The Bok problems are systemic
This post is also being carried on Ou Grote and Ruggaworld
Let's get this straight - South African rugby is in a a better state on the playing field than it has been in many years. We currently have the best depth of talent of any rugby nation. Sadly, off the field and possibly at Bok level, things fall apart.
Coming back to win against the Aussies last week was a tick against the character of the Bok side. Whether it should have required two brilliant drop goals or have been settled through taking earlier penalties is a moot point.
However, let's also be blatantly honest about the last few weeks. We have not once hit our straps. Not even for a 20 minute period. By hitting our straps, I'm talking about putting it all together like the Bulls did against the Reds to win their place in a semi-final. Of course, those days don't happen very often. Not for a full 80 minutes. But consider one thing - watch yesterday's test against the All Blacks and marvel at them clicking for about ten minutes between about about the 27th and the 37th minutes. The interplay between backs and forwards was breathtaking, as was their retention, lack of mistakes, support play and running lines.
Now consider the overall pattern of Bok play. It is difficult to pick out a period where the Boks looked breathtaking. Could this be the beginning of the payoff of Graham Henry's conditioning program and the impact of some very hard rugby on the Boks? That's the excuse Jake made after the match. Besides the fact that the All Blacks might benefit from the conditioning program and that they might be beginning to find one another in a way that a side can only do through playing together, I'm not buying the "Boks are tired" excuse. Of course the injury to John Smit is proving to be massive. Of course the Boks are missing their world class finisher, Habana. And of course, Hougaard might have been a better bet to close out yesterday's game than Frans Steyn, but looking for excuses there misses the bigger problems.
Captaincy
Despite Heyneke Meyer's opinions to the contrary, Victor Matfield is not even a captain's arse. Sure a captain needs to have the players' respect and preferably be the best in his position. However, reading the game's state of play remains the elusive quality in South African captaincy ranks. There have been remarkably few captains in South Africa, at provincial or national level, that have been able to read the game and alter tactics. In recent times, Bobby Skinstad stands out and possibly Gary Teichman. There have been others who could get their teams to win through loyalty and bloody mindedness, but that approach takes its toll. In days gone by, Micheal du Plessis was one of the finest readers of the game I've ever seen. Naas was pretty good. Morne du Plessis was one of those thinkers and motivators. We really don't have too many players like that around at the moment.
Scrumming
For some reason we believe we have the birthright to dominate at scrum time. Let's just kill that idea once and for all. As powerful a player as Os still is. As world class as our locks are. As big as some of our loosies are. We have looked average in every match this season - England, Samoa, Australia and now New Zealand. Let's also give John Smit his due. His absence must have reddened a few faces in Pretoria and that of Stofile. The impact of Smit's loss at scrum time and in captaincy has been immense. If all it does is to shut up the maniacal Gary Botha / one eyed Bulls supporters who call into Super Rugby on a Monday and rant about Gary Botha's divine right to don the green and gold, then perhaps we're closer to getting real with ourselves.
Structure and options
Of late, many have criticised South African coaches for coaching creativity out of players. This may well be true. However, general principles do apply. Attacking off turnover ball, playing for position when up on the scoreboard, running lines, etc. David Campese made an observation after the Australia test. He said that he believes support players should be calling the running lines and attack, not the ball carrier - this prevents isolation. Whether he's right or wrong, it is the absence of these types of principles that often results in poor option taking and lack of structure on the field. Somewhere in the second quarter yesterday, the Boks won a fantastic turnover just inside their half. What happened? Butch kicked the ball.
At around the 65th minute yesterday, the Boks suddenly remembered the pick and go as a tactic. They tried about 5 of them before getting smashed and conceding the turnover. Making the right choices spontaneously comes from hours of practice and experience. Making the right choices according to the field position, ball quality and match situation comes from leadership, communication and planning.
