Beaten by the best in the world

Was the Bulls plan to keep the ball in the forwards, thus naming just two back reserves on the bench?

Did the Crusaders fans believe their team would walk the match - and thus 10 000 tickets remained unsold?

They were questions that were evident before the match even began. In the most anticpated start to a match involving a South African side in some time, we were about to find out.

It was an ominous omen when the Bulls scrummie Fourie du Preez botched a take after letting the ball bounce. Besides one fantastic box kick that landed just outside the Crusaders 22, it was a sign of things to come for the Bulls half.

It was a further ominous sign when McCaw won three unbelievable turnovers within the first 5 minutes. On the eighth minute from a ruck 25 meters out from the Crusaders tryline, Jacques Cronje's poor ball carrying technique was again exposed as he was wrapped up and conceded the turnover.

By the 15 minute mark the Crusaders had won 5 turnovers to 1 by the Bulls. The Bulls had stayed in the game until that point through strong scrumming and their imperious lineouts.

After some frenetic kicking and chasing, the Crusaders were clearly having the better of the positional game. This seemed to rattle the Bulls and they promptly lost two of their own lineouts. The Crusaders looked stronger and stronger and the Bulls looked more hesitant on defence, standing back and allowing the Crusaders line to run at them. This led to good third phase ball allowing Laulala to put through a blind side grubber for Gear to score.

Danie Thiart watches Rico Gear get away Picture: Getty Images

With turnovers coming at will for the Crusaders the Bulls were looking increasingly out of it. A great hit on Laulala by Bakkies seemed to give an up-until-then frail looking Morne Steyn (his line kicking had been very ordinary) some life and he broke through the Crusaders line to gain ground and finally gain a penalty just in front.

The Crusaders came back immediately after pouncing on untidy Bulls ruck ball and swinging it wide to Gear who scored.

13-3 after 30 minutes and things not looking good for the Bulls. Despite things going against them they continued with their gameplan of kicking the ball onto the backs of the Crusaders. It hadn't worked until then and it continued not to.

Forwards don't like going backwards, and perhaps this was why the Bulls scrum were annihilated on their own scrum on the 35 minute mark. This allowed the red jerseys a good scrum position and allowed Carter the position for a drop goal.

Finally Matfield seemed to gather some urgency and opted to put a penalty into the corner. From the maul resulting from the lineout, Du Preez fired a low quick pass to put Habana into the corner. It was unconverted and the Crusaders led 16 - 8 going into the second half.

After I'd criticised the Bulls gameplan and lack of tactical appreciation last week, many Bulls supporters had been upset with me. I am sure they were groaning with me at the Bulls one dimensional performance in the first half. It is a South African disease that our players have an inability to change tactics when things are not going your way. It was the same criticism I had of the Stormers when they played like headless chickens against the Bulls. Surely Matfield could see that kicking deep infield was not yielding results for the Bulls? Surely a player of Jaco van der Westhuyzen's experience could have seen the need to vary the tactic? Joel Stransky had pointed out after the first Bulls-Crusader's match that it is very difficult for a full-back when his backs pursue the rush defence as he is isolated at the back and unable to launch a counter without support. That could not have been the excuse today as the Bulls did not rush.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for a big powerful pack of forwards to win primary phase ball and dominate the opposition upfront. I am all for crashing the ball up to suck players in before swinging the ball wide. Power up front is crucial to provide good possession. But it's what you do with it. It's the patterns you play. The Bulls (as is the case with most South African sides) lack tactical appreciation.

Meanwhile the Crusaders pick the plays to suit the field position and ball quality. And they do the basics well. Immediately after half time they put the ball through 17 phases of zero-error pick-and-go rugby before firing it out to Chris Jack to dive over.

The Bulls tried to change tactics and started recycling ball through rucks and then passing to one-off runners. After 14 phases, the Bulls had lost ground and finally lost possession. They had lost 22m and it was a contrast to the Crusaders having made 50m through their 17 phases moments earlier.

It started going downhill for the Bulls from there. They had lost Bakkies Botha and Habana and started making basic errors. The match was effectively over by the time Corey Flynn went over in the 64th minute.

