You make some good points ranger. Just think that he's got much more to offer as a player than just taking pot shots at goal all the time. He did it v the Lions, and as a Lions supporter, I couldn't have been happier for him to do so, as there was not much chance of him succeeding, and it just relieved the pressure time and again.
There's no denying it's quite an amzing thing to watch, and to do, but he's just a little obsessed, no? In this particular case, there were men outside him and a slightly doglegged line coming up, why not set up another attack? Similar problem I have with players putting up the high ball all the time. I bloody hate Lee Byrne for his insistance on doing it (even if he's better than most at re-gathering).
I also hated Ruddock's /Johnson's insistence of having Henson taking pot shots at goal from distance in '05. That was slightly worse though, as they were from full penalties. They said they were 'shots for nothing, if they went over great, if not, nothign lost'. How about the 30-40m lost by not kickign to touch? Stupid!
Don't agree about a penalty being less impressive. There's big pressure on a penalty kick, espicailly one to win a game in the dying minutes. There is zero pressure on a pot shot drop goal with 'low risk' as you said. You don't see successfull penalty shots from the wrong side of half-way all that often, although they are becomingmore and more common due to the rediculously high standard of kicking there now is.
The thing is that the Southern Hemisphere has always been about that counter-attack, the free space is something the likes of Christian Cullen has thrived on. That has bought on a huge defensive focus of shutting down the counter-attack, the defenders have used the space against them in that if they get tackled its an easy pilfer because the counter-attacker's forwards have to come all the way back and and turn around.
It was getting to the point down here where if you chose to run back a kick you were most likely to lose possession or get penalised for holding on. This lead to up and under technique being overdone by everyone, it was only a small chance of recovering the kick, but at least you gain some ground and you are more likely to retain possession that way than if you are tackled.
So everyone down here is catching the ball around their 22 or 10 metre line and putting up bombs, then along comes Steyn who catches it and dropkicks it, he gains a shitload of ground or banks 3 points. Brilliant. I wouldn't be surprised if Styen was continuously told by his coaches to ignore the counter attack and just keep trying the dropkicks, it would be a hard habbit to get out of.
Im still not overly convinced that its such a bad tactic. Think about it, it either misses and goes dead, in which case they dropkick it back and you're in the same spot. Or it misses short and they kick it back and your in the same spot. I dont see how that relieves pressure for the opposition?
The difference between that penalty kick and that dropkick was that no matter how much pressure is on, pretty much all kickers in world rugby are
capable of making that penalty kick. That is if you gave them 100 goes at it, they would probably slot one. I can not think of any other players in world rugby that could bang a dropkick that far, even if you gave them 1000 shots at it. Thats what makes that dropkick more impressive for me, Steyn is a physical freak of Lomu proportions. Not a great rugby player, but still an awesome physical specimen
Edit: Also you mentioned that successful penalty goals from the wrong side of halfway don't happen very often, Frans Steyn slotted 3 of them in a single game to down the All Blacks at home. 2 from about 60 metres and one from 53ish. Kid can kick a ball alright.
