I wonder if those who criticised the concept of ‘head’s up rugby’ in the recent past realise that this is exactly what we are seeing from the two top teams in the Super 15?
I also wonder if our local coaches have the ability to coach in any other way than implementing whiteboard sessions or plays from textbooks literally to the on-field environment with no consideration or appreciation for what makes players and effectively a team tick?
Although robots or little programmed drones are difficult to outsmart at first because of the absolute clinical nature they were designed and developed with together with the absolute precision they operate under, it is not impossible – first identify repetitive behaviour which should become obvious or easy after some analysis, and simply force them to react out of this zone.
I have wasted too many inches of column space on both topics in the past to re-visit or rehash what was mentioned before, but watching the Reds and Crusaders absolute clinical decimation of last year’s finalists, I could not help wondering when we as South Africans will figure out what head’s up rugby is actually all about?
The concept unfortunately has forever been tainted as some airy-fairy type of game or playing style in South Africa thanks to the media’s love/hate affair with Springbok coach, Peter de Villiers.
In fact, given how De Villiers himself regressed in this regard one could argue that either he too (like every other South African coach) has lost the plot or conceded defeat to a strong media generated opinion on how we should play the game of rugby in South Africa.
It was the Reds victory over the Stormers however which again made me realise most are missing the plot when the term, ‘head’s up rugby’, is used.
This game was anything but airy-fairy rugby, or running from anywhere, by a team that has ironically enough built up a reputation for doing just that.
Just a couple of weeks ago for instance commentators were amazed by the arrogance of Reds flyhalf, Quade Cooper, who tried an ambitions (for loss of a better word) kick-pass in his own in-goal area to his wing in the game against the Cheetahs. Then we could also highlight the stupendous no-look or backdoor passes we saw from Cooper and the rest of this team in the last 18 months.
Yet, when the situation called for it, the very same Reds team adopted their game to not only outsmart, but also outmuscle a very dominant and very physical, but limited Stormers side at home.
Reds coach, Ewen McKenzie, in the post match interview mentioned that in the opening minutes they tried to run at the Stormers but having assessed their effectiveness in this regard against the best defensive team in the competition, they adopted to a more territory based approach where the unpredictable and flamboyant Cooper with his halfback partner, Will Genia, completely outclassed the more structured and ‘solid’ opposing half-backs of the Stormers.
Similarly, Stormers coach Allister Coetzee conceded that the Reds managed to take the Stormers out of their ‘structured’ (read limited) defence orientated game giving Cooper time and space where he surprisingly (to Coetzee and the Stormers) employed a far more tactical kicking game than what they anticipated.
Anyone notice the difference in assessments from the two camps or how the one team managed to deal with the challenges faced on the day?
In beautiful conditions for rugby the Reds firstly looked to employ the type of game they love – open running rugby. Having assessed within the first quarter they aren’t getting anywhere in this approach, they adopted to a more tactically and territorially based game. In other words, having been taken out of their comfort zone, they quite easily adopted a different strategy – ‘head’s up rugby’ anyone?.
Never did structure, or loss of type of structure (they are used to) apply to the Reds and the type of game they played or ‘like to play’, which in my mind makes an absolute mockery of the popular belief that ‘head’s up rugby’ equals unstructured chaos as popularly portrayed by the media in this country.
The Stormers on the other hand, knowing what to expect from the Reds and the type of game they would employ (running, open rugby) quite easily weathered the early onslaught – but as soon as they were taken out of their comfort zone, they simply had no answers.
Put it in another way, when they were asked to think for themselves and react to what is happening in front of them and not just repeat the drills and plans from the practice ground or whiteboard sessions, they failed spectacularly.
Players got frustrated, which inevitably leads to players losing their shape and discipline, and ultimately, losing the match.
This was quite evident in the uncharacteristic actions of some of the Stormers players which saw them play with 14 men for 20 minutes of the match.
During the game I was quite surprised to see Cooper field downfield kicks from the Stormers, sometimes just after the Stormers manufactured turn-over’s which suggested he was never in his usual play-maker position as flyhalf for a lot of the time – something I have not seen the Reds employ in any other game this year. But again, this simply illustrates the ability of a team and players to assess what is happening right in front of them, and adopting to that situation.
Although it came at a painful-to-witness price, I could not have hoped for a better example or definition of ‘head’s-up rugby’ as illustrated first-hand by the Reds and Crusaders teams.
As for the Bulls and Stormers (and most South African teams), you boys can keep on believing that a robotic, text-book, practice ground drill-phased approach to rugby union will win you games. As the Stormers showed on the weekend, you only need to be off your game by 5% or taken out of your comfort zone to get beaten if this is the case – whereas the less-fancied team with a head’s up approach will always have a chance of victory, no matter who they play.
Morné Pismier,
Lekker Article!
Whereas I agree, I would almost say I would term “Heads Up Rugby” slightly differently, I would maybe call it “Heads switched On Rugby”, because it bsically amounts to a vast difference in how intelligently the game is approached and played.
We’ve often lamented how players do not run into space, how there is no plan B, how wrong options have been taken… that all can simply be umbrellaed into “Stupid Rugby”!
As far as the Bulls are concerned I would add another facet and beg them to switch over to “Hearts and Minds switched on Rugby”, because to a very large extent they were the architects of their own demise on Saturday with the number of unforced errors as well as forced errors they were guilty of. It was a sub-standard lot of bollocks they produced.
Hoor hoor.
Wens die Bulle wil net hart insit dan sal dit beter lyk. Ek is nou nog moerig oor Saterdag.
I would like to call it “thinking rugby” or “playing what is front of you”. To do it requires, however firstly versality in your squad and secondly solid fundamental skills.
This is the primary problem of the SA teams. Our props are props (scrummagers) and can do little else. Our flyhalfs are kickers or lying flat distributors and can do little else. Our locks are lineout jumpers and ruck bargers and can do little else and so I can go on.
Regarding our fundamental skills our ball uptake (taking the ball into contact), ball protecting and offload skils in contact is underdeveloped, one-dimentional and way behind the ball game.
The result is our players can’t play what is front of them (heads up rugby) even if they try because their fundamental skills are not in place and because they are developed and chosen to do just one job.
The Aussie players are more versatile Gitua have played international rugby in three positions, O’Conner have played S14/15 in three positions (to mention but two that I can quickly think off).
New Zealand locks like Brad Thorne have played leque rugby and can probably play center on provincial level if need be while Jack, Read, Thompson, Corey Jane, Nonu, Carter to name a few have played multiple positions on privincial, S14/15 and test level. There hookers and props are also scoring tries on the wing and run with the ball like centers while SBW will probably be a super success on flank or No8.
Our problems start with one dementional selection and development of players. Versalite players like Brent Russell, Raun Pienaar and dare I say Francios Hougaard rarely make it to the big time and soon get thrown on the rubbish heap becuase the don’t fit our model of how a flyhalf, fullback or whatever should look and play.
@ grootblousmile:
As much as I agree with both you and Morne, I think we tend to over complicate rugby in SA.
Morne is saying as much here when he talks about over structuring the tactics.
Simply put the non negotiable is posession, thereafter tactical decision making that wins territory and creates opportunity to score.
However we cannot achieve the above with inferior player skills.
So in short we have 2 big downfalls right now:
1 Lack of skill
2 Lack of good decision making
This leads me to another point based on the excellent defensive systems in rugby today.
We are very short of players who are game breakers and/or play makers.
Aussie, strangely have plenty such as O Conner, Cooper, Mitchell, Beale, to name a few.
NZ have the likes of Carter, SBW, Guidford, Maitland and others.
I can only think of Jacque Fourie, Gio Aplon, Lambie as those type of players that can turn a game around on an instance of individual flair.
@ tight head:
I am somewhere inbetween.
I have mentioned many times the poor skills of our players specifically in contact, but to me there are two sides to this.
Firstly, our players being so adapt at playing ‘set plays’ goes into contact a lot of the times with the plan to go to ground – i.e. they do it deliberately because they are supposed to set up the next phase. Surrounding players never expects a pass around the corner, or backdoor pass or a quick pop – no, their ‘job’ is to clean over this guy that went to ground to ensure they keep possession.
Secondly, the effect this has on our players is that they look for contact – not space (that is their job remember) – hence their skills are never developed or coached to get arms through the tackle by attacking the outside shoulders of a defender and try and keep the ball alive.
Only when all structure is lost and they cannot execute a set play they practiced for hours on end on the training pitch, do we see players act instinctively.
A great example of this was the Cheetahs on tour and specifically their last game.
Within their set structures they were capable, but ineffective.
When the game broke up and the ball was all over the place they looked their most destructive where game breakers like Ebersohn, Burger, etc came into their own acting on instinct!
Another example is just last night in the Varsity Cup final.
Tukkies got a penalty in the last 10 minutes 5 meters from the UCT tryline…
They called a set tap move. The forwards tapped the ball and the guy carrying the ball ran two meters and fell down – without a single hand being laid on him!!!
Cleaners came over but the effect was this;
UCT did not have to commit one defender to this move, yet Tukkies had 4 guys involved in this ruck (if you can call it that), the player that fell down and 3 other guys ‘protecting’ the ball.
Immediately you had 15 guys defending against 11 attackers! Who do you think is going to win that contest?
That is a prime example of how our players do not think, but act out on the drills/set plays they are exposed to for hours on end week in and week out on the training pitch.
Point is, we are turning our players into drones.
Because of this we perceive they do not have skills, whereas the truth probably lies more with the fact that because of how they are coached, and what they are coached to do, these ‘skills’ are never encouraged!
In the Stormers match it was very clear the Stormers were given instructions to play the game in the Reds half.
Now to illustrate how we coach natural talent and skills out of players consider what one of our most devastating attackers and steppers in SA rugby at the moment did.
On at least three occassions Gio Aplon fielded the ball between his own 22 and half-way line with at least 30 meters of space around him. What did he do? He kicked the ball…
What should have happened is that Gio should have assessed the situation and decided the best way to ‘get back in the Reds half’ would have been.
a) Kick where you actually just give the ball back to the opposition?
b) Run it where at least you have a much better chance of not only breaking the opposition lines with his skills and talent, but if brought down, you at least still have the ball?
But because the instruction was; ‘play in their half’ the decision making ability was removed from the player because the only way he knows or perceived what this meant, is get the ball down there in any way possible – and kicking does just that…
We have the game breakers, we have the talent, and you know what, I think these guys have the skills too.
We just coach it out of them.
R-T and Ruggaworld must buy the Kings and coach them , we have the best coaches and annalists together here, this is not meant sarcastic. Look at what we said over the years. Maybe Morne must compile a coaching manual from the 2 sites.
Can the coaches , i am thinking of FL, AC , PdeV and other not see what we say.
@ Morné:
I accept what you say.
The more I watch the game and assess where it is going, I realize that ultimately we are aiming towards a game that is high pace with ball continuity.
We are still playing an old fashioned game in that the Crusaders are showing that the way forward is to keep the ball ” Alive and moving ”
This is where space, ball skills and passing skills come into it.
At the same time good decision making dictates when to kick.
Skills need to be practised and worked on for hours to make them natural to a player.
Our old fashioned coaching mentality stands accused.
We cannot rely on outmuscling the opposition any more which seems to have been a SA mentality.
The opposition now out muscle and out skill us!!
@ tight head:
The biggest culprit in that is actually thanks to our success (2007, Jake White & 2009, B&I Lions and 3N).
We believed that ‘playing without the ball’ (an old Jake White favourite) is the way the game should be played.
Rugby however is quickly becomine more and more professional. Guys spent hours analysing teams and plays.
When I did analysis YEAAAARRRRSSS ago I was taught to look for patterns. Reason? Well once you establish a pattern in the opposition, it is quite easy to beat them – force them to play outside of their pattern – i.e., take them out of their comfort zone.
When you are overcoached in overstructured (pattern) rugby, you are extremely predictable. Whereas before the AB’s, Aussies etc. tried to beat us at this type of game, they now realise the best way to counter this, is to force YOU to play outside of this structured play or pattern, NOT try and beat you at it!
They figured out that because we spent 95% of the time working on these patterns and structures, we are far too bloody good and clinical in our execution to be beaten in it – so the logical solution is then to force you to play outside of it and they are very obviously, getting this right.
The other problem with this structured, pattern rugby is that if you are 2 or 3% off your game as an individual, or a key decision-making individual (or lose one of those to injury), it affects 20 to 30% of your strategy.
Other negatives have been raised above already.
I am tempted to send this Article and all the comments thus far to a few of the SA coaches, to see if I get a response…. even if just to tell me to mind my own bloody business!
… I’ll just blame it on Morné Pismier…. hehehe
@ grootblousmile:
Most of them hate me already so its cool! 😉
11@ Morné:
The problem is that the Unions, Coaches & Players see us supporters as mere consumers of the game who moan incessantly, with no ability to see what is happening right in front of our eyes. They forget all too easily that a lot of supporters played the game for long enough (at varying levels) and that a select few have coaching and analitical rugby skills to boot.
Apart from that some of us are blessed with the ability to be objective and are not subjectively involved (which they definately are) in the mistakes they make, which enables us to see from the outside inwards. As you well know to be objective must be very damn difficult for coaches & players, they can only see it from their own perspective where they have deep interpersonal relationships within their ranks…. and dare I say, pre-conceved ideas and solutions.
This forces them and conditions them to shun all outside influence, however positive that might be.
@ grootblousmile:
Saffa rugby players and coaches are the most cynical, paranoid human beings I have ever come across.
13@ Morné:
In addition they are fed into keeping that belief of being paranoid and cynical by members of the press corps, some of whom are so wishy-washy and lack a basic understanding of what rugby requires and really demands.
These journalists are shit-scared to be too undiplomatic in what they write for fear of not having the same access to coaches and players afterwards.
@ grootblousmile:
You know it, and I know it.
Nail on the head; SA teams are too structured. Recalling my playing day for one of the Varisty u/20 sides in a intervarsity we spend hours re-hearsing plays for each section of the field. One or two options for each quadrant of the field and you stick with it. Every players role is spelled out per definition to his position on the field. As a centre you had a task and a flank forward had a differnt task and you didn’t mix the roles. As a backline player I never learned to ruck and we never practiced it.
It worked 25 years ago because TV analysis didn’t exist. Our Super 14/15 teams have adjusted since re-entry but are still caught up in overstructure and are therefore much too predictable.
My feeling is coaches and players should work more on basic skils and to develop flow. Cheetahs has so far been the only SA team who played with flow and more freedom scoring some spectacular tries. Problem they do it at the cost of structure up front and by throwing 50/50 passes.
Too play “heads up rugby” without losing your structure is the key. Heads-up is not 50/50 passes or Razzle dazzle rugby but doing the opposite than the opponent. If the opponent play a close game you play wide.
What Morné is talking about here is very well known in the fighting arts. Change the pattern; do the opposite; keep the opponent of balance. Hard to do if your basic fundamental skills are not extremely well developed and honed. Timing and feeling for rhythm, depth and space is essential if you want to play/fight like that. Our players don’t practice like that and it is hard to make the shift from structure to flow if you don’t practice it.
PdV started his career as Bok coach with this idea but quickly changed his approach because the players didn’t like it and struggled with it even though we scored some great tries in his first few tests but we also looked a little wild and unstructured.
I think teams should start of by trying to be be more aware what is happening on the field and try to adjust to what the opponents are doing. That of course means if they start playing wide because we are playing close we need to slow the game down even more to draw them in and then change the pattern. The bulls was brilliant in this regard last year utilzing the pods, kicks and angeled runners with FdP being the general.
If heads-up rugby means you should do the opposite then of course it doesn’t mean you should start playing wide when the opposition does it. However it does mean you need to control the ball. If you want to change the speed and rhythm of the game you need to control the ball. You can’t do that if you keep on spilling the ball forward in the tackle and if you keep on trying to do the same thing (batter-ramming through the midfield) over and over again. Crusaders tackled the bulls in pairs; one going for the ankles and one tackling in on the ball. Bulls never adjusted to that tactic.
Morné wrote:
Agree. I know a couple they are very hard work to communicate with.
Nee, ou Morne, ons spelers gebruik nog altyd hul kop, vat nou maar vir Bakkies !
Good article Morne. Are the Bulls cpable of that sort of game? I’m not so sure, they seem to rely on forcing the opponants to play their game rather than adapting, and banking on their dominance on the ball to make it work.
Except of course, that it isn’t working…
Great ‘heads-up’ article, Morne and some interesting comments from the bloggers too.
The fact is we are robotic in our ply. Mindless dummies who has had the natural talent and instinctiveness that made them great talented players in their youth coached out of them.
Apart from the fact that set phases must be a coherent action between mainly the forwards who has to win the ball at lineout and scrumtimes where I believe we are most likely better coached and more effective than most, this “overcoaching” doesn’t stop here.
It is clear to see that often when we turn over ball, our first instinct is to kick the ball away. Only to have the opposition run back at us and pinning us down in our half.
The players have long gone forgotten what made them promising talent in their youth.
This is an interesting debate, but allow me to take it a step further.
Take a look at Primary School Rugby and you’ll see two very distinct types of Rugby being played.
The grade 1 & 2 kids are like a swarm of bees chasing an ice cream, and when a youngster get’s a break with the ball the individualism comes out and something special happens.
By grade 3 the kids with any talent have been spotted and come in for some coaching by coaches who “for the most part” have learnt to coach by watching the main game on TV on a Saturday afternoon after sitting through the first 2 games alongside the braai fires with a glass in his hand.
Hence the coach is of the opinion that flyhalf x, y or z is the pinnacle of Rugby Halfback evolution and because he scored 35 penalties in the 2nd half, that is how all flyhalf’s must play. And the same for all positions.
Hence we have a generation of kids entering High School who have been “brainwashed” into playing a certain type of game.
In High School, the “Rugby” schools, hungry for success, hand out Rugby bursaries to the upcoming youngsters, and they (the kids) are further encouraged to play the stereotyped game plan.
This in turn get’s the kids into the respective Craven Week squad, because a) they’re at the “right” school. and b) they’re seen as successful.
On the other hand, the kid who plays flyhalf that gets into a “small” High School and because he doesn’t have an all conquering pack of forwards to win penalties and good clean ball has to learn to be “inventive” with his poor possession may well become a more complete footballer, but because he attends the “wrong” school (often) doesn’t even get considered for Craven Week.
I could recall a number of incidents like this in JHB in recent years, but have grown tired of preaching for a change in the way things are done in SA Rugby.
If we don’t start looking at things from the bottom up SA Rugby will never endure long lasting success like dare I say it New Zealand does. (World Cup wins apart.)
@ Scrumdown:
A common theme throughout your post refers to the so-called ‘coaches’.
I don’t want to generlise here because I met a few brilliant coaches in South Africa – but it is really hard not to.
I don’t care where a kid learns his rugby, what I do care about is that he learns his rugby from someone qualified to coach it!
SA Rugby has proven with its BokSmart program that it is easy to access, and ultimately force all coaches even at school level to attain a minimum standard qualification before he is allowed to coach a team.
BokSmart can easily extent to coaches having to attain a minimum qualification (learning about laws for one) before he is allowed to coach.
23@ Morné:
Couldn’t agree more.
Where I have a problem is with “know it all” coaches who have diddly squat qualifications and then try to tell people how things should be done.
