Halfway through a frustrating night -during which I slept little due to the massive disappointment of SA dropping out of the 2011 RWC- I started to see some reasons why the Springboks lost.
The thing that kept me awake most was the fact that the Springboks had 76% of the ball, dominated scrums and line-outs (Matfield taking 6 of their line-out balls), had territorial advantage for most of the match and had the Wallabies under massive pressure for almost the entire match and still lost the game.
Here are the 13 reasons I came up during my night of suffering.
- Taking on the best in the world with a bunch of inexperienced coaches
How is it possible -I kept asking myself during the night- that the Springboks lost with all the experience in the side and all that possession? The reasons/answers I came up with are all imbedded in the extreme arrogance and stupidity of SARU management who thought they could take on the best in the world with an inexperienced (if not sub-standard) coach.
- Rule interpretation changes in 2009
It is interesting to note that both teams who played in the 2007 final didn’t make it past the quarters this year. South Africa and England are probably the two Test Nations that are most imbedded into the 10-man-flyhalf-dictating-type playing style.
Both were unable to adjust after the 2009 rule interpretation chances. England went for youth and South Africa stuck with experience. England enforced the chances (in playing style) more aggressively while South Africa tried to take the middle road. In the end South Africa got caught between the two styles, relying (falling back) on one style too much when the going got tough and not doing enough of the other.
Looking at England, I don’t believe the selection of younger players would have changed our situation (in fact it would have made it worse like we saw in the Tri-Nations this year). I will however get back to the point of player selection later as it is one of the reasons I believe why the Springboks got unstuck.
-
Payback for 4 years of not running with the ball
The Springboks were caught in between the two styles like I mentioned in the previous point and kept falling back on senior players who reverted to type when playing quality opposition.
During Jake White’s tenure the Springboks developed a style of scoring early in the match to take the lead and then reverted into defensive mode (which I hated with a passion), forcing the opponents to run at them so they could spring counter attacks off mistakes. They utilized the high kick and charge tactic to keep the pressure on the opposing team and squeezed the high kick receivers into the touch line with the fast Habana and Pierre Spies working in combo.
Things went haywire the moment the Springboks leaked the early Wallabies try and you could see the Springboks were totally stunned after being down 5-0 and then 8-0. They had to change their mindsets from being in the lead forcing the opponents to make play, towards chasing a lead.
In the end 4 years of not running enough with the ball required payback and they were just too one-dimensional on attack. There was’nt enough starter moves and not enough variety and the ball control at the ruck was just developed enough to run with the ball.
- No innovation
The Springboks never moved beyond the pods and the pods changed over time into stagnant tombstones.
Over the last four years there was no development in the backline and no development of new starter moves/game plans around new talent.
Lack of innovation is the thing that links all the others together, as it is a key component in successful rugby at the highest level.
If you are standing still, you are predictable. If you are predictable you are vulnerable in 2 ways. Opponents can eventually match or surpass your temporary level of efficiency, or worse – render your tactics and / or methods obsolete by their own innovations.
The Springbok game plan is essentially sound, and has been hammered out over decades, so it is part of the “database” from which your players and coaches operate. And at its best it is not just power-forward packs, kicking fly halves, and aggressive defense. But it must be supplemented and updated. The Springboks are 95% there, the 5% required is their breakdown structure and backline play starter moves, done with speed and precision. Once the Springbokse get that right they’ll be the force of yesteryear again.
- Lack of leadership
There was no real leadership in the coaching group with the result that players ran the show. The senior players stuck with what they felt comfortable with and with what they knew.
This resulted into a stagnant environment where nothing new was carefully planned, practiced and implemented.
- Strategically ignorant
It was four years of reactive coaching. No pro-active stuff. The All Blacks in 2009 saw opportunity in the new rule interpretations and stared to systematically plan and prepare for Tri-Nations 2010.
They (the All Blacks) were pro-active whilst the Springboks kept on trying to catch-up after each humiliating defeat with reactive measures.
The Springbok game plan was essentially to score early in the match and then hang on instead of developing the team to full potential.
The team and coaches were not trying to develop the Springbok game but focussed on the scoreboard. This is of course a Blue Bull thing (Naas Botha – look at the scoreboard) and enforced and maintained into the Springbok environment because of the lack of real presence and depth in the coaching group.
