JP Pietersen had a very quiet tour.
The Adi Jacobs experiment – what else would you call it – well and truly failed. Jacobs doesn’t have the build or skill set to be the kind of No 12 the Boks need and is more suited to the No 13 position. Jean de Villiers will be back in South Africa in time for the World Cup, but in the interim, the Boks should go with Wynand Olivier who had an outstanding game at Croke Park.
The future of Ruan Pienaar remains a mystery. He was Peter de Villiers’ first-choice flyhalf in June, but seems to have lost all confidence. He’ll undergo corrective surgery to his knee when he gets home, and one hopes he’ll be adequately prepared for the 2010 Super 14.
If he is to be the alternative to Steyn, he has to play flyhalf in the Super 14 and build some confidence. At present, he’s an erratic goal-kicker and perhaps something needs to be done to increase his mental strength. He’s also a fine attacking player who could provide the Boks with variety they need to truly evolve (and perhaps even develop a Plan B). Pienaar’s important, and it’s high time the powers that be stop treating him like a bit player.
One player who impressed during his short stint on tour was BJ Botha. So that’s what the Bok scrum looks like going forward. You could almost forgive the Bok inside backs for giving away possession given they’re so unaccustomed to go-forward ball from the scrum.
Botha’s another who wants to come back to South Africa and could be an important player if the Boks are going to defend their world title. Smit is fine player when he’s scrumming between Beast Mtawarira and Botha, but battled when he went back to tighthead in the dying stages of the Ireland game. Since it’s clear the Boks cant do without his leadership, maybe it’s time they pick a decent tighthead, pick Smit at hooker and leave Bismarck du Plessis on the bench. It’s the obvious sacrifice that needs to be made if the Boks are to retain leadership and scrumming strength.
The sad truth is the Bok management have no intention of moving Smit back to No 2 permanently. It’s truly a shame, as this South African side could explore their attacking capabilities if they were afforded a decent platform from the scrum.
By Jon Cardinelli, in Dublin
November 30th, 2009 at 1:35 am
As does this from Ireland’s Sunday Independent:
If rugby wants to end the scourge of teams like South Africa winning without the ball, changes are needed, says Brendan Fanning
‘At the present time there are people interested in rugby who wonder if the ethos will survive the game’s new expansion. The rules of the game have been altered more drastically than at any time before. Rugby could never be the same again.’
Gerald Davies used this quote in his delivery of the annual IRB lecture a couple of weeks ago, and he did so to make the point that rugby has always been a sport that shifted and changed shape and basically never sat still. The lines, he said, were from a book called The Report on Rugby by John Morgan and Geoffrey Nicholson. And it was published in 1959.
His point was that navel-gazing is not new in rugby, that despite all the flux the game would go on. And of course it will. But Davies took to the podium immediately after the audience had watched images of the Lions tour to South Africa last summer, and he could more usefully have drawn from his experiences on that trip to sound an alarm about the game’s current direction.
The first Test in that series illustrated in stark black and white how much the game has changed. Your memory of it will probably be coloured by how the Springboks established a commanding lead, followed by the Lions’ frantic comeback. You might have left King’s Park that day wondering had the South Africans become complacent in the second half and stopped playing. More accurately, they never started.
In the old days, when Gerald Davies was gliding over boggy ground and leaving tacklers on their backsides, coaches would have waved the ball at their players in the dressing room beforehand imploring: ‘It’s all about this today!’ Not anymore they’re not.
The Springboks beat the Lions that day without the ball. It wasn’t that the Lions were so skilled at retaining it, rather the Boks didn’t want it in the first place. In that game they had the ball for 12 minutes. That’s less time than any other team in a Tier 1 game in the World Cup two years ago. It’s less time than any team has had to cope with in the Six Nations for the last five seasons. And, apart from one game, it’s less time than any team has managed in the Tri Nations in the last five seasons. And that one game? Yes, it involved South Africa, though on that occasion they were being devoured by Australia 49-0.
