Why the Wallabies and All Blacks Will Rip the Boks to Pieces

[Seaton]

which dr? did he giver his name? why wasn't there detail in the report? lmk

http://www.keo.co.za/2011/07/07/shame-on-you-boks-sanzar/

http://www.keo.co.za/2011/07/10/keotv-bok-sham-bullshit/

njoy....

Yaaaassss!

Keo, by far the most balanced and non-racial site with forums in all of the Interweb

I shudder to think that their are actual people who live in society that post there

 

[JW.]

Yes SA will be beaten, but they will not go down easily as they never do. They just aren't anything special at the moment. And by not picking Shalk Britz just sums up how bad there selection is.

Altough I agree Quade Cooper is the best attacking flyhalf/back at the moment, there is more to rugby than just attacking. I believe he will be exposed at the WC, especially by NZ. DC still is the best allround flyhalf in the world.

P.s. Higgenbottom one too watch, what a player. Was pretty good whole season 2.

 

[nickdnz]

I love all the English people whom don't watch CC or Super Rugby, that think South Africa is going to ruins for not picking Brits. South Africa does have better hookers, who can actually scrummage and the work in the tight. Brits is good, espcially as an exciting ball runner, but no way he will fit in with South Africa's style of play.

 

[Logorrhea]

Brits is good, espcially as an exciting ball runner, but no way he will fit in with South Africa's style of play.

Always thought he was dreadfully overrated. Loved by Sky of course, but that kinda confirms it.

 

[amo]

so how about that aussie and south african game ?

 

[nickdnz]

so how about that aussie and south african game ?

You mean the one there is a thread discussing?

 

[amo]

oh my bad hehe yes point me there and ill go.. lol nah thanks bro

 

[amo]

hey nick i see you have 10 v cash how did you spend your money?..

 

[smartcooky]

The Boks clearly showed this in '09. Last year their kicking game was less effective, as it was executed poorly. Kicking low for the corners when executed correctly can be a very good tactic, but like kicking up-and-unders if executed poorly (ball kicked out on the full, ball kicked dead, ball kicked in-field offering counter-attacking opportunities) it is not very effective!

Remember this was largely down to the changes in emphasis in the way the contact/tackle areas were being refereed. Kick & chase worked well for the Boks in '09 because the tactic was being rewarded when the ball carrier, caught in possession, was being penalised for not releasing. Up stepped Morne Steyn..... 3 points. The contact area was being ruled heavily in favour of the side not carrying the ball, so heavily, that even a poor kick & chase would turn out favourably, and the Boks quickly worked out that the way to win was to not have the ball so they kicked it away and pressurised their opponents. The result was that teams were coached NOT to go into contact in their own half, and so the boring game of "aerial ping-pong" ensued.

Then in 2010, at a pre-season meeting of SANZAR referees, it was decided they were going to rule that the tackler must first release the tackled player before they expected the tackled player to place, pass, push or release the ball. This gave the tackled player more chance to exercise his options, and his team more time to get fetchers/jacklers to the tackle. The balance was now tipped back in favour of the side in possession at the contact/tackle, and this meant that the kick & chase had to be executed perfectly, otherwise they were just turning over possession. Assurance that players taking the ball into contact would almost always retain possession for their team, gave teams with better running games (NZ and Aus) the confidence to run with the ball in their own half.


Evidence of this is clear in the stats
Tri Nations
2008 43 tries. 33 penalty goals (note: ELVs were in force, so some free kicks given might have been kickable penalty goals)
2009 27 tries, 70 penalty goals (The average of 3 tries per game was the lowest for 9 years, The average of almost 8 penalty goals per game was the highest in the 14 year history of the tournament)
2010 52 tries, 53 penalty goals

 

[Darwin]

