Winning in any sport is important, but just as losing in a certain way says a lot about a team, so does winning – Brendon Shields questions our current philosophy.
I am reading “The Captains” by Edward Griffiths. In the chapter on Gary Teichman, Griffiths writes of the first meeting to discuss Mallets playing philosophy. This was an emotional time for Teichman, the captain had to endure the ‘vision’ of yet another coach (Du Plessis and Markgraaf serving short terms as coach).
Mallet said his playing philosophy is based around two words: “Score Tries”. He reasoned that if you create 8 chances per game the law of averages dictate that you will score 4 tries. Statistics show that if you score 4 tries per game and convert only 2, and you manage to convert 2 of the average (at the time) of 4 kickable penalties per game, you will score 30 points, enough statistically to win the most test matches.
The following two years saw the Boks do anything and everything in their power to score 4 tries per game. Every call, every play and every strategic decision was geared to achieve this.
Teichman elaborated how a team needs ‘confidence’ to play his type of game.
Am I right to suggest that the Boks, since White 2006, lost confidence and instead started playing simply not to lose, with every call, every play and every strategic decision geared to achieve this?
Am I also right to suggest that the only confidence our players has had since this period, was their confidence in their kickers (Percy and then Steyn) to convert 3 pointers built on opposition mistakes as a result of pressure?
Can I then infer from the above that we today play to create pressure, whereas the 1998 team played to score tries? And that our ‘golden generation’ of players were in fact taught not to lose, as opposed to dominate, based on their inherent lack of confidence?
Both systems deliver results, but seeing Australia play reminded me so much of what we used to play like in the Mallet era, and I miss those days.
September 8th, 2010 at 11:29 am
I made a comment about White waaaayyyy back.
I think a team’s philosophy or the way they play is very much down to the coach and his background.
White by definition is/was an analyst. He works on the theory of probabilities, risk vs. reward. For that reason I believe it is quite obvious why we played this brand of rugby under him, he eliminates risk wherever he can so he is guarranteed of reward more often than not based on the theory or probabilities.
PDV inhereted his bunch and although I think some changes came about, it is not close to what he wanted or had a vision for.
September 8th, 2010 at 11:38 am
The problem is that in 2006 upwards defense was not so organized as what is since JW introduce the rush defence. Cannot compare it.
Rugby change and the boks were scoring good tries last year with no issues even from set pieces.
We were kak this year and the game has change since last year.
September 8th, 2010 at 11:43 am
I was wondering:
If a mute swears,does his mother wsh his hands with soap?
September 8th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Reply to PietPloos @ 11:43 am:
I just heard that they turned down the option to make “CSI: Witbank”
DNA testing and identification by dental records don’t work there.
September 8th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Reply to Ollie @ 11:56 am:
Is it true that the women in the WHITE tracksuit in Witbank is called – “the Bride”
and
People with shoes – “Day visitors”?
September 8th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Witbank is probably after Sasolburg one of the most horrifyingly polluted places in the world….
They can’t make DNA tests because it all tests 100% carbon… even the grass has trace elements of coal in it…
Hectic…
But I don’t reckon it’s as zef as claimed here… I see claims made also by people not from the old Transvaal even….
September 8th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 12:45 pm:
Been to Witbank enough to know it is the shittiest place in South Africa, next to the Bluff in Debbin.
September 8th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
How did Mallet do in his 2nd year then?
Scoring 4 tries per game or conceding 4 tries per game.
September 8th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Reply to Morné @ 11:29 am:
White only had one mission and one only. I am not going to go into that again, but I will repeat what I said many a times during his reign of terror: HE DID SA RUGBY MORE BAD THAN GOOD.
Your summation of risk vs reward is spot on. A player will only gain confidence if he is allowed to do what comes naturally and lets face it running with the ball is what comes naturally to any rugby player. Even the forwards want to do it.
Rugby is a game where a player should throw some caution to the wind to really express himself. Being put into a box will destroy players and we have seen plenty of those from 2001 to 2007.
Would Matfield ever have tried what he done last Saturday under Jake the Snake?
Talking about last Saturday, I thought about those last 2 minutes quite a bit this week and my final analysis is that it came down to leadership and this low risk approach you mention here. The Boks had to of the best drop kickers on the field, but yet they tried to play the safe game from a scrum just outside the Wallabies 22 to end up with a penalty just inside their own half. Never from that scrum did any one player go forward in the tackle. They gave the initiative to the Wallabies.
