Defensive flaws flog Boks…again
4 Sep 2010
RYAN VREDE writes that the Springboks’ defensive incompetence in the first half cost them victory.
Certainly to rebound from 31-6 down is a notable feat and speaks of character. The comeback was facilitated by an exponentially improved defensive effort and more clinical execution on attack. But ultimately it means nothing, and the Springboks have only themselves to blame for the defeat, their fifth in six matches.
Defensive failings have marked their campaign to date. But none of their performances in this regard have been so utterly shambolic, so diabolical, as what was on show in the first 40 minutes.
If they were defensively impotent last week, seven days later they were completely useless for 40 minutes. John Smit said after the Loftus win that a defensive performance like that wouldn’t win them the World Cup. Tonight’s effort would have seen them struggle against Grey Bloem.
They had the intensity of ballerinas at the tackle point and the accuracy of men cuffed and blindfolded, routinely falling off straight up hits. That’s when they put themselves in a position to make the hit, because on more than one occasion a flapping arm at a passing Aussie took the place of a conventional tackle. There was no evidence of the outside-in defence that was employed so successfully in 2009. There was none of the composure, controlled brutality, trust or communication that marked that period. The world champions defended like the chumps of the rugby world.
They missed an astonishing 15 tackles in the first half alone, and on five occasions missed two or more in the same move. Thrice those errors led to tries, the worst of which culminated in the Wallabies’ bonus-point score, where Bryan Habana and Jannie du Plessis failed, horribly, to scrag Drew Mitchell.
That saw them fall 31-6 down just 25 minutes into the game and at that point it seemed as if a caning was on the cards. Skipper Smit couldn’t rouse his troops because he was saving his energy for getting as much of the thin highveld air into his lungs as possible. He wasn’t alone in his patent fatigue, with numerous other heavies breathing so deeply I doubt there was any oxygen left in Bloem at half-time.
It would be acceptable if the onset of fatigue crept up without notice. But it didn’t. De Villiers was acutely aware that some of his key players were running on hope and adrenalin heading into the match. But the Bloem public’s viewing pleasure was deemed more important than a competent performance. That ludicrous decision was exposed.
Another perplexing call brutally exposed for its folly is the continued absence of a specialist openside flank. Such a player would have aided the Springboks’ ability to stifle the Wallabies’ attacking flow. Yet it was the visitors who dictated the pace with which the first half was played at. And it was a pace that caught the Springboks cold.
The the tide turned with Jaque Fourie’s late first half try. For 79 minutes it looked to be the significant score in the context of the result. The same diabolical Springboks lifted their performance markedly after the lock’s solo special, and in doing so exposed the Wallabies’ penchant for capitulating under pressure. Oh they are glorious and entertaining when faced with a feeble effort they were in the first half. But seldom has a Test team been as gutless, so defensively generous and so rudderless on attack, when under the pump.
But just as it seemed as if the Springboks had flogged the last bit of life out of their wounded foe, a defensive lapse gifted Mitchell a try, and with that hope was revived.
Kurtley Beale’s 50m dream killer after the siren had sounded plunged the Springboks into despair. But they will be mistaken to credit his accuracy, skill and composure for the defeat. They must reflect on a shocking first half for the root cause.
Follow SA Rugby mag on Twitter
172 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] Show All
5 Sep 2010, 14:12 pm
@RugbyRulz(RugbyRulz)-150: I’ve been following this madness of the new drinking laws in New Zealand.
18 to drink in a club but 20 to buy at the off licence? NZ is all a bit mental with their laws, remember I got my drivers at 15 there, 15 is sooo young looking back. And yet, they still reward kids for having babies at 16?
One of the weirder sets of laws NZ has.
5 Sep 2010, 14:20 pm
@goyougoodthing2(goyougoodthing2)-149:
1999 was the last time the Lions won anything – we klapped the Sharks to win the CC.
On Friday we klapped the WPians and look forward to meeting the Sharks and the Bulls in the next round – who knows with Mitch and King Carlos as our coaches maybe this can be the year of the Lion again.