Incredibly in that first Test, Lions scrumhalf Mike Phillips passed the ball 55 per cent more than the entire South African team. And kicking? Well they bogged away 71 per cent of their possession as against the Lions’ 31 per cent. And still they won.
It was under Jake White that they hit on the killer combo: a big kick-and-chase game; a mean defence; and a rock-solid setpiece — indeed the lineout was the sole beacon of creativity in their game. Argentina under Marcello Loffreda went down the same road but didn’t quite have the mechanics right. Their meeting in the semi-final of the World Cup was the most sterile Test match of the professional age. Of course the Boks kept faith with it to win the tournament and it has served them nicely ever since.
It’s important to understand that this trend started before the ELVs. And before the law protocol around the tackle. So while you may consider those developments to be evil incarnate, at least be accurate about why we are where we are. And where we are is here: a game which has passages where the ball is kicked back and forth, over the heads of a bunch of wildebeest who run from one end to the other in search of water. And as soon as the kicking stops and the bell goes to sup, they’re so shagged from the effort that they can’t get their tongues out.
We have arrived at this point because the extension of rugby being a game where first you stopped the other team from playing, became one where first you stopped the other team from playing in their own half. And their backyard, not yours, was the only place from where you would consider attacking. Coaches came to the conclusion that the relationship between risk and reward was too intimidating because they could lose the ball too easily at the tackle. Ian McGeechan maintains this started in the latter stages of the World Cup.
“When teams got to that stage they stopped playing rugby, and the reason they stopped was that referees stopped refereeing the breakdown,” he says. “So it just became a territorial game. I think the game moved on after that, and that the game the following season was a far better game. I remember Syd Millar, quite rightly, was critical of the closing stages of the World Cup because there was no rugby played, but it was because of the breakdown.
“I had a big bee in my bonnet at the time saying we should referee the breakdown first. Teams will not play in their own half. I remember Rod Macqueen (IRB Laws advisory group) saying that the ELVs were trying to make the breakdown a 50 per cent ball. Well, teams in possession in their own half will not play rugby if you’ve only a 50 per cent chance of keeping it.”
The introduction just before the Lions tour of the tackle protocol, where the poacher had all the rights at the breakdown if he was on his feet, has further discouraged players from opening up within sight of their own posts. The idea of facilitating the poacher is fine, but it is reliant on top-quality refereeing. And much of that refereeing has been horrendous.
Once the ELV process ended last season, that was that as far as any further law changes ahead of RWC 2011 in New Zealand. But the current state of affairs will not be allowed to continue. Changes will be made, and they will be done by making a ruling on an existing law.
We live in hope that poachers will be made to prove they are on their feet, for this is the biggest bone of contention. And the best way to do this — perhaps the only way — is to force them to actively step one foot over the tackled player on the ground. So if you want to pilfer the ball, you will have to have one foot either side of your victim.
Not only will this clear up the issue of whether or not the poacher is on his feet and within the law, it will provide the cleanout crew with a target they can hit and move. And everyone would be happy. It would increase the chances of retaining the ball at the tackle without closing the door to the contest altogether. Indeed it would crystallise the situation: if the poacher is on his feet and he isn’t coming away with the ball then it has to be because it’s not being released by the man on the ground. Penalty.
There are other areas that can be looked at — for example marking the ball outside your 22, or forcing players to move towards their own line when the ball is kicked by a teammate over their heads (it would give counter-attacking space to the receiver) — but part of the problem with the ELVs was that there was so much being changed it was hard to establish cause and effect.
So let’s do something with the breakdown, as we know for sure it is key to the current version of rugby where there is too high a price on adventure. Winning without the ball is not something we can afford.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:48 am
Ha ha ha Richie McCaw won player of the year. Dumb *****.
He is the greatest flout of all the rules in Rugby. God, watch the French game and ask youserlf how does that ball get turned over. He comes in form the side, he tackles the fetcher off the ball, etc…does not even get a yellow!
