Rugby Championship: New Zealand - South Africa (15/09/2012)

[welshglory]

Looks like Hansen hasn't dropped Smith because of how he played, instead because he broke curfew

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_8075245,00.html

 

[Shaggy]

Mythbusters 1) I don't think the 2007 and 2009 Springboks were playing exacly like this Springboks. Especially in 2007 a good honest fly-half (not yet mind exploded) helped the Springboks to develop a more variated game-style as he can attack well (and high) each defence!
I'm talking about Butch James, still selected up to 2010, that in 2007 added good handling, vision and passing skills to the only kicking offered by Morné Steyn

Mythbusters 2) the fact the Bokke are not executing perfectly their gameplan, does not mean that if executed perfectly it would work. IMO surely it wouldn't against All Blacks and the Wallabies which use to play SA at least 3 times each year.
These 2 team especially adapt their game to the Springboks and read well the (very few) question mark they fronting, because when you have only 1 gameplan, you can't be competitive at this level, as smart defence and sharpened attack can nill your only strenght and beat you in each other aspect of the game.
Even if you're performing it at best!


Sad to say (for me, as Italian), but South Africa isn't Italy or Canada, much more are expected from this team and rightly so!

It worked when the All Blacks picked their wingers solely based on pace and their ability to break tackles. Now they elect them on their ability to field the high ball as well. Having said that, Savea didn't look that good under the high ball in one of the tests against the Irish ... if they are going to kick to the back three, I'd expect that the majority of those kicks will be to Savea.

 

[admartian]

Mythbusters 1) I don't think the 2007 and 2009 Springboks were playing exacly like this Springboks. Especially in 2007 a good honest fly-half (not yet mind exploded) helped the Springboks to develop a more variated game-style as he can attack well (and high) each defence!
I'm talking about Butch James, still selected up to 2010, that in 2007 added good handling, vision and passing skills to the only kicking offered by Morné Steyn

Mythbusters 2) the fact the Bokke are not executing perfectly their gameplan, does not mean that if executed perfectly it would work. IMO surely it wouldn't against All Blacks and the Wallabies which use to play SA at least 3 times each year.
These 2 team especially adapt their game to the Springboks and read well the (very few) question mark they fronting, because when you have only 1 gameplan, you can't be competitive at this level, as smart defence and sharpened attack can nill your only strenght and beat you in each other aspect of the game.
Even if you're performing it at best!


Sad to say (for me, as Italian), but South Africa isn't Italy or Canada, much more are expected from this team and rightly so!

lol @ Butch James being better than Morne.

I'd take Morne in his prime any day.

Looks like Hansen hasn't dropped Smith because of how he played, instead because he broke curfew

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_8075245,00.html

Still doesn't explain Ben Smith being dropped.

 

[Darwin]

Still doesn't explain Ben Smith being dropped.

Hansen mentioned that this was because with Carter out they needed someone to cover 12 from the bench, and they felt Ellison could do this better than Smith. Not sure I necessarily agree with the reasoning (as I think Ben Smith is pretty handy at 12 too), but at least they explained their logic behind the selection...

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Wrong Smith...

 

[admartian]

Hansen mentioned that this was because with Carter out they needed someone to cover 12 from the bench, and they felt Ellison could do this better than Smith. Not sure I necessarily agree with the reasoning (as I think Ben Smith is pretty handy at 12 too), but at least they explained their logic behind the selection...

Fair enough.

Even though I agree with your sentiment. I think their reasoning is paper thin excuse.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Especially as last week they didn't feel the need to bring in Ellison... I think it's just a case of giving everyone gametime.

 

[Darwin]

Hopefully the AB's finally manage to click this game, as though they have continued to win they arguably haven't been at their best. I think we will have the edge up front, especially considering du Plessis is under an injury cloud, and South Africa have no real TH cover on the bench. The lineout is an area where I'm sure South Africa will look to attack, but we have been pretty solid there in recent seasons, and I was impressed with Luke Romano's work at the front last week. While I think South Africa will be better off this week at the breakdown with Louw starting, I still think the AB's have an edge here, mainly as they have a number of forwards who are very effective in this area (Hore, Messam, McCaw, Read).