Rucking
Those of you who know me, know that I believe this is the number one issue with South African rugby. Yesterday showed this up again. People can point to individuals all they like, but we have to acknowledge that our ruck-time patterns are just horribly wrong. In the nineties, rugby science began to question the optimal numbers committed to rucks and the impact on next-phase attacks or defence. Whatever the conclusions, the result has been that our rucks have lost their optimum patterns and some players do not commit at all.
Rucks need the right combinations of players to work. An attacking ruck needs good ball carriers, good supporting runners, cleaners and quick service. A defensive ruck needs good contesting (through the fetcher / opensider) and good pressure through committed counter rucking. Both defensive and offensive rusks need clearly aligned support for the next phase.
The offensive ruck provides the best opportunity for penetrating the stronger defences of today. While lineouts suck in the majority of forwards and allow the start of the maul, rucks allow teams multi-phase play with potential quick ball and allow the attacking team to more precisely control the position and timing of the attack. Quick ruck-time ball remains a deadly threat to even the best defensive teams. Depending on the field position and state of the opposition defensive lines, the attacking team may choose to pick-and-go, break and set up a maul, swing the ball wide, suck in players and kick for space, or set up another ruck. Further, ball carriers can choose the point of impact and use this to target players in the other team, committing them to the ruck on defence. Defending the ruck saps energy and opens up space. To make this work, playing patterns need to be precise. As much as we are moving towards the uniformly large, fast and strong rugby player, eighth-men and closed-siders tend to make better ball carriers, locks tend to make better cleaners and front rowers tend to provide better support in the later phases. Combinations need to work together on the optimal running lines to ensure the ball carrier is not isolated and that target point of attack is committed. The reason for the roles of each forward is often as simple as the fact that the first phase is often a scrum and those roles are determined by the break-up pattern of the forwards. But clearly their physical attributes play a role.
Back to Springbok rugby, and the commitment of the players to this pattern is limited. Yesterday's game clearly showed Matfield's liability at ruck time and Bakkies' lack of fitness (he was again fantastic for the first 30 minutes, Matfield was pretty much absent throughout). Consider the possession stats that saw the Boks with more than 60% up after 30 minutes and end on just above 40%. Look also at the loose forward combination. As big and strong as Schalk Burger is, and as awesome a ball carrier as Bobby Skinstad is, they're lost without the supporting pattern. The typical break from the base of the scrum was a good example of the disaster. Under pressure from the Boks' poor scrum, resultant wheel to the wrong side and opposition scrummie on his heels, Skinstad was always in a poor position to pick up and carry. While Schalk was immense and a good partner for Bobby, Roussouw seemed a little slow. From there things fell apart, with the backs more often than not committing to support in the absence of the locks. Pienaar often struggled to get clean second phase ball, and as a result the backline again looked devoid of any potency on attack.
It's easy to blame De Villiers for looking poor on the back of this, but in reality, few backs can create without any space and with slow ball.
Lack of fluency
Having said that De Villiers has been the victim of poor quality ball is not to excuse him for his part in the paper tiger that is our Springbok backline. He looks nothing like the player once rated the most exciting inside centre in world rugby. Outside him, Jaques Fourie has looked undercooked. And of course, being a wing outside that lot means you're never going to score unless from broken play. For years now we've lamented the lack of involvement of our wings and cheered only when they've looked for work. We've decried the limited times that Monty has joined the line. Fix the basics and that will change.
Wayne Julies deserves to wear the Bok 12 right now. His superior distribution might just fire Jaque Fourie. Failing that, given Jake's apparent intention to rest his first choice team, Waylon Murray might be worth testing outside him on the away leg of the Tri-Nations.
However, without securing better quality of ball from scrums and rucks, without thought as to patterns and structures according to the state of the game, our backline will continue to look prosaic.
What works
There is no doubt we possess the best lineout in world rugby. Matfield and Botha are peerless as jumpers at 2, 3, 4 and 5. As with all things though, we tend to overplay our strength. Of course the lineout offers one of the best attacking platforms from five meters out. And of course being able to compete on the opposition's ball allows for fantastic attacking potential.