Poor defence by Frikkie Welsh had led to Flynn's try, shocking defence by JP Nel led to Mauger's a short while later.

Pierre Spies got one back, but 35 - 15 was a fair reflection of the Crusader's dominance.

Bulls supporters accuse other SA supporters of "Bull hate." Heyneke Meyer remarked after the Stormers game that it felt as though the whole country was against them. Guys we cheered today. I got an early Friday night in anticipation of getting up early for a great game today. In South Africa's interest, we wanted a Bulls win today. So we all need to keep level heads and question what we can learn for South African rugby today.

What can we learn?

• Coach option taking - not static gameplans
• Improve ball protection and recycling - we concede too many turnovers
• Run to support not away from it
• Secure possession by committing sufficient numbers to the rucks
• Don't believe your own press - our players need to improve skills, e.g. Olivier is a prospect but runs cross field and has a two-movement catch and pass
• A kick gives away possession - make sure it gains enough ground to compensate.

Sorry Bulls. It was a great effort to get to the semi-finals and it's a great pity a South African side could not convert.

Well done Crusaders. You are the best provincial side in world rugby. There is not much you do badly and the Hurricanes will have to play out of their skins to beat you next week.

Flair versus strength

It was semi-final rugby. Low-scoring, high pressure stuff.

The first ten minutes saw some fantastic strength in defence from the Hurricanes. Through multiple phases, the yellow shirts repelled the blues with the Hurricane center pairing of Umaga and Nonu being immense. Collins is something freakish and opposition must dread being tackled by him.

During the first ten, the Waratahs botched fielding of three kicks and this gave the 'Canes chances to get into their half. They goaled two penalties from this.

Then the 'Tahs backline sparked to life through Tiquiri and Rogers. There is something about Australian sides on attack. Their skill levels are fantastic and the key is their command of the basics, including, "Let the ball do the work."

Further, Whittaker is a scrummie who does brilliantly what I believe is the position's most critical function: he gets to rucks and clears quickly. As Murray Mexted said, "He clears from the ground without picking the ball up."

It was exactly such quick clearance that led to the Waratah's first try after a rampaging Tiquiri run. Watching the big guy's pace, power and skills, it is easy to see what Mallet is looking for in a big powerful winger.

Tiquiri - rampaging on attack Picture: Getty Images

This match exhibited many of the characteristics of a South African side against the Aussies. Big powerful defence and power on attack and defence ('Canes) against skills and creativity ('Tahs). Both have their place and with the right tactics can be winning games. This was shown by Fa’atau's try. The Hurricanes turned the ball over through a massive defensive scrum and from the resulting 'Canes scrum, worked a basic wraparound from the right winger taking the reverse pass from Umaga. It was the powerplay and it worked.

The Canes also use their powerful loose trio on attack and Collins also often takes slow-phase ball in the flyhalf channel, allowing other players to work off him. This almost led to a try 10 minutes into the second half as Collins drew the rather ordinary looking Daniel Halangahu and then offloaded to Chris Masoe who ran powerfully upfield breaking tackles and setting up a ruck ten meters out. They were unlucky not to score as the Waratah's turned the ball over.

Failing to score is what eventually cost the Hurricanes. The Waratahs made infrequent trips into the 'Canes half, but twice when they did they forced Hurricanes errors and goaled penalties to take the lead. They were the only scores to punctuate long periods of Hurricanes possession and territorial domination.

Gopperth immediately got the 'Canes back into the game with a long range penalty. This sparked 10 minutes of frenetic attack by the Hurricanes. Despite the attack, again the 'Canes could not score but were good enough to retain possession until the final whistle.

Hurricanes 16 - Waratahs 14. Well done guys. Hard semi-final rugby.

What can South African sides learn about power versus flair?

Given the debate about power versus flair in the South African environment, what could we learn from this game? One is the oldest lesson in rugby - power game or not, the game might not be won but it can certainly lost through lack of a competitive forward game. This is the basis of the Crusaders' game. They have both power and flair, but their forward power ensures they are never dominated. The second lesson is that a power game can carry journeyman players - the 'Canes have a virtually anonymous tight five. But through powerful scrumming and an exceptional loose trio, they play a game that keeps them competitive.

