The importance of a 22-man game was never more evident than when the Springboks scraped past Samoa on Friday – which reminded me of a famous line in a very popular video game in the 1990′s.
For years we have criticized South African rugby coaches for their seeming inability to use their bench effectively. For some reason coaches, players (and fans) view the bench players as ‘reserves’ in case something goes wrong, or ‘second best’ to the starting XV.
Last week Super Rugby winning coach, Ewen McKenzie, wrote a brilliant article on this subject, referring to the starting XV as ‘starters’, and the bench players as ‘finishers’.
In South African rugby I can personally only think of one coach that experimented with this idea, and that was over a decade ago with Nick Mallet who almost exclusively used players like Ollie le Roux as impact players from the bench.
Since then, you can almost bet your bottom dollar that coaches through all levels of South African rugby will introduce bench players on a pre-determined schedule irrespective of the match situation or unless injury forces them to.
The simple fact is that modern rugby requires the full complement of 22 players to be successful, where depending on the opposition you identify key areas and who your best starters and best finishers are for that specific game.
This will include key positions within your team depending on your own strengths and weaknesses, and those of the opposing team. It will also include the pre-determined game plan and which players are best suited to lay the foundation, and those who can finish off the job.
Of course you have to factor in the probability of injuries and which players are versatile enough to cover other positions, but as coach you first have to start to try and control what you can, and injuries isn’t one of those.
There has been a lot of debate prior and during this World Cup surrounding specific selections and players and who should start and who not, but I believe 99% of these arguments miss the point.
When you look to formulate your own point of view on this subject it is important to remember that there is little point in arguing a selection based on a totally different game plan or approach that you know won’t be employed by the Springboks in this World Cup.
Quite simply, the only question you should ask yourself is; ‘Given the current team dynamic, which positions are crucial to execute the favoured approach?’ Once you have established that, ask yourself which players are best suited to be ‘starters’ or laying the foundation, and which players are best suited as ‘finishers’?.
My personal observation from Friday’s game was that the Boks started well enough – but just could not finish the job off properly – and personally, that settled the argument for me about a couple of players who should start, and those who should finish.
elcamino
ROOILEEU
Tina
JT_BOKBEFOK!
garyj1-Bulls
Thomas_Bulls
Amethyst
logan
Aldo
KingPaul
Deon
Methos The French Stormer
RUGGA_MIND
namboer
Quinn25
trevormayhew
Marcel
Pom in Joburg
Pokkel
moose
Vernonimous
Jacques(Bunny)
Watte
niekie
Dante
Panther
Vetgesmeerde Blits
bryce_in_oz
Kozac
Blokkies
Number12_Lions
Brutus2
Lehe6
Estian Nortier
DavidS
Francois
johanleroux13
Morné
Tafelberg
pietstreak
Ollie
Koos
October 1st, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Nothing new here.
Danie Rossouw has been used as a finisher at the Bulls for some years already. Whether the timing was predetermined does not really matter. It was part of the game-plan which for the Bulls is pretty much predetermined also.
Rassie Erusmus used his front row bench to win 2 CCs in ’05 and ’06.
PdV on the other hand has a record of screwing up a good situation with replacements.
October 1st, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Chess.
with blood.
lekka.
October 1st, 2011 at 8:34 pm
I still don’t buy into this “game plan” shit.
All game plans are the same:
Play in their half.
Minimise mistakes.
Control the set pieces, rucks and mauls.
Swing good posession wide.
Etc.
In the end the team better equipped wins -
with our without the lucky bounce, fortunate
turnover, referee decisions etc.
And bringing on the bench players is just
there to give the grafters a break and getting
fresh legs and lungs on the paddock – not
implementing a new “game plan.”
It also still beats me to see a player
replaced with two minutes left on the clock.
How do you change a game plan with two
minutes left?
October 1st, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 8:34 pm:
It’s about getting the ‘cap’ (and the money).
I feel more important than a ‘game plan’ is having players and leadership on the field that can determine what is not working and what is……….and to be able to change.
The days of going onto the field and just ‘moering’ everyone in sight are over. The Aussies have been playing smart rugby for some time hence their success with such little depth.
October 1st, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Reply to mawm – 100% Bok @ 9:37 pm:
The days of going onto the field and just ‘moering’ everyone in sight are over.
—-
It almost worked for Samoa.
But then they were playing a team who
likes the opposition to have the ball
and doing the running, so that they
can just tackle their hearts out.
Let’s see how far they can go with this
all-out defence and little posession
“game plan.”
October 2nd, 2011 at 12:03 am
Reply to mawm – 100% Bok @ 9:37 pm:
There is a contradiction.
First you say the game-plan is not important, then you say that the days of just ‘moering’ is over.
It’s because the days of ‘moering’ are over here that one do need a game-plan. Being able to change is good but unless you start with a clear plan and backup you’d never know what to change from or to.
Anyway, by the time you realize your plan is not working you’ve probably already lost the match. Best to devise a plan you can win with and concentrate on execution from there on.
October 2nd, 2011 at 12:13 am
Reply to Timeo @ 12:03 am:
Re: moering.
I was quoting from the post above mine – thought you
will realise that.
OK, so what was the difference between the
“game plans” between the Poms and the Scots
today?
Zilch.
If a team has a strong lineout and scrum, it
will obviously concentrate on its strong
points.
Does that qualify as a “game plan”?
Does concentrating on limiting your opponent’s
strong points – e.g. Cooper, Carter -
qualify as a “game plan”?
Or is it just common sense?
Or maybe tactics?
October 2nd, 2011 at 12:17 am
Reply to Timeo @ 12:03 am:
No contradiction at all. Boer points out that a game plan is all a variation of the same thing. I just suggested that a team must be able to change what they are doing. So if a team plans to do more of one thing, eg chip-and-chase, but the opposition turn out to be good under the high ball and running back at them, they can change their emphasis to kicking for the corners and contesting the line out, etc. The problem is I think that the Boks at times are poor at reading the game and finding out what works.
October 2nd, 2011 at 12:51 am
The best and worst of world rugby in one game.
Just like the Samoan /Bok game in 1995 the Samoan game plan was to play dirty and unsettle the Boks. They came out with the intention to injure players. 1995 I saw 3 off the ball late high swinging arm tackles on Andre Joubert alone in that game which were all Red card offences but missed by the refs and citing commissioner.
The Best:
The discipline shown by the Boks in the face of dirty play
The passion and the will to win shown by the Samoan players
The cracking of the umbrella defence and the great backline mover that followed
The Worst: (all listed are card offences, does not included niggle)
Very poor control of dirty play.
Punches: 08:13 Leo, 18:56 J.Duplesis slapped, 25:42 No 5 strikes bok player in the face, 33:19 No8 punches Danie Rossouw when entering ruck, No 4 strikes Jacques Fourie to face twice 39:58, No 8 strikes Schalk Burger 40:25, No8 slaps Schalk Burger 56:42
Hair pulling: 07:25 no1 on Schalk Burger, 71:08 on Schalk Burger
Stomping: 18:03 Stomping by no 13 on F.Steyn, 75:20 more stomping in the ruck
Constant around the neck tackles
Swinging arm dangerous tackle on Alberts 72:21, on Spies 55:51, 14:20 by No8
Off the ball shoulder charge 14:45
The Samoans could and should have won this game. Their ill discipline and playing the player off the ball instead of concentrating on the game cost them a possible victory.
Owens is not competent to ref at a RWC. He cost both the Boks in injured players and the Samoans the game. He failed to take control of the discipline. He failed the players in apply the law that is to protect them and to a fair clean contest.
SARU: Your failure to protect your assets, your players, by publicly condemning the actions of the Samoans whose game plan was to injure and fight. If this was any other country kopping these cheapshots we would have seen Owens sanctioned and a lot more citings. But alas what happens on the field… sorry SARU just don’t understand the value of players and protecting them. The coach and captain have failed too.
It seems its that certain teams are protected while others are to face dirty play without sanction.
