Having read most of the post-mortems on the Stormers’ failure yet again in a playoff match, I can honestly I don’t buy into any of the reasons offered so far.
The general theme around the Stormers ‘shock’ exit from Super Rugby focusses on the type of game that they are playing, and have been playing all season (if not for 3 years running). Descriptors like one-trick ponies, defence orientated game plans or just plain boring rugby seems common in most post match analysis I have read so far – but I disagree.
You do not fluke 14 out of 16 victories. You do not fluke a top of the table finish in the world’s toughest provincial competition. This Stormers team has got game, simple.
Coaching does play a part
That said, it is not to say coaching is not to blame if you look at this holistically. Talking to some people after the game on Saturday I made the comment that I believe in many ways this Stormers team is over-coached, and if those reading this article now shows the same blank expression to those present at the time let me try an explain.
When you see a team work their asses off to not only defend against a good attack, but turn possession over only for some knob to kick the ball away and give it right back to them, you know you are dealing with a humanoid who has absolutely no interest of playing outside a pre-determined structure.
There we no less than 8 occasions where opportunities presented itself to the Stormers where they made inexplicable, but quite obvious pre-determined tactical decisions. This Stormers team execute what is their game plan, and game tactics, with militant resolve and determination where there is absolutely no scope for following instinct or logic.
Paralysis through analysis
Analysis and statistics play a vital role in a complex, multi-dimensional game such as rugby, but the massive improvements in technology available to every person out there today sees coaches more often than not trying to justify an analytical question or criticism with some more analysis or statistics of their own resulting in nothing more than a dog’s breakfast.
It is also through analysis that too much is sometimes made of how teams play, or should play, to the extent of specific, tailor-made condition programs developed for each specific team and its players to suit the type of game they want to play.
In other words, not only are players ‘programmed’ (read manipulated) mentally through statistics and analysis to simply do and not think, they are also ‘produced’ to suit any teams pre-conceived style of play.
All game, no brain
A complex game like rugby is reliant on structure, no coach, team or player can operate successfully without some form of structure or plan, but there needs to be a balance.
The problem you have when you program little robots or humanoids is that at some stage, that code will be broken, and once that happens, you need a ‘control-alt-delete’ to properly fix the problem.
Why is it that we still insist in training every single muscle in the human body except the most important one – the brain?
Whenever you mention the word mental or mind coach to the majority of our conservative coaching personnel you are met with a dismissive response or attitude to the effect of ‘we don’t need kop-dokters to tell us how to play rugby’ – somehow believing that the investment in a mental coach is something only sissies do…
And when at times you do get minimal buy in from coaches in this regard who afford these individuals sessions once every two weeks or at best, 10 minutes once a week, you get the inevitable ‘see I told you it’s useless, we have seen zero improvement’.
It is almost believed that mental coaches carry a magic wand in which they can fix or improve a team’s mental application with a simple Abra-Ka-Dabra. These individuals will tell you themselves that mental conditioning needs complete buy-in from a team or a coach where they are afforded just one magic session every second week.
Consider the patterns
Just looking at the Stormers a familiar pattern emerges. Since 2010 they have made 3 semi-finals (one final) but faltered quite spectacularly at times in these high-pressure, playoff situations.
This is a pattern also found when you look at their provincial team in the colours of Western Province rugby. On Saturday Allister Coetzee said that the team will (once again) sit down and analyze what went wrong on Saturday, no doubt reviewing hours of video footage and analyzing every single second and decision of the match.
They will form rugby conclusions through the analysis, tell themselves that the execution was not up to standard, and go back and make plans to hopefully try and improve this on the practice field practicing line outs, scrums, rucks, mauls, kicks, passing and tackling believing next year will be different.
And there will be no point.
The Stormers are no doubt good enough to win Super Rugby, and have been for 3 years running, they got the game, they lack the mental application.
Other patterns we can consider is where mental and mind coaches enjoyed great buy-in from teams and what the long term effects of this was.
- Jannie Putter, Bulls, 2006 to 2010 (3 Super Rugby titles)
- Tim Goodenough, Sharks, 2007 (Super Rugby final)
- Henning Gericke, Springboks, 2004 to 2007 (Rugby World Cup)
- Ross Tucker, Mens Hockey & Springbok Sevens (2008, Sevens World Series Champions)
- Tom Dawson-Squibb (UCT 2011 & Stormers 2010)
For some reason, following the Stormers’ final appearance in 2010 they cut ties with Dawson-Squib and his company with no reason as to why.
