My opinions on the game of rugby have not won me many fans, and this one certainly won’t given the current trends in Springbok rugby.
When I started out in sport (after my playing days) I did sports analysis. This covered many different codes of sport but later (luckily) got me more involved with rugby.
Now as we all know, statistics in the wrong hands is a very dangerous thing, simply because of the fact that statistics are meaningless without a common reference point for collecting and analysing statistics.
As an example, having assisted many coaches in analyzing their teams, coach A would ask me to compile and analyze the statistics of let’s say his number 8. Another coach will ask me the same but the statistics supplied was as different as night from day, simply because their reference points for wanting the analyze the statistics were vastly different.
The reason for this is very simple, the teams they coached had different strengths and weaknesses, which meant that whatever they analyzed, or the ‘type’ of player they required at number 8 to compliment their strengths and game plan, were vastly different.
And it is this point, your strengths and your game plan which again leads me to believe South Africa is starting to fall into the trap of trying to play a game we are not good at.
This has nothing to do with Peter de Villiers so-called ‘expansive’ game plan. You can add any dimension, including an attacking dimension to any team if you have covered the basics of the game well, and ensure that you do the simple things right first to ensure you possession and territory to execute ANY type of game plan.
As an analyst early on I also realised one very important thing, rugby is a very simple game, and unfortunately statisticians or analyst only use figures and numbers to either confuse people, or cover their flaws.
Any coach worth his salt will firstly look at what he has available to him. He will then identify strengths and weaknesses and devise a plan (game plan) to compliment those strengths, and eliminate most weaknesses.
For all Jake White’s petty faults, he was damn good at this – and guess what, he was also at one time simply a rugby analyst… 😉
In 2006 there was an uproar in South Africa for Jake to include Luke Watson, at the time, the best ‘fetcher’ in SA Rugby according to most.
This year there was a similar outcry, for one Heinrich Brüssow, and the only difference between 2009 and 2006, is that the fans calling for his inclusion, got their wish.
Now where I lost most people in my point I have always tried to make is that I did not, and still do not claim or believe either Watson in 2006 or Brüssow today are bad ‘fetchers’. In fact, I do think they are and were the best we have in South Africa and is probably the closest we have if compared to George Smith and Richie McCaw.
the best we have in South Africa and is probably the closest we have if compared to George Smith and Richie McCaw…
Now perhaps if I highlight this people will understand my problem with this issue.
We should NEVER try and find players to combat the strengths of OPPOSITION teams because it affects our OWN strengths, and although our players will prove to be successful a lot of time against our opposition team’s individuals it will not be long before they figure out ways to eliminate this threat which is now already starting to happen – because you know what, opposition teams analyze us even more than what we analyze ourselves in my view!
And the main problem comes in that it is easy to eliminate a threat in any opposing team if that threat is a singular threat, and not a collective threat, I know, it was my job to identify this.
In simpler terms, if the main threats in your opposition is one or two players it is easy to combat it, it is however damn difficult to combat a collective threat or strength if 5 or 8 or 10 guys shares and combines their collective strengths!
Let me try and explain this from an analytical and practical point of view.
Two very important statistics coaches look at is positional (where on the field in relation to length and width), and strike rates of using possession in different areas of the park. Now from an analysis point of view the rugby pitch can be divided in up to 25 areas or zones, each with different outcome based scenarios according to the game plan you want to employ. A certain area of the field will be mapped out in blue for instance and the game plan strategy determine the action required in this zone, for instance blue areas will be defined as defensive kicking zones and the success of the ‘strike rate’ will determined by the outcome of the play makers (kickers) in this zone and how successful they were in executing their actions (kicks).
The only reason I made the above example is simply to illustrate that ‘strike rates’ do not normally apply to points scored alone but all of it, possession and strike rate success forms part of an overall game plan, and when a game is analyzed or game plan devised players are coached to these specifics.