This is funny is so stupid .No wonder rugby will always be a backwater sport.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:07 am
@Heavens Game: What a poor excuse, your nation has big depth,so what happened in 2008 when they were dealt to by the All Blacks? I believe the first sign of weakness was in Brisbane when the Wallabies dealt to them, they barely won the next week against the All Blacks in Hamilton then they are patting themselves on the back with the Tri Nations went back to the Currie Cup where the All Blacks go back to the Air NZ Cup and end of year tour the ABs go undefeated for 3yrs or more but so called World Champions cannot even achieve this not even once. Just admit it your Boks do not have the winning mentality that the All Blacks live by, oh yeah they are waiting for the RWC tournament they realise its too hard for them to be winners every year like the All Blacks achieve on regular a basis.
Boy being a Bok supporter I would not be happy at all.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:13 am
Hi all,
First post for me so here it goes.
After watching the game on Saturday I think it’s pretty obvious that the Boks are tactically stale and one-dimensional. Every time we pushed the ball wide there was space in the outside channel. That’s how Burger got his try and that’s how we made three or four scoring opportunities in the first half. But did we persist with that and exploit it? No. Back to kicking away all our hard won possession. Ireland are by no means a great team, I’d say they are an adequate team and I don’t think the Boks should hide behind the too tired argument. We simply don’t have the nous to play a wide game when required and a kicking game when required.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:18 am
@KevinRack: What rubbish!! Richie is the man who plays real rugby, maybe the Refs is who you should blaming because if they reffed the breakdown properly then we would kick and chase game the Boks play boring…
November 30th, 2009 at 7:05 am
@marvinb:
Remember that the AB’s have the travel advantage over SA for all the Super 14 and Tri-Nations. That’s why they’re fresher at year-end.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:10 am
@marvinb:
And this makes it easier for them to win more consistently.
The Boks have to contend with socio-political and administrative challenges. It’s amazing, a real achievement that they still win as they do.
There are real threats to the Boks, which may lead to their extinction. I think it’s important to be aware of this.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:15 am
@sglazer:
lol
You are joking right?
@sglazer:
lol
No more please
November 30th, 2009 at 7:30 am
@sglazer:
I agree that the political environment in SA is a factor but traveling in the s14 and the 3N as a the reason why SA doesn’t perform in the UK. Harden up.
That is nonsensical. The time zones and distance to UK are far more favorable for SA than either Australia or NZ.
European teams are far better at the ten man game than the expansive style. To beat them you need to have to be able to play a variation as this article suggests. This tour has simply been a disaster for a team as talented as this SA squad. Far less talented Sa squads than this have had better records on the end of the year tour.
In 2005 NZ beat the lions 3-0 ,won the 3N and then travelled to Europe to secure a Grand slam. This was expected of the ABs by their fans. Until SA sets their sights as high and expect nothing less with no excuses, they will continue to struggle to be the dominant force in World Rugby that they deserve to be.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:37 am
@lapoftherugbygods:
here here,good post
November 30th, 2009 at 8:38 am
I believe we need to rest all 15 of our first choice Springboks until at least halfway through the Super 14 Competition!
These guy need a serious break from all rugby for at least 3 months after which they can slowly be reintroduced into their respective teams.
Even if this means us losing our first few games in the competition it would overall serve as a better cause to the long term success of the Springboks, which in my opinion is all important.
This would also expose some of the younger players giving them much needed experience at top level rugby.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:02 am
@lapoftherugbygods:
Well, then Mils Muliana must have it wrong too. Those were his words. NZ have a distinct advantage over SA in the Super 14 and Tri-Nations. Blinding oneself to this makes no sense. It’s delusional.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:09 am
It’s not helpful to the AB’s either. Their results are inflated and when it comes to competition when the playing fields are more level, namely the World Cup, they bomb out again and again.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:21 am
@sglazer: gotta agree… the travel factor was a serious problem for SA in 2008, when they travelled to the cape and lost 19-0 at home… NZ just had to fly over thats all… much easier…
November 30th, 2009 at 9:42 am
@poppa69: Again you are still on a SA web site ? It must be another Bok loss, sadly for us we have had a few recently which is only compounded by your presence on a SOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY WEB SITE …
Why arent you off on Silverfern enjoying a great AB victory over France ?? Sad sack.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Hey. Gotta admit the Boks ended it badly this year, but hailing the All Blacks is a joke. None of the SH teams have any right to brag this year.
