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.
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…)
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…)
posted at 8:01 PM
4 Comments:
So our dear Stormers couldn't even lose gracefully! How dare they lose by such a massive margin!!??
I had to 'watch' as my beloved Sharks were knocked out of the semis on points difference. What a shame...
If the Bulls can keep the momentum and form going, they can definately upset the Crusaders.
Bad news for the Sharks and for Del it seems. :)
Del: I feel for the Sharks. I feel for anybody who lost out because of such a pathetic effort.
Chit: I'm not sure. I don't believe the Bulls have the tactical games to beat the Crusdares. Their forwards won't have it all their own way and the Bulls backs are nowhere near the Crusaders - with the exception of Ndugane and Habana. But rugby is a strange game and ultimately it will be about who "shows up" on the day.
At the beginning of the season I believed that the Bulls would be the only team to upset the Saders. They couldn't do it at Loftus and they definitely won't be able to do it on the road.
But, like you said, it's a strange game!
Post a Comment
<< Home