Another quick example perhaps that will make you understand this better is that let’s assume green zones in the game plan, would suggest that if ever we get a penalty kick in that area (between opposition 10 meter and goal line), we take a scrum and not line outs as our scrum is a strength, and line-out is a weakness.
It is not complicated even if it may sound like it. It is a very simple approach to rugby and of course colour codes help the fatties understand the game plan better!!!
The importance is the possession and strike rate statistics which forms part of the overall game plan of the team – a game plan which compliments strengths.
Apart from these statistics and references which is positional related (where you are), the most important statistics is the relation of the ball from the ground in your game plan.
In simple terms it means whether your team is good at playing or attacking from playing the ball from the deck, or keeping it in the air.
Let’s consider a practical example.
Ever wondered why Australia (and to a lesser extent NZ) are very good in building phases? Up to 10 and 15 and even more at times?
Quite simple, it is the game they play and it is one of their strengths.
If you are a team reliant on building phases to break down defenses you are a team that prefers playing the ball from the deck, i.e. carry the ball, try and cross the advantage line, go to ground, and do it again and again.
Now quite simply, if this is the type of game you play, you need to pick the type of players to compliment this game plan or strength, and what better type of player to pick for deck play than a deck play specialist, or the ‘fetcher’ who specialises in this area of rugby?
And here ladies and gentleman is where the Springboks are starting to get it wrong again.
Our strength is not deck play or phase play, never was. Our strength is our ball carrying ability, strike running and brutal defense, which rely quite heavily on your bigger than average players. In short, our strength has always been, and is coached still today at all levels, in keeping the ball in the air as much as possible.
The much vaunted Jake White line-out philosophy as our premier attacking platform is an extension of this and it is something White realised very quickly when he became coach – as to where our strengths lie. Our maul currently has no equal in world rugby, it is a strength, and it is keeping the ball in the air. Which is why if we revisit the zones discussed earlier you will find that in most instances, the Boks will try and force line-outs in the game, as it plays to their strength. The kicking game we employed successfully in the opening Tri-Nations games takes their forwards out of the game and most importantly, their ability to start their phase plays.
When we are successful at rucks, we have always employed greater numbers to rucks and used physical strength to dominate this area. Which is also the reason all 15 players in our team are (or were under White) regarded as ‘fetchers’ and led to Jaque Fourie being the backline player with more impressive turn over ball and tackles than most loose forwards in international rugby.
It is simple rugby gentleman, and it is the reason why I am saying, and have been saying that neither Brüssow or Watson are bad players, or fetchers, they are in fact the best and have no equal in SA Rugby, they simply do not suit our rugby strengths.
I think it is foolish of us to try and play deck rugby, or take our opposition on in their strengths when we should rather focus on our own.
A Jan should stick to what he is good at!
Mmmmm
So wat Morne eintlik sê, “kry vir Scalla terug op form en ons gaan weer begin wen”?
Wat ek opgelet het die laaste paar toetse is hoe vinnig die Ozzies ‘n teenvoeter vir Brussow gekry het. Al wat hulle doen is om hom uit die game te haal of te weerhou om sy hand op die bal te kry in losgemale.
@KingPaul – of hulle betaal die ref omhom die hele tyd te blaas 😆
Very interesting and thought stimulating article.
Thanks.
Balance in the selection of combinations provides for more strenghts… in other words it is a supplement to the strenghts of a Team.
Why do Teams have to be happy to only play to certain strenghts, if those strenghts could be expanded to include a wider selection of strenghts?
As example, scrumhalf & fly half is a combination which needs to gel and understand each other… similarly the centre’s are a combination, the front row, the locks, and my personal favourite, the LOOSIES as a combination !
An imbalance in the Bokke Loosie department has partly caused our lack of phase play and overeggagerated our crash and bash over the advantage line style of play.
With the loosies of recent matches, Brussouw, Smith & Spies (even though they’ve lost a mere ONE match) there is clearly better balance in this department. A lot is being made out of the fact that Brussouw has supposedly been found out or negated….. are you sure about it, or did Brussouw maybe have ONE off-day against a very motivated Ozzie Team, who seemed to be all over SA in most departments of the game ??