I'm hoping Cruden has a better game this week - the conditions will certainly make it easier for him to shine, but he will have Weepu at halfback. I'm looking for an improved performance from the AB's midfield too, as Nonu was shocking last week in the first half (but improved in the 2nd), while Conrad Smith looked rusty (despite one moment of brilliance). I was very impressed with how Savea dealt with the conditions last weekend, and I expect he will be tested again this week by the Boks kickers. It will be great to see him in a bit of space too, as last time he was down in Dunedin he scored a brilliant match winning try for the Hurricanes (which I did not enjoy...).

If the AB's finally start to click I expect they will score a few tries, though the Boks are generally pretty solid defensively. I'm picking the AB's by 15-20, though it could be much closer if the Boks are able to put pressure on Cruden and turn the game into a forward-based 'arm-wrestle', or a kicking contest.....

Especially as last week they didn't feel the need to bring in Ellison... I think it's just a case of giving everyone gametime.

It was a slightly different situation last week though, as Carter was pulled out after the 22 was named, so they couldn't really change who was on the bench....

 

[dan the man nz]

this weeks selections suggest to me that the all blacks will play a tight fowards game with piri weepu taking a bit of the kicking pressure off aaron cruden. if they can grind it out early and tire them out the backs might take care of the rest. and i like the idea of aaron smith poping on for the last 20 with barrett and ripping it up.. dope s***!

 

[TRF_heineken]

Last night I watched both Reunion and Boots & All and 2 things stood out for me regarding this upcoming match based on what the people on the shows said:

Reunion: They are very unhappy with the Cruden/Nonu combination. A lot of handling errors and too much pressure on Cruden.

Boots & All: Execution. The boks lacked it in all departments.

Now from some of the clips they showed, there are areas where the Boks could flourish, one of them are the scrums. NZ conceded 6 penalties from scrums against Argentina, and in the 2 tests between SA and Argentina, it was the Argies that conceded a lot of penalties at the scrums.

Another thing was the rush defence of Argentina and the big tackles they made on NZ that dampened the All Blacks mood for a long period of time. If we implement the same, with a little bit better structure, we could seriously dominate. With this being said, NZ vs SA is always a tough one, and it's going to be the little things that counts.

Oh and for extra motivation, they showed us a little clip in history to give us hope. That try Richard Bands scored against NZ.

 

[Icemn]

Last night I watched both Reunion and Boots & All and 2 things stood out for me regarding this upcoming match based on what the people on the shows said:

Reunion: They are very unhappy with the Cruden/Nonu combination. A lot of handling errors and too much pressure on Cruden.

Boots & All: Execution. The boks lacked it in all departments.

Now from some of the clips they showed, there are areas where the Boks could flourish, one of them are the scrums. NZ conceded 6 penalties from scrums against Argentina, and in the 2 tests between SA and Argentina, it was the Argies that conceded a lot of penalties at the scrums.

Another thing was the rush defence of Argentina and the big tackles they made on NZ that dampened the All Blacks mood for a long period of time. If we implement the same, with a little bit better structure, we could seriously dominate. With this being said, NZ vs SA is always a tough one, and it's going to be the little things that counts.

Oh and for extra motivation, they showed us a little clip in history to give us hope. That try Richard Bands scored against NZ.

yip that is why i feel the boks are going to win this one... they are the masters of stampkar

a try from 1974 for motivation :O oh my sweet lord...

 

[Darwin]

Last night I watched both Reunion and Boots & All and 2 things stood out for me regarding this upcoming match based on what the people on the shows said:

Reunion: They are very unhappy with the Cruden/Nonu combination. A lot of handling errors and too much pressure on Cruden.

This isn't a major area of concern for me at all. Yes, there were a lot of handling errors last weekend, but the condition played a massive part in this. I am sure this is an area where the Boks will look to put the AB's under pressure, but in dry conditions I think they will find the Cruden/Nonu combo a very different proposition!

Now from some of the clips they showed, there are areas where the Boks could flourish, one of them are the scrums. NZ conceded 6 penalties from scrums against Argentina, and in the 2 tests between SA and Argentina, it was the Argies that conceded a lot of penalties at the scrums.

Another thing was the rush defence of Argentina and the big tackles they made on NZ that dampened the All Blacks mood for a long period of time. If we implement the same, with a little bit better structure, we could seriously dominate. With this being said, NZ vs SA is always a tough one, and it's going to be the little things that counts.