Jake's consistency is selection has benefits. His belief in Ashwin Willemse might just be rewarded. For a guy to have been out for so long to play with the hunger and workrate Willemse did yesterday is remarkable. Monty is in sublime form at the moment and provides the team with dependability, if not always under the high ball. Butch looked better yesterday than he has and provides a safe option at flyhalf. His distribution needs work though and he needs to run on to the ball more - he's currently a little flat footed.
The most important thing going for the Boks at the moment is the self-belief they seem to have post their good Super 14. Perhaps these losses will make use stronger in blunting possible arrogance. However, the problems we have have existed for a long time. It is asking a lot to overcome them suddenly prior to the world cup.
The Tri-Nations away leg
Jake's squad has been announced and his strategy is to rest his top players. The squad is:
Johan Ackermann, Eddie Andrews, Gary Botha, Deon Carstens, Tonderai Chavhanga, Michael Claassens, Bolla Conradie, Bismarck Du Plessis, Jannie Du Plessis, Bevin Fortuin, Peter Grant, Derick Hougaard, Wayne Julies, Hilton Lobberts, Johann Muller, Waylon Murray, Wynand Olivier, Breyton Paulse, Ruan Pienaar, JP Pietersen, Jaco Pretorius, Bob Skinstad, Albert van den Berg, Wikus van Heerden, AJ Venter, Cobus Visagie, Pedrie Wannenburg, Luke Watson.
As usual, some of White's choices are baffling. Chavanga's long absence does him no favours. How Claassens gets in ahead of the in form Heini Adams boggles the mind. Fortuin's fantastic 2006 season form was not carried into 2007. Breyton Paulse remains the best organiser of the Bok rush defence, but was woefully out of form in the Super 14, short on workrate and pace. Eddie Andrews' name will have many people tearing their hair out. Jaco Pretorius remains a curate's egg.
On the plus side, White has either been overruled or been prepared to reconsider Cobus Visagie and Luke Watson despite his previously stated views on both. The promising form of Peter Grant (apparently sublime for the Emerging Boks) has been recognised.
My match 22 for the away leg would be (regardless of the selected squad - but with resting, testing and giving existing players a chance to build continuity in mind):
Francois Steyn, JP Pietersen, Waylon Murray, Wayne Julies, Odwa Ndungane, Peter Grant, Ruan Pienaar, Bob Skinstad (captain), AJ Venter, Luke Watson, Ross Skeate, Johan Ackerman, Cobus Visagie, Bismark du Plessis, Deon Carstens. Substitutes: Derick Hougaard, Heini Adams, Pedrie Wannenberg, Hilton Lobberts, CJ van der Linde, Gary Botha, Gurthro Steenkamp.
Frankly, I believe that a test is a test and I hate the thought of losing due to resting first choice players en mass. I'd rather see rotation happening over the long term and in an organised fashion. However, we are where we are. The danger is that we might well provide the All Blacks with just the step up they require to regain the fluency in their game we caught only a glimpse of yesterday.
If current form is to be continued, I wonder if the following team should end up in the World Cup semis:
Percival Montgomery, JP Pietersen, Waylon Murray, Wayne Julies, Bryan Habana, Butch James, Fourie du Preez, Bob Skinstad (vice captain), AJ Venter, Schalk Burger, Victor Matfield, Bakkies Botha, Cobus Visagie, John Smit (captain), Deon Carstens. Substitutes: Francois Steyn, Ruan Pienaar, Pierre Spies, Danie Roussouw, CJ van der Linde, Bismark du Plessis, Gurthro Steenkamp.
Of course, I'd have Bakkies running up sand dunes first and tie a rope from Schalk to Matfield. That may be the only way to get him to join a ruck.
My player ratings versus the All Blacks:
Montgomery - 8
Rock solid when kicking at poles, made his tackles, chasing his kicks. Few opportunities on attack.
Willemse - 7
Looked for work, made tackles. Surprisingly good for somebody who has been out so long.
Fourie - 6
Made a memorable tackle, but received little good ball.
De Villiers - 4
Innocuous on attack.