What is the impact of lack of flair? You have to say that the 'Canes should have scored more often from the quantity of possession and territory they enjoyed in the second half. I always felt that the Waratahs might easily have got back into the game against the run of play through their superior creativity. The 'Canes against the Crusaders? I'm not sure their forwards have the grunt. The Bulls versus the 'Canes? Well it depends on whether the Bulls forwards show up or not.

Good Reffing

Kaplan reffed a great game - he lets things flow and we saw extended periods of play free of the whistle. Mexted complimented him as one of the two best referees in the Super 14 together with Lyndon Bray. Kaplan allowed players to crash into rucks off their feet and while this led to greater continuity it meant the rucks were less of a contest but more prone to error. It is little wonder then that sides are turning to the maul as a means of controlled error free ball - and also a means of winning acres of field.

Rassie Erasmus: future Springbok coach

There aren't many coaches in the Super 14 who have played in the professional era. There are fewer who have the potential to be the best in the coaching field. Rassie Erasmus has that potential.

I watched my recorded Boots & All from last week. There was a short interview with Rassie. Towards the end of the interview he summed up the season and got to what they'd learnt. The first thing he said was that he'd made some mistakes. He'd tried some things as coach that he thought would work and didn't. He didn't make excuses. He volunteered his learnings. Only then he talked about the players. All he said was that some have stepped up and some haven't. Then he finished by saying that for those players and coaches that didn't make it, they'd be pushed aside. The game was bigger than them.

Wow. No excuses. Nobody demanding his accountability. He volunteered it. What a difference.

It is difficult to believe that this is the man that Laurie Mains thought had psychological problems. It is far easier to reconcile the man we see today with the stories of the guy who spent every second focused on the game. Spending hours analysing his game, his teams game and the competitors on video.

To back all of that up, his team have held their heads high in this year's competition. And they hold the Currie Cup. On that day, Rassie stood smiling in the background.

What a refreshing difference in the South African coaching world.

Shocking Stormers

Nick Mallet and the Stormers owe their fans an apology. After the debacle at Loftus last year, they said it would never happen again. Well they played like schoolboys against a Super 14 side tonight.

To say that they were bereft of any tactical nous is an understatement. Their gameplan appeared to be to swing the ball to every side of the field and tire out the Bulls forwards. When their passes typically went behind the backs of their players, or along the ground, the tactic was clearly not going to work.

Further, when their commitment of defence meant jumping out of the way of the oncoming player (Joubert and Pietersen), it meant they were in for a hiding.

When Jake White said he did not want to cheapen the Springbok jersey by handing out too many new caps, he should have thought of how he might cheapen it by giving it back to players not only out of form, but lacking guts and passion. Joubert is such a player. After a stunning hit on Wynand Olivier earlier in the evening (the first 30 minutes were actually fairly good rugby), the rest of Joubert's effort rightly saw him summarily subbed.

But it was not only Joubert. The most worrying thing about tonight's game was that the Bulls won because they were allowed to play brainless brawny rugby (Bryan Habana's fantastic finishing aside). The Stormers tried to win the game by playing touch rugby. Some people have said that South African sides are overcoached and don't have the freedom to play the game as they see it on the field. If this is true and the gameplans we see our sides come up with (usually a plan A consisting of one tactic) then we are in even worse trouble than I had ever feared.

Bryan Habana beats a dispairing Luke Watson for his first try Picture: Reuters

I don't believe that any coach puts together a gameplan that says, "In the 65th minute we'll do this." But surely the players and coaches drill to strengths and weaknesses based on basics. Everyone knows the Bulls are going to maul the ball up. Watching the Waratahs-Hurricanes match today would have given the Stormers a few clues. To counter the maul the only way to do it is to commit numbers early and get a counter shove on. The Stormers didn't do this and one Bulls maul advanced all of 40 metres. The Aussies apparently focus on drills like running support lines and picking channels to run on attack to prevent being isolated. That is something the Stormers have clearly never heard of.

A good leader looks at how things are going and if not in one's favour, tries to figure out little things to try and reverse the trend. That should have been to slow the all down a bit and play for field position when the Stormers were trying to run through the Bulls from their 22. It's not as complicated as some would make out. When you see your side getting punished and heads beginning to drop, it's a quick thought, "How can I get a small victory that will just get us on top again for a minute? Something to give us a chance? A kick for the corner? Attacking the flyhalf channel and keeping the ball for a few phases?"

Someone once said, "Big battles are won an inch at a time."

As a South African, I am delighted that we have a team in the semis. I never mind losing after having seen a side give their all. But contrasting the Stormers effort against the Crusaders to this just beggars belief.

I am also concerned that the Bulls have very limited chances of beating the Crusaders. The Crusaders' pack is getting back to its best and the Bulls will not have it all their own way. They have the best flyhalf in the world who will not just play one way but based on the changing conditions of the match. They also have backs who are drilled in the basics and will run good lines and ask many more questions of the Bulls on attack than the Stormers did (except for the one time they made a good pass and De Villiers ran a reverse angle to score).

During the first 25 minutes I enjoyed what looked to be a great contest with first the Bulls attacking the Stormers' line in waves and then the Stormers returning the favour in the Bulls half. Both sides defended well and the game was played at a furious pace.

Fourie du Preez looked like the Springbok incumbent and his box kicks sowed destruction amongst the Stormers. The Bulls tight five were immense on attack and defence but need to watch the niggle - they won't win against many sides the next time they are down to 14 men for 20 minutes.

It is contrasts like these that make me want to tear my hair out. Where is the consistency? Why do we see players like De Kock play like a champion against the Chiefs and the Crusaders and then like a chump against the Bulls? Why did De Wet Barry begin to look the part again and then look like a pensioner tonight? I believe that it because South Africans rely on one thing to win matches - gees (spirit/passion). And when every one of the fifteen don't show up willing to play out their socks, their lack of basics, skills and on-field intelligence gets shown up.

Good luck in the semis Bulls. Please show-up for the match like you did today and in your victory against the Sharks. Also, maybe think a little.

(One post script: well done to the Newlands crowd for being so sporting tonight. It was the knowledgeable Newlands of old. Maybe Robbie Fleck’s article made a difference. Although, maybe it was just because there seemed to be a couple of thousand Bulls supporters down south…)

Well done Sharks!

It was a game that could never continue at the pace it started. The Sharks began like they had a plane to catch en-route to a semi final. Odwa Ndungane was everywhere with two great pieces of finishing. His workrate matches his brother and between them they are two of the hardest working wings in the country. Ndungane finished and Brent Russell created. Russell was magic tonight and his supporters will be once again claiming Springbok honours for this performance.

Jacques Botes scored a fantastic try from a set move working off the lineout. The Sharks did it twice - passing to a loosie from the top of the lineout who then broke through the lineout. It was clearly practiced and it worked.

The Sharks have made mauling their strength and their efforts contributed to their early dominance. They'll have to watch for truck-and-trailer though - their binding at the back is rather loose.

Scot Mathie played a fantastic game as scrumhalf tonight and looks a real prospect. His service was sharp and he has one of the best box kicks I've ever seen.

But things started to go against the Sharks when AJ Venter and Johan Ackerman went off. It was immediately evident how much the Sharks have benefitted from their form this season and suddenly the Sharks first phase possession began to dry up.

To add to this, a strange experiment by Dick Muir in moving John Smit to loosehead never looked like working and the Sharks took a pummelling in the scrums.

By the second half, it seemed to be a different game and the Sharks had to work very hard for their fourth try. Britz was rewarded for his hard work on the night with the score.

From then on, the Sharks looked anything but like semi-finalists. The Force came back strongly and the Sharks were made to defend for long periods. The home side were lucky not to get carded for continuous infringing in their defensive efforts, although the repeat offences gave the opportunity for one of the moments of the night when Paul Honiss asked John Smit to talk to his players - and added with a wink, "I'll let you know when I'm restarting play."