Oh and for extra motivation, they showed us a little clip in history to give us hope. That try Richard Bands scored against NZ.

I don't think that figure is quite right. According to these stats New Zealand conceded 2 penalties in the scrum against Argentina - both for flankers leaving the scrum too early. They did concede 4 free kicks at scrum time, though again these were for very minor offenses - 3 for engaging early, and one for Weepu not putting the ball in straight. So though there was no doubt that New Zealand turned over a bit of ball at scrum time, this was not at all due to Argentina putting pressure on - indeed when the scrums actually set the AB's dominated at scrum time! They frequently put the Argentine scrum under a lot of pressure, and even got a clean tight-head against them late in the game. In contrast I thought Australia actually got the better of South Africa at scrum time. With J du Plessis under and injury cloud, and a lack of TH cover on the bench I think New Zealand should have a big advantage at scrum time this week - assuming they get the the timing of the scrum engage right!

I'm more worried about the lineout, as though we have improved in this area in recent seasons, Hore can be prone to the odd poor throwing match.

 

[Gena_ZA]

ya I wanted to say that they did not win the TN in 2007 just shows you

plz post the link i want to see this for myself

I slightly misquoted but here goes

""We've won a Tri-Nations with the same game-plan and in 2007 we won the World Cup with these tactics. We have to stay with this strategy," Steyn told Fairfax Media earlier this week."It's not kicking the ball away; it's kicking for a purpose.""

from www.superrugby.co.za

 

[Icemn]

I slightly misquoted but here goes

""We've won a Tri-Nations with the same game-plan and in 2007 we won the World Cup with these tactics. We have to stay with this strategy," Steyn told Fairfax Media earlier this week."It's not kicking the ball away; it's kicking for a purpose.""

from www.superrugby.co.za

yes, i saw this on my supersport app last night and thought you prob saw it there... can't blame you for miss quoting, Stain's statement is confusing lol

he makes it sound as if both were won in 2007

 

[psychic duck]

Mythbusters 1) I don't think the 2007 and 2009 Springboks were playing exacly like this Springboks. Especially in 2007 a good honest fly-half (not yet mind exploded) helped the Springboks to develop a more variated game-style as he can attack well (and high) each defence!
I'm talking about Butch James, still selected up to 2010, that in 2007 added good handling, vision and passing skills to the only kicking offered by Morné Steyn

They were pretty much, just doing it a lot better, with better players.

Back in 2007 and to an extent in 2009, Habana was a try scoring machine, they had a proper 13 in Jaque Fourie (who I believe the Springboks miss badly), plus Fourie du Preez who was the master tactical scrum half. They also had Brussow on top form in 2009.

Now the Boks, have much more inexperience in the pack, and off form backs.

The fly half is not the be all and end all of the game plan by the way, losing players like Brussow, Fourie, du Preez and the old Habana make the game plan less effective with worse players than them.

Butch James wasn't even in the team in 2009.

Mythbusters 2) the fact the Bokke are not executing perfectly their gameplan, does not mean that if executed perfectly it would work. IMO surely it wouldn't against All Blacks and the Wallabies which use to play SA at least 3 times each year.
These 2 team especially adapt their game to the Springboks and read well the (very few) question mark they fronting, because when you have only 1 gameplan, you can't be competitive at this level, as smart defence and sharpened attack can nill your only strenght and beat you in each other aspect of the game.
Even if you're performing it at best!


Sad to say (for me, as Italian), but South Africa isn't Italy or Canada, much more are expected from this team and rightly so!

They should simply play to their strengths, it's simple.

If you have good scrum, use it and try and dominate. If you don't, try and get the ball as quickly as possible and don't drop the ball.
If you have a strong elusive 13 use him, if you have Nick de Luca better to take a lower risk option.

And by the way, one loss in 6 matches is hardly a sign that a team "can't be competitive at this level", it is a sign that they are still very competitive and hard to beat even when underperforming.

 

[Draggs]

Last night I watched both Reunion and Boots & All and 2 things stood out for me regarding this upcoming match based on what the people on the shows said:

Reunion: They are very unhappy with the Cruden/Nonu combination. A lot of handling errors and too much pressure on Cruden.

