Gold backs defensive system
2 Sep 2010
Gary Gold maintains that individual errors rather than structural failings are responsible for the Boks’ poor defensive record in the 2010 Tri-Nations.
The Boks’ defence has been particularly erratic, with 17 tries conceded in five Tri-Nations Tests. New Zealand have scored four tries against the Boks on two occasions, while Australia did it for the first time in a losing cause in Pretoria.
Compare that defensive record to 2009, where the Boks conceded 10 tries in six Tests and prevented either of their opponents from scoring four in a game, and it’s fair to say there are defensive problems that require fixing. The first half of last Saturday’s game was another example, as the Aussies ran in four tries before the half-hour mark.
Gold, the Springboks assistant coach responsible for defence, said he was disappointed with the showing overseas. He does however, believe the Boks have improved since returning home to play the All Blacks at Soccer City and the Wallabies at Loftus Versfeld.
While they leaked four early on against the Wallabies, they showed some positive signs in the second stanza, the highlight of which was Francois Hougaard’s hit on Adam Ashley-Cooper.
‘It’s been a long time since the Boks conceded four tries in a Test match, so when we got home [from the Australasian tour] we knew it was an area that required a lot of attention,’ Gold said. ‘But what you have to ask yourself when analysing the defence is whether the individuals or the systems are at fault.
‘That ball that Bryan [Habana] dropped off the kickoff is a good example, because it led to a freakish try. I don’t think the system is letting us down, and at the same time a player like Bryan is a very good defender and it was one error that unfortunately led to a try.’
Gold acknowledged the threat of the Wallabies backline, but said the Boks need to trust each other if they’re going to repel the anticipated assault. Will Genia, Quade Cooper and Matt Giteau are fine attacking players, but according to Gold, it’s counterproductive to concentrate on individuals rather than trusting your own defensive system.
‘We have to lift the bar this weekend. Those players can be so lethal, but if we focus on the individual, it can open up space for other players.
‘We have to back our systems and guys need to trust the men outside them. A guy like Cooper has a fantastic step and puts team-mates into holes, but we’ve got to work as a unit to stop that.’
The Bok lineout wobbled on tour but through the efforts of Victor Matfield and Juan Smith during the second half last Saturday, this set-piece is steadily improving.
Wallabies coach Robbie Deans has made some interesting selections, picking Ben McCalman at No 8 and bringing lineout specialist Mark Chisholm into the second row for Dean Mumm. Gold has no doubt these changes are geared towards a a more competitive Aussie lineout.
‘I think they’re slightly worried about Sharpie [Nathan Sharpe]. They lost a lot of cohesion when he went off in the second half last week. Ben is a better lineout option than Richard Brown, and up front, the selection of Stephen Moore suggests they’ll want to match us for experience.
‘I don’t believe the set-pieces were that bad on tour. We lost four lineouts in Auckland but then everybody jumped on the bandwagon.
‘I also believe that we did play with intensity, but a lot of it was taken away when we lost a man [through a yellow card] at the start of every game. These are the kind of things we’ve worked hard to rectify.’
Head coach Peter de Villiers said on Monday that the Boks would ignore all criticism and that if you’re not for the team, you’re against them. Gold said he had no problem with criticism from the media or public, as long as it was directed at the team’s performance.
‘Criticism is healthy as long as it’s not personal. We didn’t perform well overseas, we know we didn’t live up to our usual standards, so we must take the criticism on the chin.’
By Jon Cardinelli, in Bloemfontein
Follow SA Rugby mag on Twitter
65 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
2 Sep 2010, 23:10 pm
@MaraudingJ(MaraudingJ)-31:
Can you give a link to some examples of this defensive system? Maybe you can just give me the times on the clock where this was successfully implemented in the last match because I have access to a recording.
To me this sounds like a pretty stupid defensive system. While all defensive systems include a trailing, or cover defenders to double-up on the outside channels, it is stupid to rely on these players to cover the outside channels because they have to run a larger distance!
Guess who is best suited to cover the outside channels: the wing, outside center and the fullback if there is imminent danger. Therefore these players must cover the outside.
But doesn’t this leave holes inside? Not if the inside defenders are pushing out to cover the inside holes. The whole idea of the drift defense is that the inside players push out and create a longitudinal wave. If you do not do this, then you have to cut off passing lanes with a rush defense! If you do not do either of these things, you end up with the mess we see on a weekly basis.
2 Sep 2010, 23:14 pm
Hougaard a thousand times better instinct front foot ball player than FdP and when FdP is fit you will see the difference.
FdP lost us plenty, from Perth, Cape Town, Durban 3N 08 to France Ireland Eoyt 09, FdP biggest culprit of the lot, yet all these boneshakers reckon he’s next to God. Genia wanna blow up his ego let him do so, I know different, seems some here don’t.
FdP not a tough instinct player, relies on boot and opportunism, that what makes him good at time but not always. Hougaard also still too slow clearing ball from ruck and allows oppo to organize defense instead of nappy second phase clearance he starts directing traffic same way as FdP does.
Let them sing the demi god’s status to the heavens, he’s simply another clay footed idol hero that gonna bite the dust when push comes to shove, watch and mark them words.
2 Sep 2010, 23:28 pm
@coherence(coherence)-51:
The no.8 is one of the players on the field who basically covers every blade of grass and knows all the short-cuts around the field.
The defending wing and the eighth man are the ultimate cover defence. When last did we see Pierre Spies going corner-flag?
Vermeulen does it all the time. But then he’s a classic eighth man. And he’s not a carthorse like some like to refer to him as.
2 Sep 2010, 23:36 pm
@I am a stormer(I am a stormer)-53:
I agree that the number 8 is an important part of covering, and that this is one of the problems we have been seeing.
However, the no.8 is not the best first line of defense for the outside channels because of the distance. It’s the wing, outside center and occasionally fullback that must be the first line of defense outwide. The way you enable these players to get to the outside channels is by using a longitudinal wave. This is what they are not doing at the moment, and that is why the outside channels are so poorly defended. The Springbok coaches do not understand this and are incapable of solving this problem.
2 Sep 2010, 23:48 pm
@skopskiet(yliad)-52: You are an idiot and have no idea.
When FdP is on:
- his decision making is spot on – he knows when to swing it wide
- he keeps the ruck fringes honest,
- he kicks well (and its not his fault that the dumb coaches tell him the kick chase game plan is the one he should follow – so dont pretend that its his fault we lost the 3N games- that was all your precious coach)
- his defence is good
- he is wide awake to opportunities and quick penalties.
- he is fast.
There is no other scrumhalf in SA that has all these. Hougaard is close, but still makes bad decisions- but getting better.
2 Sep 2010, 23:57 pm
@coherence(coherence)-54:
I agree with you. And what I think has been said earlier is that each and every player has to trust the defender on their outside. That’s why it’s important that combo’s develop in midfield like JDV and Jaque. And Frans Steyn will always go to the outside. The touchline actually becomes another defender. That’s why I was so peed off when we let in 2 tries in 3 minutes at Soccer City.
3 Sep 2010, 00:04 am
Ya FdP was just brilliant in our 19-0 fiasco, even better in the 49-0 hero’s dance, then he simply rocked when we caved in to France in 06 and 09 and almost brought the house down when his kick and chase cr@p actually caused the Irish to come from behind and steal a win they shouldn’t have come from within miles away to get gifted last November. FdP single handed cost that loss and some many others.
But he’s got the savvy of a rugby god legend, go sing me another one Einstein.
Just a pity he knows when to bale out the kitchen the arch opportunist he is, he knew only too well he’d get shown up as the has been if he played this year, no you and others all lamenting its because of FdP and F. Steyn why we lost this year, meanwhile its the same dumb schmuck game fdP played in Eoyt 09 that is precisely why we still losing yet. FdP or no Fdp makes no difference if idiots can’t play ball in hand rugby, which FdP can’t, then we up the creek with no paddle.
Hougaard young and inexperienced and takes too long to clear ball from behind scrum, (same with Sarel Pretorius), but with ball in hand he’s a thousand times better bet than FdP who’ll lose us plenty more like he done in the past if you carry on making him the god for all seasons that he ain’t.
3 Sep 2010, 04:58 am
@coherence(coherence)-51:
Actually, what I’ve described and what you’ve said here are not at odds.
The hybrid system currently being used (and that’s been in use since late 2008, from my vantage point) is attack-minded defense. It puts the ball-carrier under pressure behind the gain line, closing in like a noose and cutting the ball supply off before it reaches the wing, or at least slowing it down by forcing a loopy overhead pass.
It’s just a variation of your classic drift defense. Pinning defensive roles down to positions is dangerous when you “scramble” because, more often than not, players are going to be out of position. It’s easier to promote a system where, no matter where you are on the field, you know the gambit: pick a zone, stick your tackle, or come up and pressure.
However, all of that requires that you CHECK BEFORE YOU PRESSURE. You can’t be coming up to challenge the ball-carrier if you don’t know that your trailers have arrived. And if your trailers are slower than the ball, then your responsibility is to stay put and cover your zone. Just like you said, it’s a matter of following the wave — you just need to make sure you know where the crest is before you think of smashing someone against the rocks.