The Sharks early pace clearly tired them and perhaps this was partly responsible for their second half performance tonight. But what they can be assured of, is if they play like that in the semi-final, they will be home immediately afterwards.

Monty kicked fantastically, but needs to up his workrate on attack and defence. I'm not talking about his token efforts at ruck time - he has to improve defence of the channel around the loose and tight. He also has to look to join the line on attack and beat the opposing defence. He did make a fantastic pass to contribute to one of Ndungane's tries.

Butch looked rusty and unfit tonight and had one of his traditional poor efforts tonight on Digby Ioane after he scored.

One final point is that after all the talk about skills, I was appalled to see Andries Strauss having to reverse his hands to make a pass to his right. That's really piss-poor skills and passing both ways is something that should be honed at schoolboys level.

But on the whole, well done Sharks for a fantastic first half effort and making the semis. We'll all be holding thumbs that AJ and Johan Ackerman are fit for next week.

Lastly, the standard of callers into Engage on DSTV improved tonight with a call from Smuts Ngonyama, head of the presidency! And he made some very good points on the Sharks winning requirements for next week against the Crusaders.

A more adventurous Springbok selection

Jake White's comments to the Rapport about things he would like to try made me very excited. He talked about trying Habana at centre. So I thought based on that and two more matches, I'd propose a slightly more adventurous Springbok selection than my last.

Photo: Sasol Springbok Images

Here's my second selection with second choices in brackets (bold indicating a new selection, bold italics indicating a positional switch from my inital selection).

First Choice	Second Choice
1. JD Moller - Stormers	[Lawrence Sephaka - Cats]
2. John Smit - Sharks	[Schalk Brits - Stormers]
3. BJ Botha - Sharks	[Eddie Andrews - Stormers]
4. Bakkies Botha - Bulls	[Johan Ackerman - Sharks]
5. Victor Matfield - Bulls	[Ross Skeate - Stormers]
6. Luke Watson - Stormers	[AJ Venter - Cats]
7. Schalk Burger - Stormers	[Juan Smith - Cheetahs]
8. Pedrie Wannenberg - Bulls	[Joe van Niekerk - Stormers]
9. Ruan Pienaar - Sharks	[Fourie du Preez - Bulls]
10. Jaco van der Westhuyzen - Bulls	[Meyer Bosman - Cheetahs]
11. JP Pietersen - Sharks	[Odwa Ndungane - Sharks]
12. Jaque Fourie - Cats	[De Wet Barry - Stormers]
13. Bryan Habana - Bulls	[JP Nel - Bulls]
14. Akona Ndungane - Bulls	[Giscard Pieters - Cheetahs]
15. Percival Montgomery - Sharks	[Bevin Fortuin - Cheetahs]

So this is based on an entirely different logic to my last selection which tried to mix Jake's policy of selecting the incumbent and then thinking of form.

My changes start with selecting Schalk Brits ahead of Gary Botha as backup to John Smit. This is a selction based on sheer excitement value - I agree with Jake that Brits needs to firm up on his basics, specifically his lineout throwing.

My next change brings AJ Venter in as a loose forward backup. My loose forward backups don't correspond directly to where I'd play them. I would clearly not play AJ on the open side, but with Luke Watson and Schalk Burger in the starting line up and both possible opensiders, a number of possible combinations are possible - including picking either of Luke or Schalk as the starting opensider with Juan Smith or AJ as the closed side flank.

After being delighted that Jake would consider Habana as a center, that has made selecting the rest of the backline a bit difficult. Habana is an outside centre, so finding him a partner means a rejig or dropping Jaque Fourie. The latter cannot happen, and something about Jaque Fourie at inside centre and Habana at outside centre is very exciting. Bringing Habana in at centre means we would need a new left wing. In the spirit of being adventurous, I think picking JP Pietersen has tonnes of potential and is a pick for the future. So I've picked him. There is a real problem as backup left wing - no one outside of Habana and Pietersen has shown international class. So I'll assume that Odwa Ndungane can handle the switch - as I did in my initial selection.