The Bulls clearly showed the value of ground-ball players this whole Super 14 season, playing TWO “fetchers” simultaneously in most matches this season… and look where it got them…. top of the heap… champions of champions…
Having said all this…. Morne’s Article makes a heap of sense.
Personally, the most difficult aspect to analise and measure statistically is the 6 inches of head space between the ears of players, the mindset of players and mental readyness for a match, which is probably the biggest key in winning or losing matches.
How else do you explain the turn-around of Ozzie in one week, or, the other side of the coin, the regression of the Bokke in one week?
@grootblousmile –
The balance of combinations are absolutely crucial.
Combinations need to gel and compliment one another and each other’s (individuals) strengths.
But the balance and importance of the overall team strength supercedes individual or combination balance and strengths in my view.
The only problem I have with what you suggest, (agreeing on combination balance as key in rugby) is that I can pick a loose trio of Brüssow, Watson and Stegman/Potgieter who will no doubt compliment each other and fill in where the other falls off (the pace) as all are fetching type forwards, but will it compliment the overall style of play of the team, or game plan all the time?
Combinations, as much as individuals are picked to compliment the overall strategy and game plan of a team (read strength).
The Bulls funnily enough, also rely quite a bit on phase play… The pick and drive play from forwards and strike running backs close to channels 2 and 3…
6@Morné – Combination in the Loosies needs 3 very distinctly different players or player types…
No 6 – Openside Flank – Fetcher par excelance, wide stance over the ground ball, digger AND scavvenger of note. Often the last player to get up at a maul.
No 7 – Blindside Flank – Hard Tackling defender with some advantage-line breaking prowess. A player like Juan Smith or Schalk Burger or Dewalt Potgieter or Deysel.
No 8 – Eighth Man – The fearsome strike runner with hands of gold behind the scrums, speed to burn, and that vital link to the backline.
So, I do not advocate 3 fetchers, NEVER…. there needs to be a balance, covering all the needed facets…
I feel the Bokke are damn close to achieving this fine balance…
PS! Watson is not a true fetcher, a fetcher gets down and dirty on the floor… Watson is a scavenger of loose ball behind rucks and mauls. There is a HUGE difference !!
@grootblousmile –
How do you define a true fetcher then?
By the balls he turns over? Slows down?
Or something else?
Watson has made quite an impact playing from 8.
George Smith is also known to pack down at 8 quite often for the Aussies…
Another note…
I am very apprehensive into categorizing players or positions to very set specifics.
Again from my experience you pick a player, based on his strengths, to compliment your overall team strategy not the other way around (pick a player and then devise a team strategy or game plan based on the different strengths of individuals).
This will mean that set categories for positions becomes secondary to the strength of the player and how he compliments your overall team strength.
I have maintained for some time every single player in a team needs to be able to tackle hard, carry a ball well and be able to turn a ball over if he is presented with an opportunity to do so. Those are basics of rugby.
There are, in my view, certain positions which requires you to be a specialist, and perform a primary function, like hooker, tighthead, scrumhalf, flyhalf and fullback, and other position which dont.
Fetching is not a specialist skill for me. Every guy in a team needs to be a fetching specialist, but not every guy needs to feed a line-out, scrum, anchor the scrum or kick for poles.
8@Morné – I’ve Edited my comment No 7…. read again, very carefully, what I see as the “fetcher”
Do not get me wrong, I do not say that Watson is bad… I say he is not the type to do the dirty work on the ground, not often the last guy up at a maul…
He has other qualities.. he is quite a link player, has good hands, likes to play a yard away from the maul, scavenges the odd ball that pops up or out…
Compare that to Brussouw…. he is in the thick of the maul, slowing vital ball down, ripping ball off the floor…
Not true ??
Great debate going on here by people with knowledge and insight.
A true Rugby lover’s dream.
“Stick with what you are best at”, keep the socio-political BS away forever!
