Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
SR power rankings
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TRF_heineken" data-source="post: 793120" data-attributes="member: 40658"><p>Under Heyneke Meyer we tried the expansive approach, and had a variation of success. But with that said, I don't want to go into a debate about the springboks here, as there are a lot more factors to consider and has no application to the current topic at hand. But what I will say, and this is completely my own opinion and viewpoint, The reason the Stormers aren't champions yet is because of the large contingency of coloured (mixed race) people in their administration who was placed there for political reasons. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Oh okay, so that's your interpretation. Fair enough. My interpretation was that the Stormers did an excellent job of neutralising Pocock and adapting to the referee's calls more than the Brumbies. I also haven't read any article about Peyper and how he reffed the breakdown. All the focus was on the red card and Leyds' try (which was a TMO howler, not Peyper).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This just doesn't make sense. It just shows how one-eyed you are in your approach to this. More or less?? The Stormers didn't influence the referee, neither did the Brumbies. The Stormers didn't throw a punch, and you have to award Oli Kebble for taking 2 punches on the chin, and still playing on as if nothing happened. The Brumbies lost their cool, and they got punished. To harass your opposition is a tactic teams use, and it worked against the Brumbies. Once again, the Stormers boxed smarter than the Brumbies and got rewarded.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The Bulls are the most conservative team in the history of Super Rugby. I should know, I support them. When we won the trophy, we had a dominant forward pack that mauled the living daylights out of the opposition.</p><p></p><p>We hardly played attacking rugby. We played 10-man rugby, and we won our games mostly due to penalties and the deadly boot of Morne Steyn. Look at the 2009 Semi-final against the Crusaders. The score was 36-23 in favour of the Bulls. But we only scored 3 tries. What made us good was our kicking game. Fourie Du Preez's box kicking along with Habana chasing them down, and Morne Steyn kicking it over from nearly everywhere.</p><p></p><p>But then the rules changed, and we (and by we, I mean all of South Africa) had no choice but to change our whole gameplan. We're still changing it, and other than the Aussie and NZ conference all of the SA teams have new coaches apart from Johan Ackerman. This proves that we are still adapting. Scoring tries is something that we want to improve on, and I'm all for that, but I would be damned if that influenced our way of defending. It's all well and good you can run from anywhere and score a try every now and again, but that doesn't help if your opposition can do the same, and you can't stop them.</p><p></p><p>Winning a game by 6 tries to 4 is the same as winning it without scoring any tries... You will still get just 4 points... If I was a coach I'd rather stick to a more defensive approach than attacking approach.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TRF_heineken, post: 793120, member: 40658"] Under Heyneke Meyer we tried the expansive approach, and had a variation of success. But with that said, I don't want to go into a debate about the springboks here, as there are a lot more factors to consider and has no application to the current topic at hand. But what I will say, and this is completely my own opinion and viewpoint, The reason the Stormers aren't champions yet is because of the large contingency of coloured (mixed race) people in their administration who was placed there for political reasons. Oh okay, so that's your interpretation. Fair enough. My interpretation was that the Stormers did an excellent job of neutralising Pocock and adapting to the referee's calls more than the Brumbies. I also haven't read any article about Peyper and how he reffed the breakdown. All the focus was on the red card and Leyds' try (which was a TMO howler, not Peyper). This just doesn't make sense. It just shows how one-eyed you are in your approach to this. More or less?? The Stormers didn't influence the referee, neither did the Brumbies. The Stormers didn't throw a punch, and you have to award Oli Kebble for taking 2 punches on the chin, and still playing on as if nothing happened. The Brumbies lost their cool, and they got punished. To harass your opposition is a tactic teams use, and it worked against the Brumbies. Once again, the Stormers boxed smarter than the Brumbies and got rewarded. The Bulls are the most conservative team in the history of Super Rugby. I should know, I support them. When we won the trophy, we had a dominant forward pack that mauled the living daylights out of the opposition. We hardly played attacking rugby. We played 10-man rugby, and we won our games mostly due to penalties and the deadly boot of Morne Steyn. Look at the 2009 Semi-final against the Crusaders. The score was 36-23 in favour of the Bulls. But we only scored 3 tries. What made us good was our kicking game. Fourie Du Preez's box kicking along with Habana chasing them down, and Morne Steyn kicking it over from nearly everywhere. But then the rules changed, and we (and by we, I mean all of South Africa) had no choice but to change our whole gameplan. We're still changing it, and other than the Aussie and NZ conference all of the SA teams have new coaches apart from Johan Ackerman. This proves that we are still adapting. Scoring tries is something that we want to improve on, and I'm all for that, but I would be damned if that influenced our way of defending. It's all well and good you can run from anywhere and score a try every now and again, but that doesn't help if your opposition can do the same, and you can't stop them. Winning a game by 6 tries to 4 is the same as winning it without scoring any tries... You will still get just 4 points... If I was a coach I'd rather stick to a more defensive approach than attacking approach. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
SR power rankings
Top