Where was the setup of the drop goal? Even if it missed it would have wasted atleast a minute. Wallabies had to kick off, very good chance to get the ball and then try again. If you are afraid of losing, you will lose.
September 8th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 12:45 pm:
So are yo ugoing to start crusading in favour of climate change now?
September 8th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Reply to Deon @ 12:48 pm:
Good post, and agree fully on your last couple of paragraphs.
September 8th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
What’s the weather like in Cape Town today. Wind or rain?
September 8th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Reply to fyndraai @ 12:53 pm:
Sunny, calm seas, no wind, no clouds
September 8th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Reply to Deon @ 12:48 pm:
The scrum was 5m inside the Australian half.
September 8th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Reply to Morné @ 12:54 pm:
Oh man. Now I’m jealous.
My morning run has been cancelled by shit rain.
September 8th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Reply to fyndraai @ 12:57 pm:
There is no such thing as bad weather – only bad clothing!
September 8th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Reply to JT @ 1:05 pm:
I have a severe case of bad clothing then.
September 8th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Reply to Deon @ 12:48 pm:
I the measure of a coach is how well the team does after he leaves then Mallet was the worst Bok coach ever.
September 8th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Reply to fyndraai @ 12:53 pm:
My kids are swimming!!
September 8th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Reply to Deon @ 12:48 pm: Funny how people live in dream worlds. Test match rugby is test match rugby and you play to win and that is that. if you win all you games you are the number 1 team. If it is by 1 point or 20 points you win.
JW brought the aspect of defence into modern rugby and every one including the NZ are using it. They just have a btter ballance betwen defense and attack than what we have. I hate it when people compare Coaches with each other if they do not even played to teh sam rules or time.
JW won a WC for us and gave PDV a core of players to start of with and that is the only reason he could have challage the Lions last year because of the players he had.
Players develope and they need to get better and they adapt to the game and rules. We were the guys who adapt to the rules better last year and the NZ was the once who did it this year.
People must stop finding fault at other places than were it really are.
The fact is that Peter have the change to still make it right if they give him a change to do so time will tell.
September 8th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Reply to Jacques(Bunny) @ 1:53 pm:
No Bunny its a myth that you play a test only to win. You also play tests to better the game, up the stakes, be better than your predecessor etc.
Why can we play a test and win 13-3 under Mallet in NZ and call it a great game? Why perhaps because throughout the game we had a real go at them?
Deon is right. That last minute was pure ‘bang gat’ rugby. Cheetahs did the same thing in the Vodacom Cup final last year. Seconds to go – 2 point lead. Play safe, Bulls get ball, drive up, penalty for Bulls, 3 points!
September 8th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Also Naas Botha tought all school kids that you kick in your own 22.
Then Oz under Larkham started moving to 12 who has more space to clear.
But when you receive the ball in your 22, the opposition wings and 15 is standing back waiting for the kick – leaving a ginormous overlap for the team with the balls to run it! So why do we not do it?
Well rather play safe hey? No matter if its irrational to do so, we play safe.
Thats where the team of 1997 and 2004 is different.
September 8th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
And JT mentions how we scored tries from set pieces against the Lions. But again since 2006 we only scored from set-pieces and intercepts. Very little else.
I also wonder why players like Hougaard now and Brussouw last year make such big impact on the Boks?
Can it be because they have not been ‘transformed’ into cautious ‘test’ players yet?
September 8th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Don’t agree and will never agree with that, I am sure you also went and party the night away when they won teh WC now suddenly Jake was kak. JW in MY eyes was good for SA Rugby.
He set his goals and did it his way.
Nothing has change from after Jake when PDV took over he is still playing the 10 man rugby that most coaches played. Let’s look at scores
Jake’s final scores in test matches:
2004:
39-7 Argentina
45-10 Scotland
16-32 England
12-17 Ireland
38-36 Wales
23-19 Australia
40-26 New Zealand
26-30 Australia
21-23 New Zealand
38-24 Pacific Islands
53-18 Wales
26-17 Ireland
31-17 Ireland
2005:
20-26 France
33-16 Wales
34-23 Argentina
27-31 New Zealand
22-19 Australia
22-16 New Zealand
22-16 Australia
33-20 Australia
12-30 Australia
27-13 France
30-30 France
134-3 Uruguay
2006:
25-14 England
21-23 England
15-32 Ireland
24-16 Australia
21-20 New Zealand
26-45 New Zealand
18-20 Australia
17-35 New Zealand
0-49 Australia
26-36 France
29-15 Scotland
36-16 Scotland
2007:
34-12 Wales
15-6 England
37-13 Argentina
37-20 Fiji
64-15 USA
30-25 Tonga
36-0 England
59-7 Samoa
27-3 Scotland
105-13 Namibia
6-33 New Zealand
17-25 Australia
21-26 New Zealand
22-19 Australia
35-8 Samoa
55-22 England
58-10 England
We only lost three test in 2007 with a combine score of 658 points for us and 257 points against us. I fail to see how boring our rugby was and how we went backwards because Jake was the coach.