Pietersen - 6
Not his best. A victim of a bad bounce and wrong footed once, his improved defence was made to look suspect.
James - 6
Solid. His flip passes must give his team mates nightmares. When they work they look great. If they don't they are easy points to the opposition. Defended well. Flat footed when receiving ball on attack.
Pienaar - 6
Had a difficult time behind a struggling scrum and ruck. Forced into box kicks on occasion. Had a role to play in Steyn's nightmare - should have taken the pressure himself and gone for the box kick then.
Skinstad - 6
Wasn't allowed to play due to poor scrum ball and absence of support at rucks. Worked hard.
Roussouw - 6
Worked hard but a little slow in support play. Didn't really see evidence of a pattern to match the potential power play of Os, Bakkies, Matfield and Daniesaurus together.
Burger - 9
Colossal. Workrate was incredible. Made tackle after tackle, hit tuck after ruck. Could have been man of the match on the losing side.
Bakkies Botha - 6
Made another huge start to the match but faded later. Does not look fully fit.
Matfield - 5
Awesome in the line outs but virtually anonymous beyond that. I challenge even Prozone to find him in the last 30 minutes. Did not impose himself on the game as captain.
BJ Botha - 5
Not up to his Super 14 standard. opposition tactics seem to be negating his effectiveness at scrum time.
Gary Botha - 5
Better in the lineouts than against the Aussies, but struggled in the scrums.
Du Randt - 6
Stayed on the park longer than I thought he would and made some trademark tackles in broken play. Could he find form before the world cup?
Wannenberg - 5
Unlucky to have copped it, 30 seconds after coming on, for his team's earlier indiscretions at the breakdown.
Steyn - 3
He needed to make sure of his line kicks and play the percentages when he came on. His dropped pass and confusion with Pienaar on his line were disasters. He's a real talent and will hopefuly get the support he needs after this. Should have gone on the away leg of the tour with a point to prove.
Other subs: Bismarck du Plessis, CJ van der Linde, Johann Muller, Michael Claassens, Wynand Olivier - no rating
No real impact on the game.
 |
| Schalk Burger makes yet another tackle during the match against the All Blacks - Photo: Getty Images |
Coming back to win against the Aussies last week was a tick against the character of the Bok side. Whether it should have required two brilliant drop goals or have been settled through taking earlier penalties is a moot point.
However, let's also be blatantly honest about the last few weeks. We have not once hit our straps. Not even for a 20 minute period. By hitting our straps, I'm talking about putting it all together like the Bulls did against the Reds to win their place in a semi-final. Of course, those days don't happen very often. Not for a full 80 minutes. But consider one thing - watch yesterday's test against the All Blacks and marvel at them clicking for about ten minutes between about about the 27th and the 37th minutes. The interplay between backs and forwards was breathtaking, as was their retention, lack of mistakes, support play and running lines.
Now consider the overall pattern of Bok play. It is difficult to pick out a period where the Boks looked breathtaking. Could this be the beginning of the payoff of Graham Henry's conditioning program and the impact of some very hard rugby on the Boks? That's the excuse Jake made after the match. Besides the fact that the All Blacks might benefit from the conditioning program and that they might be beginning to find one another in a way that a side can only do through playing together, I'm not buying the "Boks are tired" excuse. Of course the injury to John Smit is proving to be massive. Of course the Boks are missing their world class finisher, Habana. And of course, Hougaard might have been a better bet to close out yesterday's game than Frans Steyn, but looking for excuses there misses the bigger problems.
Captaincy
Despite Heyneke Meyer's opinions to the contrary, Victor Matfield is not even a captain's arse. Sure a captain needs to have the players' respect and preferably be the best in his position. However, reading the game's state of play remains the elusive quality in South African captaincy ranks. There have been remarkably few captains in South Africa, at provincial or national level, that have been able to read the game and alter tactics. In recent times, Bobby Skinstad stands out and possibly Gary Teichman. There have been others who could get their teams to win through loyalty and bloody mindedness, but that approach takes its toll. In days gone by, Micheal du Plessis was one of the finest readers of the game I've ever seen. Naas was pretty good. Morne du Plessis was one of those thinkers and motivators. We really don't have too many players like that around at the moment.
Scrumming
For some reason we believe we have the birthright to dominate at scrum time. Let's just kill that idea once and for all. As powerful a player as Os still is. As world class as our locks are. As big as some of our loosies are. We have looked average in every match this season - England, Samoa, Australia and now New Zealand. Let's also give John Smit his due. His absence must have reddened a few faces in Pretoria and that of Stofile. The impact of Smit's loss at scrum time and in captaincy has been immense. If all it does is to shut up the maniacal Gary Botha / one eyed Bulls supporters who call into Super Rugby on a Monday and rant about Gary Botha's divine right to don the green and gold, then perhaps we're closer to getting real with ourselves.
Structure and options
Of late, many have criticised South African coaches for coaching creativity out of players. This may well be true. However, general principles do apply. Attacking off turnover ball, playing for position when up on the scoreboard, running lines, etc. David Campese made an observation after the Australia test. He said that he believes support players should be calling the running lines and attack, not the ball carrier - this prevents isolation. Whether he's right or wrong, it is the absence of these types of principles that often results in poor option taking and lack of structure on the field. Somewhere in the second quarter yesterday, the Boks won a fantastic turnover just inside their half. What happened? Butch kicked the ball.
At around the 65th minute yesterday, the Boks suddenly remembered the pick and go as a tactic. They tried about 5 of them before getting smashed and conceding the turnover. Making the right choices spontaneously comes from hours of practice and experience. Making the right choices according to the field position, ball quality and match situation comes from leadership, communication and planning.
Rucking
Those of you who know me, know that I believe this is the number one issue with South African rugby. Yesterday showed this up again. People can point to individuals all they like, but we have to acknowledge that our ruck-time patterns are just horribly wrong. In the nineties, rugby science began to question the optimal numbers committed to rucks and the impact on next-phase attacks or defence. Whatever the conclusions, the result has been that our rucks have lost their optimum patterns and some players do not commit at all.
Rucks need the right combinations of players to work. An attacking ruck needs good ball carriers, good supporting runners, cleaners and quick service. A defensive ruck needs good contesting (through the fetcher / opensider) and good pressure through committed counter rucking. Both defensive and offensive rusks need clearly aligned support for the next phase.
The offensive ruck provides the best opportunity for penetrating the stronger defences of today. While lineouts suck in the majority of forwards and allow the start of the maul, rucks allow teams multi-phase play with potential quick ball and allow the attacking team to more precisely control the position and timing of the attack. Quick ruck-time ball remains a deadly threat to even the best defensive teams. Depending on the field position and state of the opposition defensive lines, the attacking team may choose to pick-and-go, break and set up a maul, swing the ball wide, suck in players and kick for space, or set up another ruck. Further, ball carriers can choose the point of impact and use this to target players in the other team, committing them to the ruck on defence. Defending the ruck saps energy and opens up space. To make this work, playing patterns need to be precise. As much as we are moving towards the uniformly large, fast and strong rugby player, eighth-men and closed-siders tend to make better ball carriers, locks tend to make better cleaners and front rowers tend to provide better support in the later phases. Combinations need to work together on the optimal running lines to ensure the ball carrier is not isolated and that target point of attack is committed. The reason for the roles of each forward is often as simple as the fact that the first phase is often a scrum and those roles are determined by the break-up pattern of the forwards. But clearly their physical attributes play a role.
Back to Springbok rugby, and the commitment of the players to this pattern is limited. Yesterday's game clearly showed Matfield's liability at ruck time and Bakkies' lack of fitness (he was again fantastic for the first 30 minutes, Matfield was pretty much absent throughout). Consider the possession stats that saw the Boks with more than 60% up after 30 minutes and end on just above 40%. Look also at the loose forward combination. As big and strong as Schalk Burger is, and as awesome a ball carrier as Bobby Skinstad is, they're lost without the supporting pattern. The typical break from the base of the scrum was a good example of the disaster. Under pressure from the Boks' poor scrum, resultant wheel to the wrong side and opposition scrummie on his heels, Skinstad was always in a poor position to pick up and carry. While Schalk was immense and a good partner for Bobby, Roussouw seemed a little slow. From there things fell apart, with the backs more often than not committing to support in the absence of the locks. Pienaar often struggled to get clean second phase ball, and as a result the backline again looked devoid of any potency on attack.