A case in point, my stepson was shunned as a grade 1 because he had never previously even held a Rugby ball. Now, after a few years in Africa, he’s at a “Rugby” school and suddenly because he’s not yet 15, but stands 1,83m and wears a size 11 shoe he’s expected to just start playing lock.
My point is, if the school has a coach who specialises in scrumming techniques with a least a level 2 coaching qualification who can teach the kid how to scrum SAFELY then all well and good. If not, “tough sh1t”, he’s not going to play.
I also question whether Boksmart has been implemented at smaller Unions like the Valke who have VERY limited resources.
The schools must bear in mind that ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC can force a game to stop if he /she realises that ANY official or coach involved (including a parent acting as a TJ/Assistant Ref’) does not have a valid Boksmart certification.
I tried to point this out to my Stepson’s school but they honestly did not seem interested.
@ Scrumdown:
Then its time we put pressure on SA Rugby on this very issue. I receive enough emails about BokSmart to know they have invested lots of money in this and if schools are not taking this seriously, then it makes a mockery not just of the program, but SA Rugby as an organisation.
We have the resources, name and shame boet – lately I have no skaam in naming and shaming people.
23@ Morné:
Meant to add, I think the problem with coaches is more at the Primary School and “small” High school level where schools are under pressure personnel wise, and very often a member of the public or a parent steps in to coach the younger kids.
The so called “Rugby” schools in JHB like Monnas, St Stithians, Marais Viljoen etc all appoint Rugby Directors and (I feel) things are (for the most part) very well run and controlled.
CONTACT US
Email: boksmart@sarugby.co.za
Postal Address: SA Rugby
P.O. Box 99
Newlands
7725
Fax: +27865725550
UNION BOKSMART REPRESENTATIVE TEL. NUMBER FAX
BOLAND DENVER PIENAAR 021 8732317 021 8732434
BORDER THEMBALETHU BHENUKA 043 7435998 043 7436613
BLUE BULLS KOSIE HORN 012 4200708 012 3442966
SWD MARTIN DE VOS 044 8730137 044 8730405
EP CORNE KORFF 041 4088916 0866 747207
VALKE ALFRED ROSS 016 976 2112 016 976 2034
FREE STATE SELVYN COLBY 051 4071712 051 4473581
GRIFFONS HARRY PIENAAR 057 3526482 057 3573703
GRIQUAS KAT SWANEPOEL 053 8328773 053 8321332
LEOPARDS TICH CARTWRIGHT 018 2975304 018 2971657
LEOPARDS PHILIP DU TOIT (deputy) 018 2975304 018 2971657
LIONS CASSIE DRIFT 011 4022960 011 4027913
PUMAS HENDRY MATONSI 013 6562647 013 6563387
SHARKS RICKY HUEY 031 3088515 031 3929197
WP BEN THERON 021 6594500 021 6594501
hey guys
quite an interesting debate you’ve got going
hope to come and turn the applecart over tomorrow
just been hectic here for the last 2 days, lol
goodmorning everyone!!
morné, quite an interesting article you wrote here. maybe you should send it on to keo, so he could learn the difference between helter skelter and heads up rugby!!
now
yes, i believe i’m as frustrated as you are with the lack of, can i call it composure of our teams? we seem lost (as you’ve said) when forced outside our comfort zone or when forced to think for ourselves. i think it has become common amongst sa teams (especially in the 1st half) to stick with our gameplan until we can assess the situation at half-time, and then hopefully change it after that!! take the stormers eg. i think petergrant kicked his 1st tactical kick somewhere past the 20th minute of the 1st half … why does it take our teams so long to adjust tactically or just to try something else? the bulls eg even on a smaller field failed to kick the ball into the stands and thus force the crusaders into a stop-start game! (argh!!) its such small things, that can make such a huge difference!!
(sigh) anyway, can any of you guys explain the vision training programme jw ran under supervision of sherylle calder? wasnt that supposed to help players to “see situations better and process them faster than others?” if (at any stage) it worked, why isnt it working anymore?
Users Online
Total 91 users including 0 member, 91 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,440,108 Page Impressions
_