PDV:
2008:
42-6 England
14-10 Scotland
20-15 Wales
53-8 Australia
15-27 Australia
0-19 New Zealand
63-9 Argentina
9-16 Australia
30-28 New Zealand
8-19 New Zealand
26-0 Italy
37-21 Wales
43-17 Wales
2009:
10-15 Ireland
32-10 Italy
13-20 France
32-29 New Zealand
6-21 Australia
32-25 Australia
29-17 Australia
31-19 New Zealand
28-19 New Zealand
9-28 Britain
28-25 Britain
26-21 Britain
Fail again to see what the difference is between when Jake had the Boks as when PDV had them.
Winning margin avarage for Jake in 2007 was -betwee 15-30 and loosing marging 10 to 15.
For PDV in 2009 which was his best season with the boks-winniing margin 8 to 14 points and loosing 10 to 15 points.
So want to know how boring Jake’s team was compare to PDV.
People must open there eyes and see that all is not so nice and right with PDV as coach take your dark glasses off and look at what happens infront of your eyes.
I do not want to compare coaches as I said before but nothing much have change from JW to PDV. The differense is that PDV has to adapt to much more game changes than JW did. He also took the core players from Jake in his team as well and that is a good and bad thing for him.
Players who won a WC must be much more difficult to coach than once that still dream of that medal.
Let’s just hope PDV get’s the change as Jake to change the wrongs and fix it to have a change to show his ability in a WC.
September 8th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
and……I can see the same trent as with JW and now PDV, what Jake did the past week was not right but that he was a good coach at the time he was there is for sure.
I also did not agree with half the stuff JW did when he was coach but I was always behind him as a coach and he turned things around and now PDV needs to get the change to do the same
September 8th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
After coming from behind and
beating OZ in Pretoria I ventured
the opinion that – in the long
run – it may have been better
had the Boks lost, because then
the penny would have dropped
a week earlier.
The same people shitting all
over me still thinks there is
nothing wrong.
Maybe dropping out in the
WC quarters will prove me
right.
Or maybe the EOYT will prove it.
September 8th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Reply to Brendon Shields @ 2:26 pm:
You know what
You’re absolutely right
Every single coach in South Africa is actually a blithering drooling blind deaf moron who escaped Francis Forweg school and is not as clever and incisively brained as you…
I vote you for national coach….
September 8th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 4:57 pm:
No Boertjie
Only you think we thing that there’s nothing wrong
Obviously there is something wrong
BUT it’s not what you think… it’s not a moron coach…
Geez one would think that thread that was saying what was wrong and how to fix it would have a penny drop but no….
At least you’re more brainy than Brendan
September 8th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Reply to Deon @ 12:49 pm:
yes of course Julia Gillard (sp?) is my hero… watch her laws become law now… heheheheh
September 8th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 5:39 pm:
Wrong selections, one bridge
too far for players that have
achieved everything – if we
are referring to the same
article.
So who’s making the selections?
Who made much of a fookup with
the players selected for the
EOYT?
And their lack of coaching?
Who is then apparently being
lead by the nose by the senior
players?
Who is not strong enough to
call the shots?
One theory is that the coach was
a weak choice from the start,
that he fell back on the senior
players to save his bacon –
especially after a bit of a
disastrous start.
September 8th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
JT and DavidS
I rate JW as the best coach we have had. He did what he had to do given where we were as a playing nation.
Its well documented that I am a Jake fan.
However its not fair to critique Peter without the criticism flowing into the Jake era seeing as they share so many players.
I am also not anti Peter.
I simply like a certain type of rugby more than another. Last time I checked it was a free country where one can share an opinion?
I also think we are slightly awry right now and like Boer would rather see us deal with our pains now than drop out in the 1/4′s.