- Lack of attention to detail
The stagnant pods, the spilling of the ball in contact, the giving away of possession at the ruck, the constant struggling in the scrums (yes it got better in this RWC but has been a persistent problem through-out the past 4 years), the poor quality of Springbok backline play, all resulted from a lack of attention to detail.
The Springboks lost this match against Australia due to running poor supporting lines. At the pods and when a player runs with the ball, Springbok supporting runners were far too close and too lateral, with the result that they had to turn to re-enter the collisions. It also put them in an unfafourable position to receive off-loads.
The Australian try came from two instances where the supporting runners were too lateral. The Springboks were on attack in their 22 and looking good, next moment an off-load is spilled because the supporting runner is too flat. Australia gets the ball, takes the Springboks into their 22, where the Springboks try and ruck it up. Again Brussow is too lateral in his support of Schalk Burger, he trips and falls down, creating a hole for the Australians to compete for the ball.
This is just an example of the lack of attention to detail which cost this Springbok team a number of Test matches over the last 4 years.
- Sub-standard rucking skills
Closely related to points 3 and 7. Springbok rucking skills are way behind the ball game. It has developed since South Africans started playing Super 12 / 14 rugby but at Springbok level there has never been a concentrated effort to get it on par with the All Blacks.
The ruck or the collision area is the heart of All Black rugby. Warren Gatland is on his way to the final with a young and in my mind pretty mediocre bunch of players, due to rectifying this one facet of Welsh rugby.
How many times has a ‘fetcher’ flanker been the man of the match in Test matches against South Africa?. Just in this Rugby World Cup alone, Sam Warburton detroyed the Springboks at the rucks and was man of the match and so was Poccock yesterday in the quarter final match. Why is this? Why this pattern that ‘fetcher’ flankers are so influential when they play against the Springboks? Richie McCaw always has better games against the Springboks than against Australia, England, Wales or Ireland.
I would venture that these ‘fetcher’ flankers has such rippers against South Africa simply because the Springboks are so poor at the breakdowns. There is simply not enough attention to detail and not enough structure at the tackle area.
The Springboks know this and that’s why they try and limit or avoid running with the ball. Well, the problem is not going to disappear by ignoring it. Opposition teams target this area with the new rule interpretations because that’s how you can take opposition out of the match.
- Poor player management
There was no national strategy to manage players. Peter de Villiers did not have enough stature or influence as National coach to enforce (or get Super Rugby coaches to buy into) a National strategy. Senior players played way too much rugby over the last two years.
-
Over-reliance on senior players
Peter de Villiers’ wheels came off every time he tried to play with younger players. He kept messing around with combinations (this was better during this RWC) but his lack of standing made him over-dependent on John Smit to steer the ship as well as on senior players to pull the wagon through the rough spots.
This culminated in senior players calling the shots. Player-driven teams can sometimes innovate but it is very hard for them to have both the “big picture” objectivity, as well as the selflessness to de-select themselves if necessary. The 1937 Springbok team was a player driven team and Doc Craven was because of that very much in favour of such a system. Morné du Plessis essentially coached the Springboks in 1976.
The new rule interpretations, which saw the game change in 2009 required somebody from outside the team to analyse and digest.
Players just don’t have the time to do the digestion and planning due to the amount of time they need to train.
The All Black innovation after the 2009 rule alterations was a collective effort, involving players but Henry and co initiated it and steered the process.
That is the balance. Coaches don’t have to be dictators. They can quietly co-ordinate the efforts and thoughts of players. Just as long as the coach gets his way on the things that count, but not in such a way that player input, initiative and thinking is stifled. It is a real tight-rope to walk, and an art in reading human nature, rather than a hard science.
Also, yes… it is very hard in the modern age to have player-coaches compared to the situation in the past. The reason is that as a result of video analysis, and professional staff, the innovative process has been shrunk down to micro-issues, but has also been sped up considerably.
You probably won’t get major and radical innovations like the ones which transformed the game historically, for example the 2-3-2, and then 3-4-1 scrum formation, Bennie Osler and tactical kicking, Hennie Muller and aggressive defence, Vic Cavanagh and rucking. Those are big rocks in place that transformed the very nature of rugby, and influenced successive generations.
Now, you need to change little things, and you need to do it constantly. What you did last year, or even last week may be out of date due to the brains, analysis, and support staff your opponents have at their disposal. Its just too much for a player to be on top of, and then also play well.
-
Injuries to key players
Frans Steyn could have slotted those two long range penalties and won the Springboks the match.
The over-reliance and over-playing of senior players resulted in injuries to other key players as well, notably Bakkies Botha and Juan Smith. Victor Matfield had to sit out for a couple of games and Heinrich Brussow actually went onto the field heavily strapped around the rib cage in yesterday’s match.
Fourie du Preez was just a shadow of his former glory after shoulder surgery, which kept him out of the game for a year.
All teams have injuries and there is the constant need to adjust to it. In South Africa’s case the injuries resulted from player fatigue due to poor player management, I believe.
-
Lack of speed
All the above culminated into lack of speed on the park. Lack of speed in general play and lack of players with real line-breaking ability.
We were stuck with Bryan Habana, who was past his best due to a team set-up / environment which was not condusive to developing and using new talent.
There was also a clear lack of speed taking the ball up and recycling it. Too slow was a repeated utterance from me when the Bokke started any movement and when they were recycling the ball.
On the rare occasions that the Springboks were able to force the opponents on the back foot, they almost always scored. The Springboks lacked consistency in this department due to lack of attention to detail and lack of starter moves.
A common feature of Springbok play is stationary pods behind the advantage line or charging forwards receiving the ball too far behind the advantage line and, with players charging in too slowly. It was rare for the Springboks to recycle the ball more than 5 times in a row because of just this problem.
The Springboks were also far too one dimensional in taking the ball up. It was always Schalk Burger or Jannie du Plessis charging into channels 1 or 2.
What about using the backline, taking it wide and running some angles like Samoa did…. or the No9 looping around before sending it wide like NZ did when Slade scored that fantastic try against the Springboks in the Tri-Nations?
-
Not attacking space
One of the biggest problems with South African rugby is the obsession with running over the opponent rather than attacking space. We saw this in abundance against Australia in the quarters. “Schalk the Hulk” was crashing into opponents to the extent that it became boringly predictable.
This has to be addressed and hopefully the new coach will have a strategy to constantly increase the percentage of time in which players attack space. Crashing it up is ok on the odd occasion, but certainly not every time and variety and surprise is going to win the Springboks future matches, not brute force.
Lastly was that pass forward? Check this out:
McLook you write such a long post and make so many points, i would fully agree with a few points, say 3. Agree with say another 5 but disagree with 5 others.
I am not going to answer every one individually but i will post a question or two.
The Boks did not look tired today , we won every facet that counts and everyone in the World said they cant believe we lost from that position.
The Aussies won without the ball, the were playing our Jake White blueprint, defense. They employed Braam van Straaten and at the end kicked better.
We were robbed on the Aussie goal line at least 2 times , in that 5 meter area from the try line, that area where yellow cards are normally dished out to us whenever we stole a ball, if the normal tendency was upheld by the ref we could have rumbled it up more and more there, i know its not pretty , but thats how it is done by all. Here i blame the ref.
Nothing we say about the ref can change the outcome, but in reality the part in Rugby that has gone rotten is the Refereeing. I Read a lot about this game and especially on the Aussie and Kiwi websites and yes they all feel the ref was abysmal. Although they re-conned he was to both side, i disagree, if he made 10 mistakes each way at the same places and same positions it would have been fair. The problem was he made his most crucial mistakes in our scoring range.This pattern was seen many times in 2011, you blow a team of the park and at the end when the evidence is there for all to read you suddenly reverse you blowing by giving penalties the other way to distort the stats and soften the evidence against you.
Mac the way we attend the rucks is one where i agree with you. We are there but we dont blow them over or out. We stand there waiting for them to pick up and drive again , hoping for a knock? Why do they anticipate better. I think we did not do well there. Still the stole some balls illegally.
No mention about the Ref?
Do you read http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/live-chat-rwc-semi-final-3-australia-v-south-africa/ or some of the other sites? Well respected authors agreethat Bryce was sh@t.
one of many comments in the article above-
Blytherin
Posted October 9, 2011 at 7:16 PM
What a game from Pocock! With him on our side we’ve got to be chance against the Darkness (if they win).
But Bryce Lawrence, what a fuckin disaster. Thanks for just about wrecking the game for both teams. He should be ashamed of himself.
And with that i finish.
My last words for today Maybe.
Our experience did not help us at all
The Ref was poor
The team picked did well
Pocock had a free reign and we allowed it, (Bakkies could have blown him away)
Peter de Villiers is hanging out there to dry go get him.
And it took me the whole Sunday to clear my face from all the egg.
Whatever you say today just remember the team played the game this time, the Aussies won without ball, and the ref DID have the last say.
OUT OF HERE
Aside from Pocock’s crucial turnovers, South Africa were hampered by making too many mistakes in potential try-scoring situations under defensive pressure and will rue their 11 handling errors in the match. They also missed their main breakdown warrior, Heinrich Brüssow, who came off after 20 minutes.
South Africa had 84 per cent of the territory in the first half and 55 per cent of possession but still managed to trail 8-3 at the interval after Horwill scored from a Springboks mistake 11 minutes in and James O’Connor and Morné Steyn landed penalties at either end.
By full-time the possession pendulum had swung slightly in Australia’s favour but the Springboks had still enjoyed 76 per cent of the territory for the match for no reward.
Springboks coach Peter de Villiers, who announced he was standing down after four years in charge, described the mood in the South Africa dressing room as “three notches lower than a funeral”.
“The guys are quiet. We never expected this,” he said.
“Quarter-finals, semi-finals, finals, you have got to take your chances. It didn’t go our way, we didn’t take all our chances. Well done to them, the few they got they took and beat us fairly on the scoreboard.”
IRB
I purposefully stayed away from saying anything about the ref untill I have looked at the match again.
I’ll agree that he robbed us from at least two tries, one in the first half and one in the second half.
I don’t like ref bashing because I believe you’ve got to be good enough to take the ref out of the game.
We had enough ball and territorial advantage in this game. WHY COULDN’T WE SCORE WITH ALL THAT POSSESSION?
That for me is the real issue. Not the ref.
No starter moves, to slow taking the ball up, to slow recycling the ball, poor ball control at the rucks, to one-dimensional on attack. These are coaching issues not referee issues.
We never developed our ability to run with the ball and that became our downfall.
We also take the lead and then force the opponents to run at us so we can force them into mistakes.
This time the Aussies did it to us and we just couldn’t score with 76% of the ball.
13 reasons:
Bryce Lawrence
Bryce Lawrence
Bryce Lawrence
Bryce Lawrence
Bryce Lawrence
Bryce Lawrence
Bryce Lawrence
Bryce Lawrence
Bryce Lawrence
Bryce Lawrence
Bryce Lawrence
Bryce Lawrence
Bryce Lawrence
One positive thing for Malema in South Africa,
He is nop longer the MOST hated person in SA hehehe, Bryce Lawrence is!!!!
GO ALL BLACKS!!!!! GO ALL THE WAY
McLook wrote:
We all knew it would be a tight game and few tries will be scored, even the Mighty All Blacks could only manage 2 against a far weaker Argentina, so those 2 tries you talked about would have meant we rampaged them. Thus it is simple the worst calls went against us. But i am glad it is over, it is only a game we jol , not to be taken seriously so just accept the refs decision and jol another time.
We can shout cry throw tantrums but nothing will change, but we must get rid of referees who can not stay focused. So if whining helps to get better Referees i am willing to whine a lot more. I have not become a good loser just because the Bulls started making it a habit of it this year so yes i am sulking too.But i am big enough to know that its over this year.
I wrote this for another website.
Let me start of with the fact that South Africa did not lose because of the lack of physicality, their tight five, determination or the lack of trying. Any team with 76% of the territory and spending a total of almost 12 minutes in the opponents 22 can not be accused of not playing the game.
I don’t want to start recording statistics of this match as we all know apart from the score board just about every statistic was heavily favoring the springboks. The question is then, why did they lose?
Well I am sure most of you expect me to start with Bryce Lawrence, well I am not going to discuss him here as acknowledging his role in this match will be to acknowledge the fact that he had a clue of what went on during the match.
Instead I want to focus on the real issues.
Missing players.
Juan Smith is in my opinion the quintessential ball carrier, a harder worker on the rugby field will be difficult to find, we missed him terribly badly.
Frans Steyn, his ability to get over the gain line, his distribution and his ability to kick 50 plus meter penalties was irreplaceable.
Andries Bekker/Bakkies Botha. Although Danie Rossouw had a very good world cup, the physicality of either of those two players were needed today, not just in cleaning the rucks but their general impact they have on the South African tight five.
Decision making.
In the first half John Smit refused two kickable goals when SA was down 5-0, although the momentum was with SA, this was still a knock out match and in contradiction to the game plan employed during the past 8 years, was the first time I can remember South Africa not go for posts.
Late in the second half when SA was leading 9-8 there was a ruck 5 meters from the Australian line and Morne Steyn signalled to Fourie du Preez that he wanted one more forward going into a drive and he went into the pocket for the drop goal, but Francois Hougaard did the run around the ruck with the short ball being fed by Fourie du Preez.
Those were three decisive mistakes made by two very senior and experienced springboks.
Adaptability.
After the first test against Wales, the South African coaching staff was flummoxed by the way Barnes officiated the breakdown. Instead of discussing it at half time and adapting to the way Barnes was officiating the breakdown South Africa continued in the same vain and did not adapt.
During the Samoa match South Africa were once again at odds with the way Nigel Owens officiated not only the breakdown but also seemingly allowing Samoa to continue the niggly bits and once again did not adapt to the situation.
By the time South Africa had to face Australia you would have expected them to have come to the realisation that any talks with a referee before hand will by now have proven fruitless and that adaptability on the day was the key.
But yet once again when Pocock and co went into rucks guns ablazing and with little regard to the daylight rule and not being pinged, South Africa should have adapted. After all they could risk it as they were very seldom in their own half and didn’t have to worry about the penalty kicks to post from within the Australian half.
White line fever.
How many knocks did South Africa have with an open try line? Two or three by my count. Two forward passes on the attack didn’t help either. Whether you want to call it execution, white line fever or just plain bad luck, but none of it helped.
Change of game plan.
It is all good and well to play the way that they did, but this does not mean you entirely forsake the basics of what has been ingrained into your soul for the past 8 years. You don’t go into a knock out match with a “new” process and stick to it come hell or high water. At some point in time you need to realise that the basic principles of your plan needs to remain in place.
The try Australia scored was off a mistake made because of the new plan, when do you see a springbok team running from their own try line? Instead of clearing the ball to touch, Schalk burger recieves the ball on his try line to run it up, voila mistake made, turn over and try for Australia.
Intelligence.
I have said this before and I will continue to say this until eventually SARU decides to appoint a coach in the mould of John Mitchell who teaches his players to think about what they are doing. Intelligence is a scarce commodity in the current Springbok line up and is vital for future success.
Summary.
Hopefully SARU will look to appoint a coach with experience and pedigree, hopefully they will forsake this foolish notion of being politically correct and start thinking about getting their house in order. The springboks did rather well over the past 4 years considering that rugby has evolved whilst South African rugby has stagnated in a cryogenic state since Jake White’s dismissal. As much as I believe Pieter de Villiers did as much as was in his capabilities, he simply did not have the technical nous to be the coach of a top three nation.
SARU must look towards Nick Mallet or if he is interested someone like John Mitchell who I have come to respect and admire, not only for his technical abilities but also for the manner in which he communicates his vast knowledge to an armchair critic like myself.
Now is the time for South African rugby to take a bold new step and keep the basic foundation of what their players offer, but to move into a new direction with the way they approach the game. Otherwise I fear we may well find ourselves the worst performing politically correct team in world rugby.
The sad part for me is the fact that I mentioned all these factors at the end of the 2009 Tri Nations and it provides me no pleasure in saying “I told you so”.
.
@ Tripples:Agree check out the video I’ve added.
McLook and Biltongbek
I posted this on the match thread just after yhe game ended:
“A couple of observations from my side.
1. The Boks inability to adapt on the field (again) was a major contributing factor to the loss.
2. There will be MANY articles on the web over the next few days lambasting the ref’ and his poor game. The truth is, the Boks couldn’t adapt or raise their game sufficiently to make him irrelevant.
3. The Boks weren’t good enough to win. If you have the amount of territory and possesion that they had, and fail to make the points, you’re not good enough. End of story.
4. The time has come for a major clean out in management. Div and his team has had 4 years to get things right, and with weeks to go before this tourney they were still scratching for solutions. As the old guard of players are moving on, unfortunately so must Messrs de Villiers, Gold and Muir and the rest.
5. South Africa has a wealth of talent coming through. They need to be blooded NOW and build for the future. This Aussie side was the YOUNGEST they have ever played in a knock-out game at a WC, the Bok side was one of the oldest. Must say something.
Guys, I’m bitterly dissapointed and I’m sure the whole country is, for me it doesn’t feel as bad as when the Proteas lost to the Aussies in the 1999 Cricket WC semi, in a way I think we all knew that this game could go either way.
Try to relax for the rest of the day gents. I can’t see anyone stopping the AB’s now, but let’s hope. Rather the Taffy Bastids than the Wallabies or the AB’s.”
Also, Biltongbek, I have to agree with you re a coach like John Mitchell. At his press conference after the WP game on Saturday he told the media there that the WHOLE of the previous week had been about MENTAL preparation, and that on Monday morning, (today) they would start the mental preparation for the Semi Final. Now that has got to tell us something.
The truth is IMO that the Springboks just don’t have the mental nuance to change a game plan on the field if things are going wrong. It’s almost as if it has been coached out of them.
The Springbok management has been VERY POOR for a long time. How Bakkies was even allowed to get on a plane to the WC is a mystery to me. He certainly wasn’t near fit, and at the end of the day played almost no role in the WC at all.
When Juan Smith was eventually pulled from the squad, (due to his own admission that he wouldn’t be ready) I stated here on RT that it was a massive blow and questioned whether we had someone who could fill his boots. It seems now that we didn’t. I also wonder whether he would have been forced to tour if he had not ruled himself unavailabe?
SARU have MANY faults that really need to be cleaned up, but, as with the IRB, I doubt it will ever happen.
The systems and processes that keep the poor management and administrators in their positions is just too deeply ingrained and will remain for a long time to come. There needs to be a willingness to change for anything to happen, and I’m afraid there is just not that willingness.
Now for the fifty million dollar (ZIM?) question. Who will replace Div?
Morning Scrumdown, Yes essentially I think we agree on the basis of it. We need a brave coach, someone who will ignore the status quo and have a rethink. He must look at the current crop of oungsters and start from there, build a team from scratch.
Start with Hougaard at 9 and Lambie at 10, let these two guys form the axis of a new era in springbok rugby, both are young, energetic and very talented. They can become the Gregan, Larkham of South Africa.
I forgot to mention, I hope the new coach whoever he may be will not ever again forsake one test for some ideology of winning something else in the future.
Prepare to win every test, and once your squad has been identified, make sure these players are managed from the start.
Biltongbek /scrumdown
I agree with each and every point you two have made!
Snorre issie lekker nie, now he says he never resigned? Eish, all I know is that Snorre, Tricky Dicky and Goue Gerrie moet net waai!!!!!!
Another point I’ve been pondering for the last 22 hours or so.
It seems that the Boks were absolutely terrified of letting the Wallabies, and the Ref know that they (Australia) were infringing on the ground.
If you are on the opponents 5m line, and they continually transgress with hands on the ball in a ruck, I can assure you that once you have stood on, and possibly disclocated / fractured a finger or two, the transgressor WILL think twice before doing it again.
To do so is well within the rules, as any arriving player is not allowed to use his hands on the ball, hence you should ruck the ball free from the melee.
If you give away a penalty on the oppositions 5m line it’s not the end of the world, but you have sent a clear message to the opposition and the ref.
Springbok Rugby getting soft?
If we had Bakkies Botha there, Australia would most likely have a few bruised ribs rather than just broken fingers. No one took over that role.
I also read this morning that John Smit was aware of the infringing and the way Bryce officiated, he says he spoke to Lawrence throughout the game about it and Lawrence weren’t listening.
No you could say f”’k Lawrence, but if John saw Lawrence wasn’t doing anything about it, or didn’t want to do anything about it, he should have instructed his team to adapt.
16@ biltongbek:
Springboks have been unable to adapt to a match situation for the last 6 years.
It’s cost us numerous tests.
@ Scrumdown:
true.
@ biltongbek@9:We are on the same wave lenght (must be a age thing, hahaha). I don’t like referee bashing and will admit Lawrence was double K center A but in the end you’ve got it right with all that ball we should be able to make the referee irrelevant.