Boots & All: Execution. The boks lacked it in all departments.

Now from some of the clips they showed, there are areas where the Boks could flourish, one of them are the scrums. NZ conceded 6 penalties from scrums against Argentina, and in the 2 tests between SA and Argentina, it was the Argies that conceded a lot of penalties at the scrums.

Another thing was the rush defence of Argentina and the big tackles they made on NZ that dampened the All Blacks mood for a long period of time. If we implement the same, with a little bit better structure, we could seriously dominate. With this being said, NZ vs SA is always a tough one, and it's going to be the little things that counts.

Oh and for extra motivation, they showed us a little clip in history to give us hope. That try Richard Bands scored against NZ.

Get outta the road!!!

Meyer was saying that outside backs need to make more of their chances. Can I just ask "What chances?"

What is it about Forsyth Barr Stadium that makes kickers incompetent? I recall England v Argentina being very poor with regards to goal kicking?

 

[smartcooky]

They may well have won the 2007 RWC and the 2009 Tri-Nations using their kick and chase game plan, but the game has moved on since.

Back then, tacklers and tackle assists were not being made to show a clear release before going for the ball. The Boks in particular were very adept at grasping the ball carrier and putting him on the ground while maintaining their feet and standing in the gate. The result was frequent turnovers because the ball carrier had no chance to play it back to a team mate.

In 2010, the SANZAR referees were given clear instructions that tacklers and tackle assists must clearly release the ball carrier. I posted this stats chart at the time to show how dramatically that affected the game.

BD = Breakdowns
TO = Turnovers
BD-TO% = the percentage of Breakdowns that result in Turnovers

In 2009, in matches involving South Africa, 28% (almost 1 in 3) tackles/breakdowns resulted in a turnover. In matches not involving South Africa, that rate dropped to 20% (1 in 5)

In 2010, when the "daylight" calls came in, the number of tackles/breakdowns increased by 43% (showing greater willingness by players to take the ball into contact), but the number of resulting turnovers dropped to less than 15% (1 in 6)

Conclusion. The tactics of 2009 didn't work in 2010 and they are unlikely to work now.

 

[Gena_ZA]

^^

please tattoo on a hot girl's back and deliver to SA team Management

 

[Icemn]

They may well have won the 2007 RWC and the 2009 Tri-Nations using their kick and chase game plan, but the game has moved on since.

Back then, tacklers and tackle assists were not being made to show a clear release before going for the ball. The Boks in particular were very adept at grasping the ball carrier and putting him on the ground while maintaining their feet and standing in the gate. The result was frequent turnovers because the ball carrier had no chance to play it back to a team mate.

In 2010, the SANZAR referees were given clear instructions that tacklers and tackle assists must clearly release the ball carrier. I posted this stats chart at the time to show how dramatically that affected the game.

BD = Breakdowns
TO = Turnovers
BD-TO% = the percentage of Breakdowns that result in Turnovers

In 2009, in matches involving South Africa, 28% (almost 1 in 3) tackles/breakdowns resulted in a turnover. In matches not involving South Africa, that rate dropped to 20% (1 in 5)

In 2010, when the "daylight" calls came in, the number of tackles/breakdowns increased by 43% (showing greater willingness by players to take the ball into contact), but the number of resulting turnovers dropped to less than 15% (1 in 6)

Conclusion. The tactics of 2009 didn't work in 2010 and they are unlikely to work now.

me and a buddy of mine (SA supporter) had an argument, about this and he said that the IRB changed this rule because the boks were so dominant...

i didn't know the AB were all sitting on the IRB board :? lol

 

[smartcooky]

me and a buddy of mine (SA supporter) had an argument, about this and he said that the IRB changed this rule because the boks were so dominant...

i didn't know the AB were all sitting on the IRB board :? lol

They actually changed it because rugby was becoming a relentless kicking borefest.

Coaches were telling their players not to take the ball into contact, and to kick the ball back not run it back for fear of losing it in bad field position. Some matches, especially in the NH ended up with over 140 kicks in play (that's averaging one kick every 35 seconds). The 2007 RWC final had 96 kicks in play (one every 50 seconds)

Who in their right mind wants to watch that!?