I have higher expectations of the Boks I guess.
September 8th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 5:51 pm:
Although there is a lack of outside expertise as you know I prescribe to let’s not forget that Gold, similar to White are tasked with defenses and White did not have a specialised defensive coach.
As far as a weak choice from the start let’s go back in Bok history since the game went professional and have a look at ‘from where’ Bok coaches got appointed – most of them I reckon were ‘weak’ choices when appointed but had the opportunity to grow into the role – some did, most did not.
There is nothing wrong with his coaching style, i.e. empowering players, but he did, imo, let the balance slip too far to the one side…
September 8th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Brendon I forgot to mention, I really enjoyed your article, even though your posts are warped your articles are quite good!
September 8th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Reply to Morné @ 7:16 pm:
Gold, similar to White are tasked with defenses and White did not have a specialised defensive coach.
=====
I thought Bronze is the forwards
coach?
As for White: I thought he is the
one that came with the rush defence
that worked wonders?
As for the senior players:
I understand Snor wanted to
drop Habana, but they ganged
up on him, so to speak.
Also that they were the ones
insisting on Tina.
September 8th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 7:34 pm:
Gold with Brenden Venter were the ones to introduce the ‘rush-defence’ in the UK…
White was also supposedly the head coach, but one of his roles was defense…
September 8th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
we certainly didn’t defend all of last year. We have always been strong on the counter attack but I think the ‘bomb’ has put a spanner in our counter attack, so when our scrum and breakdown are not dominant we are struggling. we need one plan or the other.
http://fromthebottomoftheruck.blogspot.com/
September 8th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Reply to Fromthebottomoftheruck @ 10:34 pm:
Just anything unorthodox will do
- teams are pre-empting our every
move, because they’re all the same.
September 8th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Boertlie @ 7:34 – So the inmates are now running the asylum – if the senior players are calling the shots about selections then we are truly f*cked.
It reminds me of the comment “if a lawyer defends himself, then he has a fool for a client”. It is all about having a view from the outside, a true perspective on the game.
All this discussion about who was the better coach and who has a better record is irrelevent. With White we could see a plan, we could see changes being made. Unfortunately with Snor… well he has to accept that there is a problem first before he can develop a plan. He has become a victim and will keep on lashing out at others and laying blame rather than acknowledging his mistakes and changing his behaviour. I don’t think that he is capable of doing so and he cannot recognise this in himself.
SARU, as his employer, must have set targets and have defined consequences for not acheiving such targets. Since they are a bloody useless monopolistic multi-million Rand organisation that are essentially guaranteed a positive balance sheet, I don’t have any hope that they will act appropriately in either firing him or changing his role to a non-executive head coach, and creating a role for a competent executive assistant coach.
The politicians and SARU need to pull their collective heads out of the sand and for the greater good of South African rugby, irrespective of race, appoint the best coach available. Heineken Meyer was runner up choice to PDV and, but apart from his race, at that time was the obviuos best choice as succesor to Jake. Whether or not he is the current best choice is another debate.
September 9th, 2010 at 9:19 am
Reply to Boertjie @ 10:40 pm: You’re right, you have to come up with a new variation every year – PDV and the rest thought they had found the winning formula last year that would never need to be changed.
http://fromthebottomoftheruck.blogspot.com/
September 9th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Morne kicks 100% in TN yet we are last?
It shows me one thing.
The strategy of preferring 3 pointers over 5 pointers does not work anymore.
If Morne converts every kick yet we win 1/6 what happens if we have a 75% kicker?
September 10th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Reply to Jacques(Bunny) @ 1:53 pm:
Thank you for confirming my point. You play tests to WIN. You DO NOT play tests not to lose.
September 10th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 5:47 pm:
Hehehe, ask my boy what he thinks of her.
Had the class mates pretty upset when he said she was one of the baddies and a wasteful idiot. Wonder where he heard it.
September 10th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Reply to fyndraai @ 1:13 pm:
Until that argument doesn’t suit you anymore, I know.
September 10th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Reply to Deon @ 1:25 pm:
and when you have found a way to win, you start playing to dominate.
We last dominated rugby in 1998.
September 10th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Reply to Brendon Shields @ 2:01 pm:
En wie was toe die coach?
Korrek!
Reply to mawm @ 10:53 pm:
When you may be part of the problem
you are to close to the problem to
judge and rectivy.
Some second heads are the answer,
as you say.
But it takes a bit of guts and insight
to realise this.
