The mainstream media is filled with reports about the poor performance of the Cats. Who’s to blame? We say the coaching staff.
The poor performances of the CatsÂ
If you are a Cats fan the last two seasons read like a horror story. Of the 21 games they have played in the past two years in the Super tournament, they have won an astounding two, with one draw. Of these games, nine were under the coaching of current Lions coach Frans Ludeke.
What is Ludeke’s coaching record and pedigree
Ludeke is a teacher by profession. He taught at Linden Hoërskool. He was a schools coach. He took over as Lions coach in 2002. Then he coached the 2001 semi finalist Cats to disaster in 2003. At that stage Laurie Mains had left and Tim Lane was drawn into the Springbok setup.
Ludeke then took the 2002 Lions into the Currie Cup Final courtesy of the other unions not having their Springboks available. In the final a full strength Bulls outfit crushed them with Derrick Hougaard at the helm. In 2004 and 2005 the Lions again reached the semi-finals of the Currie Cup. In 2004 they memorably smashed WP in Cape Town courtesy of Bryan Habana. In 2005 they sorted out the Bulls courtesy of rested Springboks.
Nothing else to write home about though.
The 2005 Lions are the 2006 Cats
In 2005 the Cats were released from the two top teams in one Super Tournament “burden�.
Many Cats administrators, among them CEO and coach crowed that the Cats would no longer suffer the divisiveness that characterised the Cats setup. DavidS reckons that divisiveness was an invention in any case. A result of awful fractious coaching. How come the Springboks, arguably a more diverse group get it right? How come the 2000 / 2001 Cats got it right? The divisiveness theory is an invention by the Free State and Lions players to explain away their under achievements.
But, the 2005 Lions squad was one with a number of Springboks. They did perform well in the Currie Cup, but tended to come apart at crucial times, like against WP, the Sharks and Bulls. Um, those appear to be the big unions. Yes correct you are.
Now the coach has had these players since 2001 and now he gets them for the Super 14 tournament. Surely things can only get better from here?
Cats slaughtered
Nope. The Cats won only one match this year and that was against a homesick under performing Chiefs outfit, with 14 men on the field. That is more a testament to their character than anything else.
And this takes place under a settled coach who has been with his squad for four years.
Time for a change – YOU BET!
Next time we look where they come short.
Â
April 13th, 2006 at 8:39 am
Davids,
Does Ludeke qualify for the term “coach”?
April 13th, 2006 at 8:43 am
I have been reminded on this site that a game is not played on paper, but with the paper team they have, what other reason, but the coach,is their for the poor performances?
April 13th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Donner
In the same way that a court orderly can cclaim to be a lawyer because he’s hung out with some lawyers on occasions.
JJ
Correct
If Springboks play well for Jake White and not for Frans Ludeke shouldn’t you qustion that?
April 13th, 2006 at 9:00 am
What about the Sharks last year under Putt. Putt got fired, and when Dick Muir arrived, less than a week later they nailed the Brumbies (I think it was), and that after an terrible run of losses the same as Cats this year. The Sharks team hadn’t changed, they only got in a new coach.
That was a big effort, and they didn’t do much further the rest of the season, but see how good they are now the next season. Why…Howcome? Thanks to good coaching from Dick Muir and his team (Campesy etc).
The core of the team is still the same, except for Monty and Tony Brown, but see how they are doing this year as a team.
They have done SA only proud, and next season, they will be even stronger.
The cats have the good players, and can do pretty much the same as any of the strong franchises in SA, given that they have the players in their setup.
Frans Ludeke is the missing link…
April 13th, 2006 at 9:00 am
It all goes back to Tim Lane when he said that he’d given the team specific training to do in their ‘off-season’, when the players returned he discovered that hardly any had bothered.
That appears to be the general attitude amongst SA players – no personal responsibility for career development.
Someone on Keo’s site once laughed at me when I suggested that players should be paying out of their own pocket to seek out the experts in their particular field i.e. a team’s dedicated kicker should pay for himself to travel wherever he needs to in order to seek out the best kicking coaching available – be that in NZ or England. Pay for his own flight, accomodation etc. – if need be.
Obviously it would be great if his coach or manager arranged it all but the point is – if he wants to be the best he has to go the extra mile on his own behalf.
April 13th, 2006 at 9:03 am
UHUMMMMM!!!!
***********************************************
ATT ALL USERS
The next person that send me the email with the attachment Blubul.pps, will have his arse kicked, and a virus sent to his computer. 6 times is enough!
***********************************************
Wow, I felt just like Admin, doing that! All feminine and stuff!
April 13th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Aldo, you looked just like Admin when you did that.
Very pretty, like the frock, suits you.
We knew you’d enjoy the Blubul.pps
April 13th, 2006 at 9:27 am
David
You and I generally agree on most stuff, but I think you need to check a few facts.
The Lions did NOT play in the 2003 final. In fact the Blue Bulls humped the Sharks (yes, coached by Kevin Putt) that year. You’ll remember that final it was the one where Butch James had a bit of a rumble with the Bulls bench.
The Lions played in the 2002 final at Ellis Park and lost to the Blue Bulls after a Naas-like performance by Derick Hougaard. None of the teams had any restrictions on selecting their Boks that year.
As I recall Ludeke was also the assistant coach to Heyneke Meyer at SWD before he got the Lions job.
You will know I agree with you about Ludeke. He tries hard I am sure but he is not up to the job as a manager of human beings or as a thinker – that much is clear.
But with your legal background, I am sure you know that even the best case can be undermined by faulty evidence.
April 13th, 2006 at 9:31 am
One just has to have a look at the change in Scotland’s national team to see what a change in coach can do. From the whipping boys of the 6 to current world champ beaters.