Moving Jaque Fourie inside, has meant that I've relegated De Wet Barry to the bench, dropping Wynand Olivier. I thought Olivier's performance against the Crusaders (crabbing across the field, etc) was worrying enough to warrant this anyway. I've kept JP Nel in the side giving him the benefit of the doubt.

In the spirit of adventure, I've dropped Breyton Paulse from my line up and promoted Akona Ndungane. I've brought in Giscard Pieters as the form right wing behind Ndungane.

I've continued to leave Jean de Villiers out based on his shocking defensive performance at 12 this season and his spoilt brat reaction at being moved to the wing.

Do I think Jake will select anything like this side? No. But it does show how difficult moving Habana into centre will be as a disruption. Exciting though.

Butch James - sorry you're back

Butch James Picture: scrum.com

I mentioned Butch's mountaineering incident on Luke Watson in my match analysis.

Watching my recording of the game, I was astounded by the number of incidents involving him. He was lucky the Stormers did not attack his channel from rucks more (mainly because they did not have many of their own rucks). Butch was in virtually every ruck on defense - 80% of the time with a Stormers player in a headlock.

In the loose or in any tackle he made, he looked to get some needle in.

There was also talk for a citing for Butch's punch on Watson.

If Butch concentrated on his game, he could be one of the best. He has proved over a number of years he cannot.

Who was responsible for Cats selection this season?

It remains a mystery to me how the Cats backline containing Springboks from 9 to 14, have been mixed and matched all over the show this season.

Tonight they looked the business against the Blues, with Pretorius, Julies and Fourie setting the park alight.

Unfortunately, the backs looked as defensively frail as ever and as a Stormers supporter, I rejoice the day Earl Rose turned his back on the Stormers for bigger money.

Other players in the Cats look good, none more so than Ernst Joubert and Baywatch Grobbelaar. The new pick, Jano Vermaak, was a breath of fresh air.

With Alistair Coetzee, the Bok backline coach, coaching the Cats backs, it is a complete mystery why so many variations of the Bok backline have been tried before trying players in their default positions.

Sharks and Stormers play old-fashioned test rugby

Peter Grant typifies crunching first half defense Picture: Getty Images

It wasn't a game for running rugby or pretty moves. A howling gale appeared to make things very difficult for both teams at Kings Park.

The first half was all Sharks and their ball protection was out of the top drawer. The Stormers hardly saw the ball and possession and territory were in the high numbers in their favour.

Equally, the Stormers' defense of their line was gutsy stuff. They repelled waves of attack during every one of the first 20 minutes and again later in the half.

The difference between the sides during the first half was committed numbers to the ball. The Sharks forwards played to their support runners and committed numbers to the mauls and rucks. Speaking of mauls, they had clearly practiced the tactic and the Stormers seemed almost powerless to defend against it. One such rolling maul advanced over a full twenty metres and the Sharks were unlucky do be denied a try after both the referee and TMO were unsighted of the grounding.

While the Sharks were just fantastic in their commitment of numbers to the breakdown, the Stormers played to Mallet's belief that overcommitting numbers to the breakdown opens up too much space out wide. As a result, Schalk Burger and Big Joe spent far to much time out wide and Luke Watson was consigned to play a lonely defense of the tryline with the tight five. I understand the theory regarding overcommitting numbers to the defense, but such was the Sharks' control of the ball, that the Stormers never looked like winning turnovers or forcing the Sharks' into mistakes.

Speaking of the tight fives, I had eagerly awaited the battle between the Stormers and Sharks in the tight phases all week. The Sharks emerged clear winners although the Stormers never gave up - even calling scrums at penalties in the last quarter when all they needed was a goal to draw even. One has to question that given the Stormers' prowess in the lineouts. But perhaps they weren't ready to back Edmonds' throw-ins as the third choice hooker after Brits' late withdrawal.

It was hard uncompromising stuff and not a game that will be remembered for creative play. Highlights were the Sharks' multi-phase attack of the Stormers' line throughout the first half, the Stormers' incredible defense (never better characterised than through Shimange's hit on AJ Venter), Murray's incredible effort to stay in and score in the corner, Montgomery's conversions in a howling gale, Ruan Pienaar showing he could play in dour test-match rugby, Chumani Booi's fantastic workrate in the second half when he came on for Joubert and tight, controlling rugby played by the Sharks' forwards.