September 10th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Reply to Brendon Shields @ 2:01 pm:
I think we are missing each other here.
There is no need to aspire to domination (just ask the All Blacks, it doesn’t help them much when it counts)
I am talking about playing each game to WIN and never to start playing NOT TO LOSE, or as you put it banggat rugby. In short do not ever give away the initiative to protect the score. Go get some more.
What irritae me the most of all the Boks since Mallett is that we would go for the kill when we are 20 points in the lead, but not when we are 2 points in the lead.
For me PdV must just do his own thing and stop trying to appease the nay sayers. Mallett managed because he was arrogant. PdV can also be, but everyone wants to tell hom hat to do. The naysayers conveniently forget that PdV was involved with that Mallett team for the first part before he started coaching the junior teams.
September 10th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Oi papapiepiemier, waar is die 3N voorspellingsdraad vir Aus vs Kiwi’s?
September 10th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Reply to Namboer @ 2:33 pm:
It is going to be a massacre IMO. If the Wallabies try to play the game they played against the Boks, they will be the proverbial lambs.
September 10th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Reply to Deon @ 2:31 pm:
good point. the biggest critique in 2008 was not Peters plan to have us run more. It was that the running was mostly done by forwards and those selfsame forwards then neglected their primary duties.
I am happy if peter is arrogant and wants to MOER other teams. But for god sake then do so on the scoreboard.
Dont go play for 80 minutes and have your big pack bliksem into the rucks, only to force the opposition into mistakes so you can score 3 more points.
September 10th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Reply to Deon @ 3:10 pm:
dont really agree. Beating the boks was all the Wallabies needed to strengthen their belief in their game plan.
If done at pace and with confidence the Kiwis wont stop the Wallabies either.
Just see our tries this year against Kiwis. As soon as you win turnover ball and you WANT to attack you can score against these okes. Their defence is predominantly ‘maori’, and by this I simply mean the attack better
September 10th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Reply to Brendon Shields @ 3:17 pm:
You will have no objections from me. the Boks backline has been below par for too long now. The only glimmers of hope was after Jones’ involvement.
Maybe PdV must get Coetzee or Rossouw involved. They seem to be the only coaches in SA with any idea of backline play. I was worried when PdV wanted the Prick as backline coach and could never understand why. Shit even Fleckie would have been a better option.
September 10th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Reply to Deon @ 3:10 pm: Ek reken ook die Aussie kapokhantjies gaan lekker op hulle baadjie kry. But the last Aus-Kiwi game was close so might not be that simple.
Ek bedoel waar is die thread waar ons telling voorspel? Weet jy het gesê laas week was laaste, so was die kompetisie net vir die Bokke se games?
September 10th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Reply to Deon @ 3:21 pm:
This related to the ‘coaching conundrum’ arty.
Dick Muir was the type of player we really need in the boks setup today. In fact we have needed his type of 12 for the past 10 years. So we make him coach hoping he can get players to play like he did.
But not all players can share this skill. Perhaps slappe and Fleck are better communicators?
Also should we not instead of ‘backline coach’ have a ‘backline attack’ coach as well as defence coach, as these two fields differ.
Muir for example was never a good defender. Neither would I say Fleck was?
September 10th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Reply to Brendon Shields @ 3:29 pm:
I guess it is an option, but then the 2 coaches will have to be able to work together. You will have to find 2 who do not aspire to actually be the other. If you know what I mean.
now that you mention the communication, I got the feeling that the Boks have lost that aspect. Are Fourie and Jean pissed off at each other?
September 10th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Reply to Deon @ 3:36 pm:
Dont know. I think they both just lack technique. Fourie always goes high. Jean goes low, which is correct for a 12 but he does not dominate the collision because he is not a natural defender like De Jong.
Any team can attack the Bok backline. Not that we are bad defenders but its only Butch and earlier Barry who acted as a repellent.
Its so much harder to attack a team who’s 10/12/13 are heavy tacklers. Muirs defensive weakness (and at times Andre Snymans) was never exposed seeing as teams avoided attacking in the middle due to Honniball hangning about.
Our umbrella worked under white because Butch manned the middle of the field. Before him Barry did. This forced the oppo to either attack around the scrum or go wide – which allowed us to spread.
You could not attack the middle as you had a bulldog there and if you passed inside you became food for Juan or Burger.
The Steyn/Jean/Fourie combo is thus heavily compromised in my opinion.