As for the Boks plan B… problem is, they’ve been using plan B way too much. Like I said elsewhere, plan A should always be the basics. Our team failed the basics, which was their strength earlier this year, with some flair added. Now, they tried to win the games with flair alone!
November 30th, 2009 at 10:43 am
@iceman: I believe this is a good idea, I think the All Blacks should do that for some key All Blacks and the Boks should do the same thing.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:54 am
@sglazer: What garbage, so the All Blacks have had a hundred years of winning rugby mentality and back in the old days went on long tours by ship but still got the great results,1905 invincibles, Grand Slam in the 70s now we have achieve this 3 times, World Cups are a tournament where their is more pressure on the All Blacks to perform because of their winning mentality and record they have compared to the World, the Boks do not have that pressure because they havent really been favourites like the All Blacks coming into a RWC tournament and in the end we choke, so I dont know what you mean inflated scores, 49-nil maybe the inflated score your talking about.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:56 am
@bananas: Dont be like that, we enjoy coming on your own South African web site we have enough (South Africans) living in our country now….. so lets give a bit back and all be one.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:01 am
@SodaJoe: One of the problems of this tour was that young THs playing in SA were not expose to test rugby, so no I disagree with your statement: “but we have at least 3 Tightheads (BJ, WP Nel, Buys)”
BJ is good, always has been, but WP and Buys remain untested and have barely played S14. So basically we are very short of quality THs playing in SA. CJ not much better than JS.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:03 am
@Bouts: Hello earth to Bouts All Blacks undefeated on NH tour the other SH teams have lost games and the next to Samoa the Boks come second so who is the joke the Boks are World Champions played five lost four.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Some emotional responses here. I think the big problem for the boks was that they went to sleep for 40 mins after scoring the try. Up till then I thought Morne had gotten the line going quite well. The coaching staff shoud’ve know from the start that the ‘kicking game’ may not be the right option. Kearney was magnificent for the Lions dealing with the high ball. An approach like the one in Sydney where we caught the Wallabies off gaurd could’ve been the better option. I think PDV will take this onboard and adjust. So far he’s proven to be the most open coach to change when his ideas don’t work – big plus in my point of view!
November 30th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I believe if you put the Springbok team in the hands of the New Zealand coaching team, they would be unstoppable.
The difference between NZ and SA is that in NZ everyone and I mean EVERYONE has the big picture in mind and works towards making their team the best in the world. In South Africa, everyone has their own agenda. The provincial teams won’t rest their players because results count, screw the national team. Politics play a huge role, transformation is more important than the Boks being the best in world rugby.
SA has a wealth of talent, but it is not managed properly. I support the Boks all the way, but I applaud NZ for their commitment to rugby as a whole.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
@marvinb: Well then let’s be advocates for level playing fields and have NZ and Australia spend the same amount of time on the road during the Super 14 and Tri-Nations, year-in-and-year out. We can agree on that I think.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
@Bouts:
I really like what you say here Bouts. I agree wholeheartedly. Plan A is the basics with flair added, the strength of that foundation on top of which the flair has the base upon which to express itself. This is power!
November 30th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
@marvinb: I find this a really small-minded and demeaning response. It has no place in the rugby community.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
@Nanashi: I agree wholeheartedly, although I feel SA has very good coaching talent too, PDV included just that PDV has been elevated prematurely and expediently for reasons other than rugby alone, which is costing him, the players, Springbok rugby and SA as a whole.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
@iceman: no no no….this is exactly what the AB’s did before the last WC and look where it got them!!!!