5 Sep 2010, 14:22 pm
@RedLion is born again(RL)-152: I sense a resurgence at the lions and SA rugby needs it. That man Mitch is a genius.
Now if the Bok management look to the Lions and see who coached them when they came last in the S14 and didn’t win a match and then looked to see where that guy is now they may discover something quite profound that everyone else seems to know.
5 Sep 2010, 14:22 pm
@RedLion is born again(RL)-144:
Hey Red,
You Okes have more player resources than Oz and Nz combined.
And they (OZ) have less than us (NZ).
But they (OZ)still put up a great show.
And if RU, did not have RL to compete with in NSW and Q/land, we would both be in their shadow.
In fact, they would have won every RU WC, if they could call upon the talent available in the NRL.(Rugby League).
5 Sep 2010, 14:23 pm
I haven’t seen any Currie Cup games this year (TV only option where I live), but judging from the game reports here on Keo – the scores often seem very high (for both teams) – eg Bulls v Sharks – two of the top teams – at 40 – 34.
What’s happening to the defences? Is this being mirrored in your National Team – which as Keo points out has leaked 22 tries in 6 3N games.
Is ‘D’ not important in SA rugby anymore??
Just a question…
5 Sep 2010, 14:27 pm
@goyougoodthing2(goyougoodthing2)-151: Booze in Australia is 18 at pubs, clubs, restaurants and bottleshops. We are fairly democratic here, if you can hold a gun and vote… well then you can drink. Legal age in most respects in the land of Oz. 16 is the age of consent… but we wont go there.
5 Sep 2010, 14:27 pm
@BillTong(BillTong)-155: Good question. Sharks and WP have been good on defense except yesterday and Friday.
I think the rule seems to be ‘score more’. You may have a point.
5 Sep 2010, 14:29 pm
@RugbyRulz(RugbyRulz)-156: You guys have too many laws.
South Africa has one law I think. Pay your taxes. They are word class at collecting tax money. Anything else, you’re free to do as you please.
5 Sep 2010, 14:30 pm
@Panzer Chief(cane)-154: maybe but England have more player resources that all 3N combined – hell if they did not have football they would be unbeatable and they would basically own William Web forever … hell if we did not have football wich is an 80% sport here in the republic perhaps we would own William Web forever.
5 Sep 2010, 14:36 pm
@RedLion is born again(RL)-159: Choice is the problem. In the good old days
there was cricket and rugby. Oh and the toffs played tennis. 
5 Sep 2010, 14:37 pm
@RedLion is born again(RL)-159: Soccer is such a bad game. The World Cup was enough to relegate it from my list of ‘maybe should watch sometime’ to ‘never again even if you force my eyes open with matches”.
5 Sep 2010, 14:44 pm
@RedLion is born again(RL)-159:
And,
Oh Yeah Red,
If all these Boks coming home next year,
are going to be as good as Young Fronken Steyn.
You Mothers are Pharkked.
5 Sep 2010, 14:53 pm
@Panzer Chief(cane)-162: You guys are just lucky you have 100 000 of our best rugby players living there now
5 Sep 2010, 14:54 pm
@RedLion is born again(RL)-159:
True,
England have more Registered Rugby Players,
than NZ have in their TOTAL MALE POPULATION.
So what could 900,000 soccer players do to the equation. They are **** at Soccer………………..why would they be any good at RU.
DARTS…………….this is the true calling for any red blooded Pom.
(personally I find it an enthralling TV sport).
5 Sep 2010, 14:56 pm
@goyougoodthing2(goyougoodthing2)-163:
Two year ago Manawatu had 5 Saffas in their Squad.
5 Sep 2010, 15:00 pm
@Panzer Chief(cane)-165: My facebook mates told me about the Earthquake quicker than the news. Probably 1 in four of the people I studied with and knew at that time live in NZ now.