IRB is a disgrace. This rugby and not a fre for all brawl. If this hapened to the AB’s we would have seen Paddie out criticising the ref.
October 2nd, 2011 at 1:14 am
GAME STATS
Possession
South Africa 51%; Samoa 49%
Rucks/mauls
South Africa 57; Samoa 116
Line breaks
South Africa 2; Samoa 6
Offloads
South Africa 10; Samoa 19
Scrum wins
South Africa 6; Samoa 7
Lineout wins
South Africa 15; Samoa 13
Lineouts won against throw
South Africa 4; Samoa 2
Runs
South Africa 77; Samoa 146
Run metres
South Africa 462; Samoa 951
Kicks
South Africa 27; Samoa 21
Kick metresSouth Africa 931; Samoa 577
Tackles made
South Africa 187; Samoa 93
Tackles missed
South Africa 54; Samoa 24
Turnovers
South Africa 16; Samoa 25
Penalties conceded
South Africa 10; Samoa 9
Tackles [Made/Missed/Turnovers]
Brussouw 27-5-2
Matfield 18-3-0
B du Plessis 17-5-3
Burger 16-6-1
M Steyn 16-7-0
F Steyn 12-6-1
Rossouw 12-3-2
J du Plessis 12-5-2
Mtawarira 12-2-0
…
P Spies 4-1-0
So what was Spies doing for 80 minutes?
Making up the numbers?
October 2nd, 2011 at 2:09 am
Reply to Boertjie @ 12:13 am:
My ‘moering’ comment had nothing to do with you.
Scotland played attacking running rugby with their backs. It worked well and helped them to lead for most of the match but poor tactical kicking repeatedly nullified their gains.
England rarely used their backs. England dominated the scrums, kicked for territory and goal and eventually won via a maul.
The other questions: Partly, yes, yes, yes and yes for all.
October 2nd, 2011 at 2:28 am
Anyway, it strikes me as odd that one can constantly complain about the Boks ‘kick charge and defend’ game and then claim that all game-plans are the same.
October 2nd, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 12:13 am:
Tactics!
Anyway – back from Vienna where we played Stade Viennois who beat us in June at home by 1 fooking point thanks to a pk.
Yesterday we went to Vienna missing our 10 who just had another 100% kicking record in the last game of 11 from 11.
We were missing our 1st choice 10, 14 and 15 so some youngsters had to step in.
We came home with a BONUS POINT win
Score 35-8 to RC Innsbruck
PS: our #8 and captai took the kicking duites upon himself after only 2 hours practice and got 6 from 7
October 2nd, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 6:33 pm:
All from in front of the posts?
I hope your team gets some publicity?
October 2nd, 2011 at 6:59 pm
On second thoughts I think there are
in fact TWO gameplans.
1. To win.
2. To lose by not too many points.
October 2nd, 2011 at 7:11 pm
I’m not an atheist, but his kind
of statement makes me feel like
vomiting:
“Blue Bulls fullback Zane Kirchner says his call-up to the Springboks’ World Cup squad is part of God’s plan with his life.”
October 2nd, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 7:11 pm:
So what did Frans Steyn do wrong in gods eyes
October 2nd, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 6:58 pm:
He is mentally very tough! Thx Partly to Brand’s advice and tips
October 2nd, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 7:17 pm:
Izzatso?
Good for him.
And for Brand.
Who is shining in his absence.
October 2nd, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Ja-ja,happy the cannibals are on the way home.
Now the rugby can start.
they should stick to sevens
or have some Bwana putting them into
his side before they are worth a testmatch.
Or play the likes of italy and scotland,wales and canada.
Add the frogs to that and all.
October 2nd, 2011 at 8:30 pm
steyn probably misses his boyfriends
waiting in pink in paris.
October 2nd, 2011 at 8:55 pm
“Since then, you can almost bet your bottom dollar that coaches through all levels of South African rugby will introduce bench players on a pre-determined schedule irrespective of the match situation or unless injury forces them to.”
- naka and rassie also did some creative thinking around their prop subs circa 2005-7. They started the 5/2 split if I remember right.