Remember this was largely down to the changes in emphasis in the way the contact/tackle areas were being refereed. Kick & chase worked well for the Boks in '09 because the tactic was being rewarded when the ball carrier, caught in possession, was being penalised for not releasing. Up stepped Morne Steyn..... 3 points. The contact area was being ruled heavily in favour of the side not carrying the ball, so heavily, that even a poor kick & chase would turn out favourably, and the Boks quickly worked out that the way to win was to not have the ball so they kicked it away and pressurised their opponents. The result was that teams were coached NOT to go into contact in their own half, and so the boring game of "aerial ping-pong" ensued. Then in 2010, at a pre-season meeting of SANZAR referees, it was decided they were going to rule that the tackler must first release the tackled player before they expected the tackled player to place, pass, push or release the ball. This gave the tackled player more chance to exercise his options, and his team more time to get fetchers/jacklers to the tackle. The balance was now tipped back in favour of the side in possession at the contact/tackle, and this meant that the kick & chase had to be executed perfectly, otherwise they were just turning over possession. Assurance that players taking the ball into contact would almost always retain possession for their team, gave teams with better running games (NZ and Aus) the confidence to run with the ball in their own half. Evidence of this is clear in the stats Tri Nations 2008 43 tries. 33 penalty goals (note: ELVs were in force, so some free kicks given might have been kickable penalty goals) 2009 27 tries, 70 penalty goals (The average of 3 tries per game was the lowest for 9 years, The average of almost 8 penalty goals per game was the highest in the 14 year history of the tournament) 2010 52 tries, 53 penalty goals

While there is no doubt the the new Law interpretations may have lessened the effect of the Boks kicking game, the point still remains that they generally executed their kicks poorly in 2010. In 2009 the Boks actually scored a number of tries directly as a result of opposition errors from high kicks; this was due to the fact their kicking was generally accurate, and their chasers put huge pressure on the receiving player. Contrast this to 2010, where it seemed whenever the All Blacks (or Aussies) caught the high ball they were under no pressure what-so-ever, and they had plenty of space to launch the counter attack. While the new law interpretations didn't help the Boks kicking game plan, their poor execution of this game plan certainly didn't help either! A big difference between 2009 and 2010 was one player: Fourie du Preez.... it will be interesting to see how they go with him back running the team.

 

[SavageLez]

RWC USED TO be won on defence, but the laws have changed greatly recently and as is plain to see, they favour the attacking team. Playing defensive rugby is the exact mentality that is going to get the Boks ripped to pieces. And let's just take a player-to-player comparison.

Compare JP Pietersen to Digby Ioane. Ioane has extreme speed and constantly shrugs off defenders, setting up tries and scoring a few himself. Prior to the last few weeks of the comp, JP couldn't break a tackle to save his life. 98% of his career tries have been finishes that anyone could do. Extremely average player.

Compare Rene Ranger or Drew Mitchell with Bryan Habana who hasn't been good in the slightest since 2007. He is a walking error and has lost considerable pace over the years. Compare this to guys like Ranger and Mitchell who make things happen everytime they touch the ball.

Compare Quade Cooper with Morne Steyn. Morne Steyn will never break a tackle in his life and he kicks away all his teams possession. Morne makes it harder for a team to win, because I don't know how you can score points without the ball apart from praying that they concede a penalty on attack. Quade Cooper runs with the ball and adds touches of genius and sets up so many tries for his team and gets the backline working.

Compare Will Genia to Fourie du Preez. du Preez has box-kicked the Bulls right out of Super Rugby glory. du Preez's box-kicking is one of the main reasons the Bulls have done so badly this year. Go back and watch any game, and take note of what happens as a result of a du Preez box kick. Then there is Genia who is an absolute genius that breaks tackles and sets up tries.

Compare Nathan Sharpe to Bakkies Botha. Botha has been in dreadful form and has no intention of changing his fowl play. Sharpe is the best lock in the world ATM.

Compare Mealamu to Smit.......Should I even say anything about this one?

Compare Crockett, the Franks brothers or Ben Robinson to Steenkamp or the Beast.

Compare Read to Spies.

How the hell do any of you think SA can win anything?

Did you see some of the comparisons on Saturday: SA vs NZ in Port Elizabeth.
NZ scrum was anihilated and Steyn played exactly how you want your fly half to play at the RWC. Habana showed his gas in a couple of brilliant cross cover tackles. Bakkies and Victor were great and so was Bismaark. Brussouw was remarkable!

Not saying SA are going to win the RWC but they are showing good signs and look a lot stronger than people are anticipating!

 

[Sparty]

Do you play Super/International Rugby? Didn't think so Coz that's what I was refferring to. Non-professional rugby is played much more differently and the defensive lines aren't as solid.

If anything non-professional rugby is played with much more flair. Also I would like to hear your opinion on the pick up and go play now that the ABS adopted it for the full second half almost last week ?