9@Morné – Was it co-incidence that the Ozzies won the ground-ball battle on Saturday…. and convincingly so ??
No it was’nt…. surprise, surprise…. they played 2 “fetcher” types in tandum…. Pocock AND George Smith….
You of all people can teach me lots and lots about rugby…. but about the do’s and dont’s of Looseforward play, I can teach and educate…..
@grootblousmile –
A bit of the current topic but that part you mentioned of the last one up from the maul (probably meant ruck 😉 ) is another area I detest about the theory of fetcher play.
If you find yourself on the ground, and you are unsuccessful in turning over the ball and you are the last one up, you take yourself out of the game giving the opposition one less player to worry about on attack.
It is high risk, very little reward.
A player on the ground is a player out of the game.
And if you specialise in getting yourself on the ground you actually specialise to take yourself out of the game.
In an 80 minute game of rugby the best players on average turn over 3 balls on average. Equally, they run the highest risk of being penalised.
Again high risk, for very little reward.
Especially if you sacrifice a player to ‘specialise’ in this.
Which is why I do not see fetching as a specialist role or function in rugby.
I also do not see the value of employing a player who specialises on deck ball, or playing on the deck as his specialist trade. For that, it is a skill I expect all 15 players to have as all 15 players have to tackle, and will therefore be involved in ruck/possible turn over situations.
For me there is much more value in employing a game plan keeping the ball in the air and playing guys who compliment this type of play as it gives you far more attacking options.
@grootblousmile –
We allowed them to play deck rugby. And we played to a game (given the player(s) we selected) to play a similar type of game.
They won because they were better on the ground, it is their strength, and they had better and more players as you mentioned to play deck rugby.
Point is, we should not be playing deck rugby, it is not our strength.
I am out for a bit, will catch up on this later!!!
Cheers for now!
Ek sien Danie Gerber se seun speel Saterdag vir Boland.
Nou DAAI klong het n paar moesa bootse om vol te staan, ek hoop hy weet sy toppie is n SA legende…
14@Morné – Deck-rugby is vital… it needs to become our strenght !
Looking at possession stats in the year of 2009… and prior to that, can the Bokke afford to have less than 50% possession ?
Can we afford to give them clear and fast ball to attack us at will ?
No, we cannot… and more and more so as the modern game evolves !!
14@Morné – I’m involved with a “coloured” club in JHB.
It’s amazing how often we practice to our strengths, but when we play certain clubs, especially the tradionally “white” clubs who, for the most part are of a bigger and stronger build, we try to take them on strength with strength for 70 minutes before realising that our particular strengths are speed of hand and foot.
Invariably we then try to play “catch up” and fail.
We’ve now tried getting a “head doctor” to talk to the players and while it is helping, it’s not 100% there yet.
(We can’t afford to pay, so have to rely on the kindness of people’s hearts for such services.)
Funnily enough, when we recently played one of the older more established “coloured” clubs, we played fast running Rugby and won by 30 points.
As my late father-in-law used to say, “there’s none so queer as folks”.
I also have to move my butt, I was expected in Pretoria an hour ago….. farkkkkkkkkkkkkk !!
Meeting cancelled I am back!
@Pietman – Hello oom, Dis nogal interesant oor Danie Gerber se seun. Almal vergelyk hom seker met sy pa, dis seker nie regverdig nie nie, maar met pa se gene kan hy net goed wees.
PS. Ek is so op soos brood in ‘n weeshuis. 4 km hike in die berge, baie klimwerk, maar baie lekker.
@rugbybal –
Hello balletjies.
Ja, klim solank jy nog kan ou seun 🙂
@Morné – What I liked about Jake White is that when he made questionable decisions regarding selection, and everyone was up in arms. When he came on air he then explained those decisions with some excellent rugby knowledge that no one could argue with. He knows his stuff. Rugby supporters are mostly a cynical bunch that has a lot of loyalty towards certain players and don’t or can’t think about the bigger picture relating to a lot of points you raise.