It's easy to blame De Villiers for looking poor on the back of this, but in reality, few backs can create without any space and with slow ball.
Lack of fluency
Having said that De Villiers has been the victim of poor quality ball is not to excuse him for his part in the paper tiger that is our Springbok backline. He looks nothing like the player once rated the most exciting inside centre in world rugby. Outside him, Jaques Fourie has looked undercooked. And of course, being a wing outside that lot means you're never going to score unless from broken play. For years now we've lamented the lack of involvement of our wings and cheered only when they've looked for work. We've decried the limited times that Monty has joined the line. Fix the basics and that will change.
Wayne Julies deserves to wear the Bok 12 right now. His superior distribution might just fire Jaque Fourie. Failing that, given Jake's apparent intention to rest his first choice team, Waylon Murray might be worth testing outside him on the away leg of the Tri-Nations.
However, without securing better quality of ball from scrums and rucks, without thought as to patterns and structures according to the state of the game, our backline will continue to look prosaic.
What works
There is no doubt we possess the best lineout in world rugby. Matfield and Botha are peerless as jumpers at 2, 3, 4 and 5. As with all things though, we tend to overplay our strength. Of course the lineout offers one of the best attacking platforms from five meters out. And of course being able to compete on the opposition's ball allows for fantastic attacking potential.
Jake's consistency is selection has benefits. His belief in Ashwin Willemse might just be rewarded. For a guy to have been out for so long to play with the hunger and workrate Willemse did yesterday is remarkable. Monty is in sublime form at the moment and provides the team with dependability, if not always under the high ball. Butch looked better yesterday than he has and provides a safe option at flyhalf. His distribution needs work though and he needs to run on to the ball more - he's currently a little flat footed.
The most important thing going for the Boks at the moment is the self-belief they seem to have post their good Super 14. Perhaps these losses will make use stronger in blunting possible arrogance. However, the problems we have have existed for a long time. It is asking a lot to overcome them suddenly prior to the world cup.
The Tri-Nations away leg
Jake's squad has been announced and his strategy is to rest his top players. The squad is:
Johan Ackermann, Eddie Andrews, Gary Botha, Deon Carstens, Tonderai Chavhanga, Michael Claassens, Bolla Conradie, Bismarck Du Plessis, Jannie Du Plessis, Bevin Fortuin, Peter Grant, Derick Hougaard, Wayne Julies, Hilton Lobberts, Johann Muller, Waylon Murray, Wynand Olivier, Breyton Paulse, Ruan Pienaar, JP Pietersen, Jaco Pretorius, Bob Skinstad, Albert van den Berg, Wikus van Heerden, AJ Venter, Cobus Visagie, Pedrie Wannenburg, Luke Watson.
As usual, some of White's choices are baffling. Chavanga's long absence does him no favours. How Claassens gets in ahead of the in form Heini Adams boggles the mind. Fortuin's fantastic 2006 season form was not carried into 2007. Breyton Paulse remains the best organiser of the Bok rush defence, but was woefully out of form in the Super 14, short on workrate and pace. Eddie Andrews' name will have many people tearing their hair out. Jaco Pretorius remains a curate's egg.
On the plus side, White has either been overruled or been prepared to reconsider Cobus Visagie and Luke Watson despite his previously stated views on both. The promising form of Peter Grant (apparently sublime for the Emerging Boks) has been recognised.