 

[Black Heart]

If anything non-professional rugby is played with much more flair. Also I would like to hear your opinion on the pick up and go play now that the ABS adopted it for the full second half almost last week ?

I think you're trying to draw parallels between two systems that are actually quite different. The difference between that display and the type of rugby the South Africa's adopt is that the All Blacks were simply usuing it to stabalise themselves to give their backline a secure platform to launch from (which is arguably what they should be doing anyway). We know the All Blacks backline is their strength and it's deadly if it gains momentum. The Wallabies did significantly well to shut down that threat so because the fowards stabalised the game well enough the backline was given the option to unleash effectively and as a result the All Blacks scored tries. For a time at least, the backs gained that significant momentum.
The South African's use the 8-man tactic to try and drain the opposition and score points from mistakes. It's quite different.

All-in-all, two similar looking beats but very different monsters.

 

[Sparty]

I think you're trying to draw parallels between two systems that are actually quite different. The difference between that display and the type of rugby the South Africa's adopt is that the All Blacks were simply usuing it to stabalise themselves to give their backline a secure platform to launch from (which is arguably what they should be doing anyway). We know the All Blacks backline is their strength and it's deadly if it gains momentum. The Wallabies did significantly well to shut down that threat so because the fowards stabalised the game well enough the backline was given the option to unleash effectively and as a result the All Blacks scored tries. For a time at least, the backs gained that significant momentum.
The South African's use the 8-man tactic to try and drain the opposition and score points from mistakes. It's quite different.

All-in-all, two similar looking beats but very different monsters.

When the plan worked correct the Boks scored plenty tries , think 09 maybe. The boks gameplan is largely based on the success of the Bulls and they scored a lot more tries that we give them credit for. My problem is the Boks go into a zero risk zone come playoffs and their gameplan becomes evens more forward structured.

My wish if for us to continue with the forward play but bring in an element of attacking rugby as well , We saw how devastating it can be when done probably.

Just to add , I don't get peoples negativity towards the Boks play ? I for one love the hard physical play , I often get bored after watching a few weeks of Super rugby and long for the days when we have a 9-9 draw or something like that. Too much of a good thing is not good , thats all I am simply saying.

 

[Black Heart]

When the plan worked correct the Boks scored plenty tries , think 09 maybe. The boks gameplan is largely based on the success of the Bulls and they scored a lot more tries that we give them credit for. My problem is the Boks go into a zero risk zone come playoffs and their gameplan becomes evens more forward structured.

My wish if for us to continue with the forward play but bring in an element of attacking rugby as well , We saw how devastating it can be when done probably.

Just to add , I don't get peoples negativity towards the Boks play ? I for one love the hard physical play , I often get bored after watching a few weeks of Super rugby and long for the days when we have a 9-9 draw or something like that. Too much of a good thing is not good , thats all I am simply saying.

I'm not complaining. If it works for the Boks then good on them. Just stating the differences.

I'm sure the All Blacks had no intention or desire to play foward rugby but it became necessary to relieve the pressure.

 

[Sparty]

I'm not complaining. If it works for the Boks then good on them. Just stating the differences.

I'm sure the All Blacks had no intention or desire to play foward rugby but it became necessary to relieve the pressure.

Cool , Some people though seems to think we should play to entertain their needs ? I really don't get that. Anyway , in my humble opinion I do feel the loss of the ABS this weekend is maybe a good wakeup call , every time they go into WC too confident with some of the best 30 players on the planet and often they dont choose their best 15 and all it takes is for one team to play like the French or the Aussies today and in 2003 to bring them down back to earth.

I do feel Henry might have erred in his selections , for example no crocket ? Dagg for 15 ? I think he def should start ? What about the wingers you left out ? Your loosies seems unbalanced a little as well and why Nono ahead of SBW ? Pity we could not see how SBW measure in test rugby before the WC.

Also , seriously where is the NZ halfbacks ? Besides Carter and Jimmy Cowan the next best seems a little out of it ? Weepu willing as he is , is not in Cowans class and that is if Cowen can keep his cool by the way , the Ellis ? Lats but not least how did NZ get itself into such a position that Slade is the next best flyhalf ? The Gap between first choice and second choice is Huge in that one , I would have looked at Nick Evans at least. I know you have that policy and all but its WC !

 

[JW.]

It's simple you play to your strenghts and you play to win. It's rugby I'll find it entertaining anyway .