@Pietman – I see that Errol Tobias’ laaitjie plays hooker, so there won’t be too many comparisons to HIS father in years to come.
What position does Gerber junior play?
@Scrumdown –
Gerber Jnr is also center.
@Pietman – 🙂
25@Pietman – Then the young man does indeed have a massive pair of boots to fill.
Very sensible blooding him against one of the “smaller” sides.
Do we know whether Chester had anything to do with his selection?
@grootblousmile –
I think this is where we differ essentially.
I will try and illustrate this on a more technical front or what we see and use in analysis.
The things mentioned in the column cover position aspects of play (the ball) in relation to the field, i.e. length of the field and width of the field.’
Now if you can imagine this on a graph imagine this to be the X and Y axis of the graph.
Meaning that if the ball is on the opposition 22, 5 meters from the left hand touch line the X axis will indicate or present the 22 meter line (length) and the Y axis the width of the field (10 meters from left hand touchline).
The Z axis, the most important in my view represents the ball in relation to the ground, ie. on the ground (ruck) or off the ground (maul, etc).
Now when you analyse you own, and oppositions games you study this graph and try to establish a pattern the where either you, or your opposition, is most effective in their successful ‘strike rates’ (as explained in the article). Meaning where and when they achieved their desired results.
So was it more when the ball was centerfield, on the ground in the area between the 2 10 meter lines or are they more effective in their strike rates in their own half (between 10 meter and goal line)? This could indicate that the team is more adapt as a defensive unit than as an attacking unit for instance (something Springboks was under Jake as an example).
So to unlock that team you then devise ways to take them out of their strength plays and perhaps attack more to the closed side of the field, or attack from deeper, or attack through stab kicks or whatever (the graph shows you).
When studying teams like Australia, you will find that their best strike rates are achieved when the Z axis indicates the ball is on the ground, and they build phases.
What analyzing a team like SA will show you, is that they are more successful in their strike rates when the ball is in the air, mauling etc.
Now the golden rule in rugby as you will know, is never plan a game plan or play to negate another teams strengths, play to your own!
If you start to plan and select players primarily to negate opposition strengths, you are in big trouble.
So you ask can we afford not to specialise in deck play and I say yes we can! But if we start playing so that our Z axis drops or starts levelling out with Aus we will kak, guarranteed!
There is another fundamental problem I have with deck play as your primary form of play.
Deck play means static play. Ball on the ground and phase rugby means the ball becomes stationary very often.
Ball in the air means dynamic rugby.
Now of course the ball will always go to deck in rugby, which is why ‘fetching’ or deck play is a skill all 15 of my players need to have, and master, but my primary focus will be to implement a dynamic, ball in the air rugby which is our strength.
Another point to consider.
How do you negate a static, or deck player?
Two ways…
It is easy, if the ball is kept off the ground for the most part of the game, the specialist fetcher becomes useless, he is only a threat when the ball hits the deck and becomes static in rucks. This is how NZ btw play Aus – keep an eye on it when they play again, and even if you can get to watch older games, see how dynamic the AB’s make their play, nullifying Smith’s greatest threat and strength.
Second way, pick more/better fetchers than what the opposition has. And this is what happened to Brussow last weekend.
But in conclusion, our strength have always been if we kept our Z axis high, our strike rate success rate was higher then than it has been when it was low.
We successfully played high Z axis rugby in 1997 and 1998 when Mallet’s team conquered all comers cause Rassie Erasmus was sure as hell not a specialist fetcher. And that is what we need to get back to. The rest can play their deck rugby, if we play to our strengths as we did in 1997/98 it will not matter how many specialist deck players or fetchers they have.
@Scrumdown –
I know a guy in JHB who is a mental coach…
Might pull in a favour for you!!
@rugbybal –
There is a place for analyst in this world.
Problem is, their facts often gets distorted in media to prove a perceived point!!! 🙂
Users Online
Total 43 users including 0 member, 43 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,507,262 Page Impressions
_