April 13th, 2006 at 9:47 am
To come back to the original point, even if the players aren’t pulling their weight, the way it works is that the coach still takes responsibility. He picks the players, he gets the players he wants (especially in a big union/region like the Lions/Cats) – if they fail, it’s his fault for backing dodgy players.
Turning Turner’s argument around (ouch) you could argue that it was the players, not Ludeke, who are to thank for the good wins his teams have had in recent times.
Re-wind to 2004. A bumbling, error-ridden Lions team plays the Bulls at Ellis Park. With the Boks missing and a few players missing, Ludeke picks a promising youngster at outside centre. After a quiet half, this youngster gets the ball and plays a brilliant chip and chase that eventually leads to a try by John Daniels. The youngster, Bryan Habana.
That same season, the Lions are short of hookers so they try out a youngster who couldn’t break into the big time at WP. After a quiet few games, the Lions go to Newlands in patchy form. Again, the Lions are bumbling along in typical Ludeke style (error-ridden, no real structure, etc). Suddenly the youngster makes a brilliant break that eventually sees Schalk Burger yellow carded for killing the ball. In the second half, he does the same and Burger gets his marching orders. The Lions win a famous victory and a star is born: Schalk Brits.
Later on the Lions lose at Loftus in the semi but are only in the game thanks to the brilliance of Brits and Habana.
In short, it was the players who “made” Ludeke in the good times, and his reputation benefited among his bosses who were unable to see the reality. So they cannot argue that because he has no rainmakers on the pitch now that it is suddenly their fault, not his.
April 13th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Sorry postie
You’re right on the finals. It was 2002, not 2003.
Hougaard’s first – I remember that match. The little git even scored a try.
April 13th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Hmm – seems I have also been barred from posting over at voldemortlet.
April 13th, 2006 at 9:59 am
Posty,
Sound post at 9:47. Very logical.
April 13th, 2006 at 10:05 am
Okay
Ludeke coaching record
Whenever to 1997 (Linden Hoerskool)
’97 – ’98 – RAU (lost club championship RAU dominated in previous years)
Then after Phil Pretorius he did an 18 month stint with SWD first as assistant to Heyneke and then on his own.
Coached SA U 19 in one tournament – they lost every match they played.
2002 to date coached Lions.
2003 and 2006 – coached Cats
That’s the cv.
April 13th, 2006 at 10:11 am
ps.
Your 09h47
Very good points.
April 13th, 2006 at 10:12 am
The SWD team did well thanks to the import of the entire Blue Bulls B team. Still didn’t help them when they got 80 odd points scored against them in a semi at Ellis Park, I think in 99.
That SWD may have made Heyneke Meyer, but it represented those days when we still had 14 teams in the CC and certain journeymen hawked their wares around the country. The same players kept cropping up at SWD, Mpumalanga, Griquas, etc.
April 13th, 2006 at 10:24 am
***********************************************
ATT ALL USERS (hehe, I’m beginning to like this!)
The SWD did not make Heyneke! Heynecke made the SWD!
***********************************************
April 13th, 2006 at 10:25 am
I think Admin’s gonna show me the door if I don’t stop now!
Sorry admin, I’ll leave the little stars for you to use!
April 13th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Thanks for checking all that info David. As I say, it doesn’t change a thing about the fundamental argument.
If you go back further, even Harry Viljoen was able to take a bunch of under-achieving, conservative, low-confidence players and turn them into a cohesive, free-spirited team able to score tries almost at will. That was Transvaal in 1991.
(If it wasn’t for that streaker in Bloem, he might have got WP in the final at Ellis Park, and not N Tvl at Loftus. WP were not close to Tvl in class that year)
April 13th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Didn’t that streaker have a dubbellOOp?
April 13th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Poor Harry
He was not a bad coach.
He just wasn’t a good media personality.
He took over a team that Mallett had ruined and in the middle of yet another crisis in SA Rugby with Louis Luyt taking Nelson Mandela to court.
And the media had smelt blood when he said he’d play running rugby and not kicking rugby. After the guffaw that the team wouldn’t kick against Argentina (he was quoted completely out of context of course) the media hated him.
April 13th, 2006 at 10:45 am
He had the decency to wear a pair of socks though.
FC Smit must have been seriously rubbish if a skinny runt like Brian Baanhoff could tackle him!
I understand there’s still a dusty packed away public gallows in Green Market square in case Baanhoff ever comes over to Cape Town in his life!
April 13th, 2006 at 10:46 am
Davids, Louis Luyt did not take Nelson Mandela to court. It was SARU, and a decision by the whole board. It was NOT Luyt on his own. You hang out with your coach to much, your starting to say the same things, next thing, you’ll be saying that the Spears are the reason that Bush was elected!
April 13th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Aldo,
you saying the Spears didn’t
April 13th, 2006 at 10:59 am
What do you mean Aldo
Everyone knows the Spearsbacked George W and that’s the sole reason he won the election.
Aldo
The case heading was SARU & Others v President of South Africa & Others.
I read the concourt judgement. All ninety odd pages of it.
ps. Louis Luyt in his capacity as trustee of the GLRU Trust (at that stage) WAS ONE OF THE APPLICANTS. Other Applicants were SARU, The Lions Rugby (Pty) Ltd Comapny and the Trustees of the GLRU Trust.
Respondents were Nelson Mandela PERSONALLY, The President of South Africa, the minister of sport
April 13th, 2006 at 11:00 am
ps. At that stage SARU was SARFU
SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd was also an Applicant
April 13th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Uhmm, you’ve got it wrong. It is not the Spears’ fault. It is typical American Stupidity!
April 13th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Yes caused by the Americans being isolated from the world through their own media which is all a Spears plot to make them look inward and concentrate on their own stupid problems.
This has them looking the wrong way while Tony and his evil henchmen take over the rest of the world with the Spears.