I was disappointed by Schalk Burger and Joe van Niekerk's efforts - I felt their workrates were below par and left the rest of the pack too much to do. I was surprised by Butch James' return to Super Rugby, but sadly not by his boots-and-all effort all over Luke Watson's neck in the loose during the first quarter. In my book he remains a hot head with more promise than performance.

Well done Sharks. Stunning tight-loose performance.

The sad crossover from Super 14 to porn...

In this exclusive exposé, we present evidence of a worrying trend: Super 14 rugby players moonlighting as porn stars.

Sad.

Rideke "Big Hair" Samo - 'nuff said Picture: Getty Images

Caleb Ralph boasts a classic 70's 'tache Picture: Getty Images

Rueben Thorne had the best moustache of all last night against the Bulls. Today, one of the Brumbies reserves also sported the most spectacular "mullet" seen since the seventies. Anybody with photographic evidence please paste the link as a comment.

Maak die Bulle almal Bokke?

What was this? Did the Bulls leave their heads and their hearts at home?

Die Blou Bul eet nie van die vloer af nie? Dis omdat die Crusaders die vloer met hulle gevee het.

This game reminded me of the Boks at Twickenham in 2002 - clueless. Lack of possession and some positional nous from Daniel Carter made the Bulls look desperate after 10 minutes.

Daniel Carter attacked Morne Steyn's channel from the beginning, one such effort resulting in Mauger's try. Steyn's many punters might like to comment on his whereabouts - he was absent.

Daniel Carter's brilliance notwithstanding, the Pretoria side never looked in the game. They were in fact an embarrassment. The Force would have beaten them tonight and possibly even the Cats. Don't give me any rubbish about the Crusaders being a different side from the one that the Stormers beat last week. Of course Carter made a difference, but don't tell me he won this match and made the Bulls look like idiots. They managed to do that all by themselves.

So unbelievable was the difference between the Bulls first half performance against the Sharks to this week's effort, that I'd do some investigation for possible match fixing.

The Bulls protection of the ball was, to put it kindly, pathetic, and on multiple occassions the ball was merely taken from the attacking player's grasp. No time more vitally than by Daniel Carter from Jacques Cronje as he attacked the line. This occurred just after Matfield had turned down an option to kick at poles from close to in-front.

This match did some of the Bulls players' reputations no good at all. I'd picked the Bulls centre pairing as my back-up Bok combination. No more. The crabbing across the field and pedestrian passing meant they lost ground every time the ball went down the line. I believe JP Nel dodged out of a tackle in the first half.

Frikkie Welsh clearly knows nothing about marking and forcing his opposite man outside - this led directly to the Crusaders' first try.

Bakkies Botha and Victor Matfield jogged around the field and watched rucks form and their players lose the ball.

The Bulls running of support lines was so bad that not one but two passes went into touch.

Further, the men in blue squandered no less than five takes against the line-out throw, either kicking the ball away or running across the field.

It was fitting that basics and Daniel Carter cost the Bulls what would have been a spectacular length of the field try in the last two minutes of the game. If the guy on the inside of Danie Rossouw had drawn Carter, he would have put Rossouw over.

When it's not your night, nothing goes your way. The Crusaders should have had two yellow cards against them for blatant fouls - one by Caleb Ralph and one by Corey Flynn. But frankly it would not have made a difference.

Why can't SA Super Rugby teams play every weekend like the last?

It's one of the great imponderables.

But suffice to say, SA teams have the most fragile psyches in the world. The Bulls can't win on the road, the Stormers can't play for 80 minutes, the Sharks can't win at Loftus or Newlands and the Cats can't win - hey, each has their problem.

It does seem to be a South African disease. We generally can't stand arrogance in others - we hate the Aussies for their arrogance and whinging. Yet we have a pretty good record of shooting our mouths off and less evidence than we'd like to support our contention as being one of the best (in either rugby or cricket).

What we seem to be missing is the quiet self-belief that comes from a winning culture.