5 Sep 2010, 18:08 pm
He, he more squeaking and squealing from Bo fans and NZ and Oz crowing from the top of the dung heap. Guys, just face it, SA has the players but their coaching and admin is lacking. NZ and Oz are a total package BUT everyone lifts their game for RWC so NZ, who coast along at No. 1 feel thay just have to go through the motions and it will all fall into place. It hasn’t for a long, long time.
This time round they may get it right, particularly with SA in disarray and Po’B instructing the refs to blow to order.
We shall see.
5 Sep 2010, 18:14 pm
#148 – PANZER – Agree wholeheartedly re: Matfield – isn’t it amazing how many bloggers on this site think he should quit?
Regarding your locks – tricky question, but:
Lineout jumping
1) Matfield
2) Eales
3) Johnson
Leadership
1) Eales/Johnson
3) Matfield
Running/loose
1) Frik Du Preez
2) Benazzi
3) Matfield
4) Dauga
Tight play
1) Meades
2) Du Preez
3) Johnson
4) Benazzi
5) Dauga
6) Botha
Clearing a ruck
1) Meades
2) Botha
3) Du Preez
4) Johnson
Rolling Maul
1) Meades
2) Du Preez
3) Johnson
4) Benazzi
5) Eales
6) Botha
7) Matfield
Big Match Temperament
1) Johnson/Eales
3) The rest
On balance Colin Meades is still probably the best player per sue – but you could argue the toss: Johnson and Eales bring the capataincy factor to the table and it’s huge and you have to take it into account for overall value. Tough call …
5 Sep 2010, 23:22 pm
Seriously the defensive coach needs to take a long hard look at themselves.
In fact the whole group does. The will not be RWC winners playing like this. they could not string together five good game with mentality like this!!
On another point: If ever there was a more clear demonstration that, in the new game, when you are not scoring points, you are having them scored against you. Stonewall defence is just no longer an option – especially at the end of the match.
The Boks scored 34 unanswered points in the second half, and Australia could not score against us because they could not get their hand on the pill. But as soon as we catch up, we go into defensive mode (WRONG!), take our foot off the gas, and start KICKING THE FU@KING BALL TO THEM, allowing them to have a crack. Instead of continuing what we were doing, and putting 50 points on them. WHY!??????
SWEET MOTHER OF GOD what will it take to teach these idiots that possession is key? And that predictableness is poison? That 10 man CR@P at the end, trying to run the clock down – WHY??? We became predictable, and they knew exactly where to have their fetchers stand. Where was our faith in our ability to attack?
6 Sep 2010, 00:03 am
@J.B. Cowper(J.B. Cowper)-168:
Yeah, I’m guessing you studied Meads clearing many rucks and managing rolling mauls from the many vidoe clips of the time??
You can’t compare. The game was different, the rules different, the ball different, the players smaller.
How do you get that Meads was better at clearing a ruck than Botha?? Come on dude!
6 Sep 2010, 07:17 am
The bok coaches ust e drunk if they think they dont DESPERATELY need a defensive coach. Cause clearly **** aint a defensive coach. His record with the Boks and the Lions speaks for itself. A whole team of players cant all of a sudden becime rubbish defensively. So it MUST be the system they employ. Maybe its too complex?
Dunno. But it sucks.
6 Sep 2010, 09:57 am
#Whatever … I have seen footage of Meades in action, as it happens – on top of that I’ve spoken with people who’ve played with Meades and are still in a state of shock; and I’ve read the literature. He was part of Brian Lachores unbeatables (pre-1970) which included great players such as Tremain, Nathan and Gray, not to mention Lachore himself.
And before you go off on a rant about the relative size of players in those days compared today – it is not size we are comparing but skill level and value added.
Also, you can say what you like about the Kiwis, but they know their rugby and Meades is considered their best ever player by those who have seen it all.
Finally, whereas I would marry Bakkies Botha if he would have me, and rate his clearing skills as second to none in the modern game, he wasn’t as effective or BRUTAL as Meades (who played in the days when anything went in the game): Bakkies goes in battering ram head first, Meades went in FEET FIRST and got sent off famously for it.
He was more brutal than Bakkies. He always stood behind the Boks and respected them. I stand by my statement.
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.