My match 22 for the away leg would be (regardless of the selected squad - but with resting, testing and giving existing players a chance to build continuity in mind):
Francois Steyn, JP Pietersen, Waylon Murray, Wayne Julies, Odwa Ndungane, Peter Grant, Ruan Pienaar, Bob Skinstad (captain), AJ Venter, Luke Watson, Ross Skeate, Johan Ackerman, Cobus Visagie, Bismark du Plessis, Deon Carstens. Substitutes: Derick Hougaard, Heini Adams, Pedrie Wannenberg, Hilton Lobberts, CJ van der Linde, Gary Botha, Gurthro Steenkamp.
Frankly, I believe that a test is a test and I hate the thought of losing due to resting first choice players en mass. I'd rather see rotation happening over the long term and in an organised fashion. However, we are where we are. The danger is that we might well provide the All Blacks with just the step up they require to regain the fluency in their game we caught only a glimpse of yesterday.
If current form is to be continued, I wonder if the following team should end up in the World Cup semis:
Percival Montgomery, JP Pietersen, Waylon Murray, Wayne Julies, Bryan Habana, Butch James, Fourie du Preez, Bob Skinstad (vice captain), AJ Venter, Schalk Burger, Victor Matfield, Bakkies Botha, Cobus Visagie, John Smit (captain), Deon Carstens. Substitutes: Francois Steyn, Ruan Pienaar, Pierre Spies, Danie Roussouw, CJ van der Linde, Bismark du Plessis, Gurthro Steenkamp.
Of course, I'd have Bakkies running up sand dunes first and tie a rope from Schalk to Matfield. That may be the only way to get him to join a ruck.
My player ratings versus the All Blacks:
Montgomery - 8
Rock solid when kicking at poles, made his tackles, chasing his kicks. Few opportunities on attack.
Willemse - 7
Looked for work, made tackles. Surprisingly good for somebody who has been out so long.
Fourie - 6
Made a memorable tackle, but received little good ball.
De Villiers - 4
Innocuous on attack.
Pietersen - 6
Not his best. A victim of a bad bounce and wrong footed once, his improved defence was made to look suspect.
James - 6
Solid. His flip passes must give his team mates nightmares. When they work they look great. If they don't they are easy points to the opposition. Defended well. Flat footed when receiving ball on attack.
Pienaar - 6
Had a difficult time behind a struggling scrum and ruck. Forced into box kicks on occasion. Had a role to play in Steyn's nightmare - should have taken the pressure himself and gone for the box kick then.
Skinstad - 6
Wasn't allowed to play due to poor scrum ball and absence of support at rucks. Worked hard.
Roussouw - 6
Worked hard but a little slow in support play. Didn't really see evidence of a pattern to match the potential power play of Os, Bakkies, Matfield and Daniesaurus together.
Burger - 9
Colossal. Workrate was incredible. Made tackle after tackle, hit tuck after ruck. Could have been man of the match on the losing side.
Bakkies Botha - 6
Made another huge start to the match but faded later. Does not look fully fit.
Matfield - 5
Awesome in the line outs but virtually anonymous beyond that. I challenge even Prozone to find him in the last 30 minutes. Did not impose himself on the game as captain.
BJ Botha - 5
Not up to his Super 14 standard. opposition tactics seem to be negating his effectiveness at scrum time.
Gary Botha - 5
Better in the lineouts than against the Aussies, but struggled in the scrums.
Du Randt - 6
Stayed on the park longer than I thought he would and made some trademark tackles in broken play. Could he find form before the world cup?
Wannenberg - 5
Unlucky to have copped it, 30 seconds after coming on, for his team's earlier indiscretions at the breakdown.
Steyn - 3
He needed to make sure of his line kicks and play the percentages when he came on. His dropped pass and confusion with Pienaar on his line were disasters. He's a real talent and will hopefuly get the support he needs after this. Should have gone on the away leg of the tour with a point to prove.
Other subs: Bismarck du Plessis, CJ van der Linde, Johann Muller, Michael Claassens, Wynand Olivier - no rating
No real impact on the game.
Labels: all blacks, boks, durban test, new zealand, springboks, world cup
posted at 5:32 PM
1 comments