I went to school at SACS - producer of Ross Skeate, Ismael Dollie, Paul Delport, Percival Montgomery, Peter Kirsten amongst others. But my time there sadly did not coincide with winning results and we typically got thumped by Paul Roos, Paarl Gym, Bishops and had patchy performances against Rondebosch and Wynberg.

Later, playing club rugby at Villagers, it was an eye-opener watching guys from SACS and other underperforming schools suddenly start playing with belief. They were playing next to guys who'd run over them at school and in one of the top clubs in the Cape. Suddenly they were favourites.

You see belief is 70% of the game. When you run onto that field believing the game is yours to lose two things happen. Firstly, you expect a high standard of your team-mates and yourself. You have a record and reputation to lose. But secondly and far more importantly, you enjoy the game. I tell you what, winning feels great. Anybody who has kids: don't tell them that losing doesn't matter and it's the experience that counts. Yeah sympathise with a loss, but encourage a win.

Now put yourself in the shoes of our teams with some of the above expectations - Bulls, you will lose on the road. Cats, you've got the worst record in Super Rugby. Stormers, well you'll produce an occasional moment of brilliance or even game (remember the Blues in Auckland, 2004?), but you'll never sustain it. Sharks, well you just don't have enough greats anymore.

That's a psychology that needs to be broken. Which is very difficult to do from the inside. It is easier for Laurie Mains to coach the Cats and say they have the beating of a New Zealand team and generate the belief. It is easier for Tony Brown to get Ruan Pienaar to believe he's the next great South African scrumhalf.

The difference between self-belief and arrogance is reality. And the reality is that this last weekend showed our capability and potential. But the reality is also that we have by far the worst share of the spoils against our traditional Antipodean competitors.

In order for South African teams to move to the top of the log, either an outside influence must be wrought to change the psychology (the radical, quicker option) or self belief and acceptance of reality must be built.

The latter is the more likely course. Good leaders typically have an innate understanding of how to accomplish this. Psychologists have methodologies. Common to both is a realistic and frank, dispassionate assessment of the facts. Then a plan is built with a moderate goal and the method for achieving it. And then things are typically taken one day at a time, one match at a time within the plan.

We have had some good leaders who have achieved this. Francois Pienaar, Kitch Christie, Gary Teichman and Jake White. If you have the chance (if you have not seen it) watch a tape of SA's 1995 World Cup journey. The most remarkable excerpt was Joel Stransky's commentary on the preparation for the final against the All Blacks. He recounts that during the video session they watched Jonah Lomu run over everyone. At the end there was a hush. Kitch Christie stood up after a while and remarked in an off-hand manner, "We can take them," and walked out of the room. Joel remembers, "Well if Kitch thinks we can take them, then of course we can."

Battles are won an inch at a time. To regularly relive weekends like this last one, South African teams need to do the following:

• We are starting at the bottom of the pile - 4 wins out of 11 matches for the Stormers - those are the facts.


• X and Y has been responsible for our performance - our teams have all the stats in the world to help them accomplish this task - ask Gary Gold. X might be possession, Y might be missed tackles.


• Our moderate goal for next season is to finish in the top 6, achieve a tackle success rate of 80% and achieve an aggregate of 60% possession per match.


• In order to meet our moderate goal, we need to beat the following teams: ......

Nobody is saying you don't go out there to win every game (remember the outcry when Alan Solomons rested his key players for a match on the road in New Zealand?).

But a the above attitude allows you to go into a match like the one against the Crusaders thinking, "You know, winning this match is a bonus to our plan. Let's go out there and have some fun trying to pull that off." And it is amazing how the decreased pressure, realism and enjoyment lead to better than expected results. (By the way, nobody has fun missing tackles - whether against a team targeted for a win or not - you get the idea?)

Of course it's difficult to play the above back to supporters who expect wins in every match. SA Cricket tried in a summarised fashion, talking of "Brave Cricket." I think the summarised description is necessary.

SA teams have a mountain to climb in changing the recent Super Rugby losing culture. They better have a good plan that addresses the psychology of that if they wish to relive weekends like the last more regularly.