Jake White

Does Jake White have a valid point in blaming player fatigue on the last couple of results that went against the SA Conference leaders, the Cell C Sharks?

While it is true that the Sharks lost a few players to the national cause, it wasn’t as if it was the bulk of their side. Frans Steyn played one match, Bismarck du Plessis, Jannie du Plessis, Tendai “Beast” Mtawarira and Willem Alberts were all either rested or rotated during the 4 Test matches in June. JP Pietersen had the biggest work load for the Bok team if measured in minutes played.

In contrast, the Waratahs players who were involved in the Test series against the French, for the Wallabies, seemed to have lifted their game to an ever higher level.

The same can be said of the All Black players who were involved in a tough 3 Test series against a strong England side.

Does fatigue, when playing for the national side, only affect South African players? Not if one looks at how the Cheetahs Boks stepped up against the Sharks this past weekend. Their players also played all the preceding weeks, were involved in the training camps, played Test matches during the June Test window, but on Saturday they didn’t look jaded at all. The same can be said of Duane Vermeulen who played almost every minute of every Stormers match as well as the Tests.

The Sharks are good enough to still win the Super Rugby title this year, the pedigree of their players and coaching staff is second to none in the SA Conference, but they should be focussing on mental fatigue rather than physical fatigue. We have seen this picture play out many times before in the past, with both the Stormers and the Sharks. The Stormers have made an effort to address this issue with the appointment of previous Bok psychologist Henning Gericke, and it looks like that move is bearing fruit.

Producing one’s best rugby when it’s “back to the wall” and “underdog status” type rugby is good enough to pull off one surprise victory, but not over a sustained period of time and not to win a competition of this nature.

The following article was published on SARugbymag:

Sharks director of rugby Jake White has blamed his side’s late-season implosion on a heavy workload, but still believes they can go on to win the competition.

Defeats to the Stormers in Durban in late May and the Cheetahs in Bloemfontein on Saturday have seen the Sharks slip from first on the combined log to third. To finish second and secure a home semi-final, they now have to beat the Stormers at Newlands on Saturday and hope the Crusaders slip up against the Highlanders.

White blamed the amount of rugby his team has played over the past three months for their latest setback.

‘The Sharks players spent themselves in the four weeks that they were playing for the Springboks and also being involved with the camp leading into those games,’ the coach said. ‘Consider that those players have played for 12 weeks in a row. That is three months without missing a Saturday. Three months of having to front up on Saturdays without taking a break does take its toll. I have no doubt that it’s not the Australasian tour, it’s just the workload that is catching up to the players.’

White insisted the Sharks could still win their first Super Rugby title.

‘Everyone assumes that if you finish third in the competition going into the play-offs, you have absolutely no chance; you may as well call off the competition when the teams finish first and second. This team [the Sharks] has won the [South African] conference, they have 46 points and still have a chance of getting a home semi-final but if it doesn’t happen it’s only the first year [of White’s tenure]. Everybody is so negative about the fact that ‘gee, they can’t win the competition anymore’. I still think we have a massive chance of winning this competition and I still believe we can.’

128 Responses to Super Rugby: Sharks – Does Jake have a valid point on player fatigue?

  • 121

    @ nortierd:
    118
    The Rationale’ is etched in stone
    Class, natural players can walk in anytime, an average Lambie’s still a better option than FS or Swiel

  • 122

    @ nortierd:
    120
    I think you addressed the point already: how many of the Sharks’ Run On at Newlands did take a meaningful part in the June Tests?
    They have no real rugby leader like they had in Daniel, JS or Andrews to hold it together when it counts most?

  • 123

    Cheers for now

  • 124

    @ Hondo:
    Cheers

  • 125

    Hondo wrote:

    @ nortierd:
    61
    Ag man, it’s only Tue
    We have to see the makeup of both teams, Peyper will follow instructions for sure but it’s too early to run the compound trade off
    We can take a Cue from Matfield’s behavior last Saturday: he had been assured Joubert will swing it, but no one (apparently) explained him later that the Force’s win put paid for the Bulls’ mathematical tiny chance for the P/Os, the match became merely a garbage time event, so Joubert felt free from SARU’s shackles! :0
    Wait for Thu

    The Bulls could still have gone past the Canes and either the brumbies or the force if they had won the last two games.

    SARU forgot to inform Joubert? Cry-Out

  • 126

    @ MacroBull:
    125
    Not sure
    the Bulls were 33 points while the Canes had 41 points, the Landers 42, both had more Bonus points too
    They could got over the Force but the Brumbies with 40 points had the Bonus points advantage
    Ditto the Chiefs who cannot be assessed by points lead only
    So we had the Sharks, Saders and the Tahs already IN, then 4 teams with 6-7 points lead and Bonus points advantage over the Bulls?
    Am I wrong

  • 127

    @ Hondo:

    If the Bulls had won they would have been on 37

    1 Australia Waratahs 53
    2 New Zealand Crusaders 46
    3 South Africa Sharks 46
    4 New Zealand Highlanders 42
    5 New Zealand Hurricanes 41
    6 Australia Brumbies 40
    7 Australia Force 40
    8 New Zealand Chiefs 40
    9 South Africa Bulls 37
    10 New Zealand Blues 36

    If by your theory the ref would have helped the bulls out to get 5 points against the Rabble they would have 42 points and into 4th place on pd unless the Highlanders beat the Crusaders away (while I am sure the NZRU would not allow that and have one of their teams miss a home semi final). Now the ARU would probably conspire that the Force and Rebels draw(or even better, a high scoring draw) and both qualify unless the Chiefs win away from home or the Saders does not allow the Highlanders a single BP, but in a win/lose game only one can go through.

    In Short… it all depended on the chiefs losing, for the Bulls to go through ahead of the chiefs, canes and either force/brumbies.

  • 128

    In hindsight though it is all meaningless, the Bulls would have had a tough game even if they had the full arsenal of SARU at their disposal (which ironically only backed then when they won, but did not when they lose)

    The Bulls never had a change with their loose forward combo.

Users Online

Total 40 users including 0 member, 40 guests, 0 bot online

Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm