NZ Herald on Springboks

[markshaw]

An Article from The New Zealand Herald on Springboks world cup chances. I agree with some parts of it but would like some opinions on the article.
Mark


Peter de Villiers didn't look like a happy man in the stands as the Crusaders pummelled the Stormers at Newlands on Sunday.
Away from the public glare though, the Springboks coach might have afforded himself a wee smile because the Super 15 semifinal provided further confirmation that the world champions don't have what it takes to compete with New Zealand and Australia's attacking game.
Knowing he doesn't have the players to attack, de Villiers can get back to basics, which in South Africa involves trench warfare, lineout supremacy, field position, bombs, kicking the goals and letting opponents make the mistakes. This is a formula by which they are more than capable of defending their ***le.
The Stormers, with a test-class three-quarters line, were second rate, if not third. The more South Africa relies on their traditional strengths and the more they forget about any so-called obligation to make the World Cup an entertaining showpiece, the more dangerous they will be. They still have ample power in the forwards to win this year's World Cup so long as the champs have enough belief in their limited approach. It's only when South African teams get away from this philosophy that they look out of their depth.

However a major mystery remains about South African rugby: why are they such ordinary scrummagers?
They have the bulk but not the attitude and/or technique to match. South African rugby should forget about the frills and institute a crusade to turn their scrums into massive weapons of destruction. At the moment, South Africa is letting the rest of the world off on this score, considering scrums should be at the heart of their power game.
But they are unlikely to ever match New Zealand and Australia in attacking flair for the simple reason they don't have Maori and Pacific Island players.
Virtually all of rugby's most dangerous attacking backs have Maori or Polynesian/ Melanesian heritage, to the point that even England sneak visiting players with those bloodlines into their national lineup.
Sonny Bill Williams, Ma'a Nonu, Robbie Fruean, Israel Dagg, Hosea Gear, Joe Rokocoko, Sitiveni Sivivatu, Rupeni Caucaunibuca, Rene Ranger, Isaia Toeava, Will Genia, Quade Cooper, Digby Ioane, Lote Tuqiri - there's a strong common denominator there and one not available to South Africa. If you can't beat them, don't even bother trying. That will be the South African motto.
The past two World Cups have been won by teams with narrow gameplans. The rules may have changed, but that rule can still apply.
De Villiers got the message loud and clear at Newlands, and his team is still dominated by an old guard of influential forwards. What's the bet South Africa arrive at the World Cup with a plan you could write on the back of a postage stamp, so long as it is big enough to fit the words "drop" and "goals" on it? They could swap notes with England - and rest assured, both countries will be all the more dangerous for sticking to their knitting, rather than trying to weave any fancy patterns.

 

[Larksea]

interesting though I dont agree that you need some maori/PI blood to add attacking flare to your rugby side that's utter bull. Some of New Zealands greatest and most creative attacking players were "whiteys" Kirwan, Jeff Wilson, Cullen?

As far as where SA are right now it's true things are pretty Dire. Yes they have great Giant locks and huge loose forwards and a couple of Mammoth Hookers, though their props aren't as deadly they will have a fearsome forward pack it likely wont be enough to have a real edge over some teams like NZ, England & France and their backline is lightyears behind Australia in terms of creativity.

Overall they have player stocks to pale pretty much all nations, Rugby has a bigger player base in SA that pretty much anywere else. I think their main problem is their coach doesn't have the Balls or Brains to make use of it.

On the other hand this could all turn out to be a true illusion of weakness that just makes them more dangerous. They will always have the ability to get up on a single day and beat anyone and that's all that matters in a world cup. not being good every single weekend like the all blacks.

 

[Tomsey]

I agree that South Africa won't be able to win the World Cup by trying to play stereotypical Southern Hemisphere attacking rugby, but I wouldn't put England in this boat anymore. They blew Australia off the park at our own game at Twickenham last year and scored plenty of tries during the 6 nations.
Why is it that the traditional masters of 10 man Rugby, the English, can be regarded as a genuine threat come World Cup playing attacking rugby when the Bokke are simply written off? The answer is the make up of their teams. England have moved on from their boring "kick, scrum and when all else fails kick" tactics under Martin Johnson and they have done it by retiring players like Steve Borthwick and Phil Vickery, who could only be useful playing that type of rugby and introduced the likes of Courtney Lawes, Ben Youngs and Chris Ashton. Its no coincidence that these three where key in the afore mentioned win over Australia.
South Africa's squad on the other hand looks very similar to the one they took to the last World Cup, one which made a name for its self playing 10 man rugby. Adding to that that the players are all 4 years older now and even less likely to be able to combine and form an attack orientated outfit capable of winning a World Cup means that, as the article suggests, they will have little choice but to kick and hope.

 

[Aedaphon]

While I agree that the last 2 World Cups have been one by some pretty solid, no frills rugby, I'd have to say I feel England's moved on from that kind of style. With the test class players we now rely on mostly having an attacking emphasis (Youngs, Flood, Foden, Ashton) I don't believe it can still be said that England are guilty of playing 10 man rugby.

SA may once again rely on their pack to do the work, but against a counter attacking side (as the Crusaders have proved on many occasions), they could easily expose themselves to some massive risks.

Also that's just a pretty massive stereotype with the Maoris. While I do love watching every single one of those players work their magic I'd say it has always been more to do with the training ethic in New Zealand rather than any inherent "flair" genes.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I also believe that at this stage or indeed since the start of last year we have to stick to our guns (gameplan that suit our strengths and the players we have contracted) and let the chips fall where they may.

This group of players were at their best 2 years ago and if we wanted to adapt our game we should have moved on after the B&I Lions but didn't and that ship has sailed as you can't expect a group of players to gel and become competitive in a single year's time. If key men such as FdP, Juan Smith and Brussow can recover in time and get some measure of form back during the 3N/pool stages we would still be very capable of beating anyone on the day though. Also, I expect PdV has learnt about not playing John Smit at prop.

I'll back this Springbok dad's army and am confident they have one last hoorah in them (guys like Matfield, Du Preez, Bakkies etc). Afterwards though I hope we do add some depth in tactics to our game as we do have the talent in the country (although Super Sarel is leaving us T_T... come back to us in a year's time and work on your tackling, Sarel). That said it would be stupid to move away from our traditional strengths simply because some members of the viewing public don't appreciate the 'finer' points in rugby.

 

[Jer1cho]

I think that too much is being read into the Stormers game. They didn't pitch up. The Crusaders could have set up a camping site on the field and had a braai, the Stormers would still have lost that much. I do agree on the scrums though. I don't think the Super 15 has much bearing on the international scene though. Last year was our worst year since 2006, yet we were the winners, and runners up of the Super 14. All we need to do is find some way of being consistent. It's an aspect of SA rugby that I can't seem to understand. The Reds, Saders, AB's and Aus are consistent. Each week they play, and try their best. They are so consistent, that when they lose, they didn't necessarily play horrifically, they were just beaten by a better side. Both The Sharks and Stormers just didn't pitch for the game. They both played their worst games of the season in their respective semi-finals. How the hell do you prepare for a play-off match, then just forget how to play rugby???

We need to start giving our players smacks on their bums, because they are playing like schoolboys. They look uninterested sometimes, and then just play so badly, that it's nauseating.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I think that too much is being read into the Stormers game. They didn't pitch up. The Crusaders could have set up a camping site on the field and had a braai, the Stormers would still have lost that much. I do agree on the scrums though. I don't think the Super 15 has much bearing on the international scene though. Last year was our worst year since 2006, yet we were the winners, and runners up of the Super 14. All we need to do is find some way of being consistent. It's an aspect of SA rugby that I can't seem to understand. The Reds, Saders, AB's and Aus are consistent. Each week they play, and try their best. They are so consistent, that when they lose, they didn't necessarily play horrifically, they were just beaten by a better side. Both The Sharks and Stormers just didn't pitch for the game. They both played their worst games of the season in their respective semi-finals. How the hell do you prepare for a play-off match, then just forget how to play rugby???

We need to start giving our players smacks on their bums, because they are playing like schoolboys. They look uninterested sometimes, and then just play so badly, that it's nauseating.

The Stormers went AWOL in the final last year as well. This time round the tight five might as well not have been playing. I do think though that it's as much a case of the Crusaders just absolutely dominating as it is with the Stormers not being there mentally and playing naively after the week off and not adapting; the Crusaders had numbers to the breakdown and were puting us under all sorts of pressure much like the Sharks did to them in the previous match's start but unlike the previous game we just didn't seem to catch on and the Crusaders didn't seem to get tired out by the long flight. What the author should remember is that there won't be a Stormer player in the starting team from 1 to 5. The guys who will be there have been around the block a few times.