The senior players stepped-up nad played themselves to a standstill but is was all to preedictable, all to slow and all to one-dimentional.
It’s a coaching problem and SARU should take the blame. They appointed these coaches.
@ Scrumdown@11: Agree with all your points. Stop blaming the ref and take responsibility. Springbok rugby is behind the ball game due to appoitments made by SARU. Time to get a real classy international coach like John Mitchell.
20@ McLook:
The more I see and listen to JM the more I realise he is a class act.
The problem is that he doesn’t seem to suffer fools easily, and I’m sure he would not last too long with SARU. I’ll be surprised if he’s at the Lions for another 2 years, as they certainly have enough fools there!
@ Scrumdown:
That is exactly what we need, someone who doesn’t suffer fools. he just needs a wise lawyer when signing his contracts.
Springbok rugby to me needs to be the same setup as when we were in the army, a militaristic coach who doesn’t take poop.
McLook, of course it is the age thing, we seem wiser more objective and perhaps a little more full of poop in our early middle ages.
22@ biltongbek:
When the rumours first surfaced that JM was unhappy at the Force I suggested at an informal GLRU do that he was the type of coach that would do well at the Lions as he is a strict discipilarian, and that normally goes down well with MOST SA youngsters.
My suggestion went down like a Lions victory at Loftus does in the Loftus Presidential suite, but someone must have been listening, because eventually it all came together.
It’s taken him (JM) a while to get the players doing things his way, but one can now see the fruit of his labours.
Whether he would ever fit in, or even if SA would tolerate a Kiwi coaching the Boks I doubt, but where there’s hope, there’s life.
Isn’t it ironic that the last time the Lions / Cats had any sustained success they also had a Kiwi coach!
@ Scrumdown:
i have been watching some of the Lions players and in specific little Elton jantjies, and also heard John Mitchel talking about him and his personal development. That was the first time I was impressed with what I heard from him. He provided such an understadning about the personal development areas of the individual player and went into the little aspects of what makes a player great.
It tells me that he takes a talented player who has supposedly already been coached and are suppose to have all the skills already and still has enough knowledge and technical nous to develop a player on a one to one basis.
Geez, I still feel awful. Don’t know when the pain and disappointment will fade but it hasn’t gotten any easier yet. You all make valid points, but the fact is it could so easily have been a Bok victory and everyone would be singing a different tune. The Boks did most things right on the day, that’s a fact. But the rugby gods ruled otherwise. Sometimes it’s just not to be even though you give it your all as this team did. They didn’t lose to a better team.
If one did the same analysis of the Aussie team, one would find many more things wrong than with the Boks. Yet they won, so we ignore all their shortcomings. Destiny handed it to them combined with a moerse passionate defense. They were the poorer side but they wanted it as much. I think now that the All Blacks are fated to win this WC and the only team that could have stopped them were the Boks. So go on to glory New Zealand. You have been the best all round team for a long time. You deserve it.
@ The_Young_Turk:
turk maybe that is why it is hurting so much this time round “losing to a poorer team”
Playing what might have been and looking for someone to blame is a very natural and understandable reaction. All of us are sucked into playing it. The guys and I include the coaches, did a good job. Things were just not meant to be. There is a thin line between hero and zero in the media. In reality it’s a lot different.
@ biltongbek:
Yes, that makes the hurt so much worse. This team had the ability to take the All Blacks. The way they dominated it would have been an awesome semi. It’s such an enormous let down.
@ biltongbek@26 and Young Turk@25:Yes it still hurts like hell. I read all these reports (mostly by Aussie scribes) how well the Aussie played and that this Aussie team is the real thing.
They must have watched the match with yellow coloured glasses as that was not what I saw. I thought the bokkies played extremely well and apart from a few crucial mistakes like Schalk losing the ball on the goal line and Pakslae pulling that jumpers legs I thought we could and should have won this match. We were by far the better team on the park. We lost it the Wallabies didn’t win it.
No way the JdV pass was forward and the referee was terrible to be honest.
However, I still maintain we had enough ball to put them away and Springbok rugby should be focussing on that and not on blaming the referee.
Users Online
Total 57 users including 0 member, 57 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,489,913 Page Impressions
_