This all requires communication, awareness, and commitment to shutting the ball down at the contact point to make sure trailers can keep up with ball movement. Aus and NZ have picked up on this, which is why you’re seeing a lot more lateral ball movement with big runners challenging near the wings rather than near the rucks, because, essentially, the ball moves faster than people do, and if you keep running trailers left and right, eventually they’re not going to catch up anymore.
And it’s here where Habs screwed up. In fact, he’s screwed it up the last two Tests. He should’ve realized that this is the opposition’s adaptation to the defensive structure. He should’ve known (even just from checking in-game) that his trailers are not arriving because the ball is moving too fast laterally (and, as has been noted, because we seem to be somewhat unfit). And because he should’ve known this, he should’ve known that his defensive duty is to stay and defend his zone rather than come up to pressure the ball-carrier. By not sticking with this structure, he left massive overlaps on a number of occasions.
If you have recordings of previous Bok tests, particularly from 2009, go back and watch. It’s the same plot every time — meet the ball-carrier at the gain line if possible, drive them back if you make contact, and if you don’t, have the line advance at an angle with whoever’s on the end (usually a wing, outside centre, or occasionally fullback) shooting up to challenge the ball-carrier even if that means leaving a 1 or 2 man overlap. And those overlaps don’t matter because reinforcements are always there to “scramble” behind.
That changed in the second half against Aus, and I predict it will continue changing in the next match against Aus. We were standing back more and playing classic drift defense to counter the quick lateral ball movement, with the added responsibility for classic “trailers” (again, loose forwards, centres, flyhalf, scrumhalf) to provide “scramble” coverage. It worked, too, partly because we stopped surrendering the easy overlaps, and partly because we finally started sticking our first-up tackles.
Bla bla bla, anyway, the point is, it IS the drift defense, just a rush version of it. And Habs has been good with it, but now that things have changed from the opposition (who are onto us), he hasn’t adapted. Not good.
3 Sep 2010, 05:55 am
@MaraudingJ(MaraudingJ)-58:
I think what you are describing is more a rush defense, and is definitely not a drift defense.
In a drift defense the first line of defense can cover the whole width of the field. In the defense you’re describing, the outside defenders try to cut off passing lines, and if this doesn’t work a second line of defenders trailing behind covers the outside. This is definitely not how a drift defense works.
A hybrid defensive system is not a good idea. You have one of two options: cover the whole width of the field with a drift defense, or cut off passing lanes with a rush defense. If you try to do both you usually end up doing neither. The objectives of these defensive systems are completely different, and you can really only do one. Drift defensive systems are used more often because the rush defense can be risky and must be executed precisely.
Our defense was vulnerable at times last season, and has been very vulnerable this season. There are systematic problems based on players not drifting, and they could be solved with competent coaches.
3 Sep 2010, 08:10 am
#58 MJ, good post, like quite a few others on this topic, except for Gwanty10 and Snotskiets mindless, bigoted drivel about individuals being the problem. One who wasn’t there (FdP) and the other who shouldn’t be involved in backline defense (JS).
MJ, I like the awareness comment. I see this visualisation or seeing the full field as key as its the basis of marking, preventing a numerical advantage and the “overlap”. This is where NZ have been good and SA poor.
Pissant says defense is bad ’cause the team is changing – that’s what coaches are for. To make sure the full squad has the best training and knows the systems.
#22 DB; that last line that gwanty likes so much (“What we missed was someone to generate quick ball and slow down that of the opposition”)is why the NZ refereeing adjustments worked so well against the Boks. NZ was allowed to slow the ball down and SA got penalised every time they tried it.
I reckon SA badly needs a defensive coach. I see PdV and DM as liking, and hence are ok at coaching, attacking play. The Boks need to balance this with solid defensive coaching (Gold ain’t going to do it).
Whew, finally whoever fondly recalled Mallet & Snollymans firing JW (probably Snotskiet). Well we know what that contributed to don’t we. SA fluffing a RWC that they should of had an excellent chance of winning.
3 Sep 2010, 08:14 am
@husky(husky)-60: there you go again.
The fixation you have with Skop and i is seriously a worry…
3 Sep 2010, 08:17 am
skop knows 0 of rugby … he rates PDV, Earl Rose & Heini Adams.. Hougaard het die papsak haasbek suiper stil gespeel
3 Sep 2010, 10:04 am
@Boerboel(Boerboel)-19: Boerboel!
Lekker om te sien jy trap nog internetspore.
Ek stuur later vir jou ‘n possie.
Groete
3 Sep 2010, 13:50 pm
@Guns(Guns)-6:
And yet we won a Tri nations with Jean on the wing!!
3 Sep 2010, 18:26 pm
Habana ,Habana , Habana .
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.