Chickens come home to roost
Jeez I'm disappointed.
The more things change the more they stay the same. One year ago I wrote about problems in Bok rugby. We've won a World Cup and had a change of coach since then. But the ruck and protection of possession problems are the same.
I wrote that Matfield was not even a captain's arse. Maybe that's changed. Maybe he is just a captain's arse. When Jake White took over he introduced Prozone and summarily sent Matfield home from Australia - apparently due to his refusal to get stuck in. After yesterday's match, our lineout supremo walked off the park and lamented the team's breakdown performance. I counted his attendance at about 3 rucks during the game.
If Pieter de Villiers favours players who read the game situation and adapt, how does our captain excuse understanding the problem and doing nothing about it?
In the various reviews and thoughts I've noted on this blog, I've typically lamented South African sides unwillingness to get stuck in in the loose. Under the ELVs, the need to secure quick multi-phase ball has been elevated further.
On this away leg, we have relied entirely on Schalk Burger and Bakkies Botha to secure any ball at the breakdown, with some assistance from Joe van Niekerk and Juan Smith.
Yesterday's shambles showed an exhausted Botha and an injured Burger. Juan Smith was our player of the day - he tried everything. And our captain alternated between first center and wing. The much vaunted Pierre Spies disappeared. Kankowski made an anonymous late appearance.
One Australian report counted 35 Aussie turnovers of Springbok ball!
The problem does not require rocket scientists to diagnose. The solution is more complex. Of course modern rugby requires a balance of players in the ruck on and in defense. Often a similar balance is required on attack to provide quick support to the second phase ball carrier. But to ascribe our pathetic breakdown performance to getting this balance wrong is to ignore that some players in our Bok ranks do not like putting in the hard yards in cleaning the fringes and protecting our fetchers and scrummies.
De Villiers has done a fantastic job of gaining player support. In the press, his team have talked at their pleasure at providing him a win in Dunedin after the hard time he had taken after Wellington. The hard task now begins. Can he maintain this support and enforce disciplines? Can he point out the deficiencies in the team video sessions? Can he make a hard call and drop Matfield and Butch if their performance does not improve?
I'm going to dispense with the player ratings this week. They're pretty obvious. I liked the way Jean de Villiers and Steyn changed channels on defense and attack similar to the way De Villiers and Bobo had done in the Super 14. I though Juan Smith had a never-say-die performance and together with Burger and Botha tried to carry the team at the breakdown.
Beyond that it was a terrible performance. The gains at scrum time made in Dunedin were reversed. Schalk Brits showed his wobbly line out fallibility. Butch needs to be given Currie Cup time to find his game. Jantjies regressed from Wellington. Januarie struggled with no protection and shocking ball. De Villiers bounced off a tackle that resulted in a try. It was miserable stuff.
I'm scared to think of what injuries to Burger and Botha will do to this side.
The more things change the more they stay the same. One year ago I wrote about problems in Bok rugby. We've won a World Cup and had a change of coach since then. But the ruck and protection of possession problems are the same.
I wrote that Matfield was not even a captain's arse. Maybe that's changed. Maybe he is just a captain's arse. When Jake White took over he introduced Prozone and summarily sent Matfield home from Australia - apparently due to his refusal to get stuck in. After yesterday's match, our lineout supremo walked off the park and lamented the team's breakdown performance. I counted his attendance at about 3 rucks during the game.
If Pieter de Villiers favours players who read the game situation and adapt, how does our captain excuse understanding the problem and doing nothing about it?
In the various reviews and thoughts I've noted on this blog, I've typically lamented South African sides unwillingness to get stuck in in the loose. Under the ELVs, the need to secure quick multi-phase ball has been elevated further.
On this away leg, we have relied entirely on Schalk Burger and Bakkies Botha to secure any ball at the breakdown, with some assistance from Joe van Niekerk and Juan Smith.
Yesterday's shambles showed an exhausted Botha and an injured Burger. Juan Smith was our player of the day - he tried everything. And our captain alternated between first center and wing. The much vaunted Pierre Spies disappeared. Kankowski made an anonymous late appearance.
One Australian report counted 35 Aussie turnovers of Springbok ball!
The problem does not require rocket scientists to diagnose. The solution is more complex. Of course modern rugby requires a balance of players in the ruck on and in defense. Often a similar balance is required on attack to provide quick support to the second phase ball carrier. But to ascribe our pathetic breakdown performance to getting this balance wrong is to ignore that some players in our Bok ranks do not like putting in the hard yards in cleaning the fringes and protecting our fetchers and scrummies.
De Villiers has done a fantastic job of gaining player support. In the press, his team have talked at their pleasure at providing him a win in Dunedin after the hard time he had taken after Wellington. The hard task now begins. Can he maintain this support and enforce disciplines? Can he point out the deficiencies in the team video sessions? Can he make a hard call and drop Matfield and Butch if their performance does not improve?
I'm going to dispense with the player ratings this week. They're pretty obvious. I liked the way Jean de Villiers and Steyn changed channels on defense and attack similar to the way De Villiers and Bobo had done in the Super 14. I though Juan Smith had a never-say-die performance and together with Burger and Botha tried to carry the team at the breakdown.
Beyond that it was a terrible performance. The gains at scrum time made in Dunedin were reversed. Schalk Brits showed his wobbly line out fallibility. Butch needs to be given Currie Cup time to find his game. Jantjies regressed from Wellington. Januarie struggled with no protection and shocking ball. De Villiers bounced off a tackle that resulted in a try. It was miserable stuff.
I'm scared to think of what injuries to Burger and Botha will do to this side.
Labels: Australia, perth, rugby, springboks, tri-nations
posted at 10:36 AM
1 Comments:
The problem is that they are actually caught between two styles. The old style, and that which has been the most effective when they've used it lately, is to play a narrow attack with commitment at the ruck to provide quick ball, until a break is made or a kick is used.
The new de Villiers style is to go wider, but too often (like every f****** time!) the ball carrier is too far from his support. Offloads and passes are preferred options. If the offload is not possible, a ruck develops and we are outnumbered. Remember that the tackled player is on the ground so he is out of the game. If the tackler gets back to his feet, the defenders are at least one man ahead.
It's going to take time to develop, if it ever will. We might have to change some players for more mobile alternatives too.
Post a Comment
<< Home