I have to re-iterate, mental coaches are not miracle workers, nor is their work guaranteed to provide miracle results, but similar to a defence coach, skills coach, scrum coach, line out coach, or any other coach used in professional rugby today, with time and becoming integral to any team’s coaching setup, they add immense value.
If the belief that 90% of any game is won in the head first is true, why are we not even affording expert coaches in this field even 1% of our time in a coaching environment? I mean it should be logical, shouldn’t it?
elcamino
logan
ROOILEEU
Tina
KingPaul
Methos The French Stormer
Thomas_Bulls
Deon
Aldo
JT_BOKBEFOK!
garyj1-Bulls
Amethyst
trevormayhew
Pom in Joburg
Marcel
namboer
RUGGA_MIND
Jacques(Bunny)Somtimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits
Quinn25
Pokkel
moose
Vernonimous
Watte
niekie
Dante
Panther
Vetgesmeerde Blits
bryce_in_oz
Kozac
Blokkies
Number12_Lions
Brutus2
Lehe6
Estian Nortier
DavidS
johanleroux13
Morné
Tafelberg
pietstreak
Ollie
Koos
July 31st, 2012 at 11:31 am
Good article,
Before I discuss the mental aspect just one note on their game strategy:
Many times this year analysts said that if you lead against the Stormers its pretty much your game for the taking. The Reds last year kept ahead by 6 or so points and the Stormers immediately then start making mistakes.
So, mentally maybe they have been programmed to only be ‘switched on’ once they have a small lead to defend.
What grates me the most about this team is that they possess some very exciting players who in many games would start off by scoring a brilliant try or two.
Then almost without fault they kick back and start defending. Any ball they get they kick back and then defend in the hope that the opposition will make a mistake and Grant can capitalize.
Now in a semi we get angry at Duvenhage etc for kicking ball away when in most games he was programmed to do so late in the game?
July 31st, 2012 at 11:33 am
Stormers rugby is in some aspect almost an experiment. Their application is in many ways totally removed from the game as a whole.
Almost as if Coetzee is working on a thesis of how to never lose without ever really playing?
I for one am very glad that this experiment is so far unsuccessful. Imagine all teams playing this way?
July 31st, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Good article…
So what do you suppose happened at the Sharks to turn their season around?
July 31st, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Reply to Pokkel @ 12:21 pm:
Faced with an impossible task, balls against the wall.
Players pulled together which you often find when you are touring. Great bond developed, mentally they were switched on and played for a ’cause’ (each other).
I also made the comment that in the last month I saw very little ‘Plumtree’ coming through in the Sharks play and selections.
Almost a case of; ‘Okay boys, this is the scenario, we probably don’t have a chance in hell but let’s go out and give it our best shot’.
And sometimes that is all that is needed.
July 31st, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Reply to Morné @ 12:25 pm:
Thanks Morné
I must admit I haven’t seen that much ‘gees’ in the Sharks squad for a couple of years.
Also, unlike the Bulls, the senior Sharks Players have been brilliant. Beast, Bissie, Alberts, Kanko, JPP, Ludik, Keegan Michalak and even Jannie have really performed and dragged the junior player up with them.
I fear that Saturday will be a step too far for them as it seems that the Chiefs are just as hungry as the Sharks without having had all the travelling to contend with.
But hell I hope I’m wrong!
July 31st, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 11:33 am:
“I for one am very glad that this experiment is so far unsuccessful.”
Really… they have taken the South African conference… against the best 22 players the nation has to offer both home and away… for the 2ND time in a row… a far more difficult task than any Currie Cup game… setting themselves in the best way possible for the next phase…
Only to come unstuck just at the last hurdle against a miraculous gees win… that was far closer than most are making out…
This has been the year any team in the S15 could sneak a win…
July 31st, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Reply to Pokkel @ 12:33 pm:
It’s been great to see many players back to their best… but I’m particularly enjoying seeing Ludik finally reach the form we expected from his Lions transfer (and that includes Freddy M)…
July 31st, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Reply to Pokkel @ 12:21 pm:
Michelak at 10 made a pretty big difference.
July 31st, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Reply to bryce_in_oz @ 1:15 pm: Reply to Timeo @ 1:15 pm:
I think Freddie will be key in the final. He sums up situations very well. The Chiefs used rush defence to stop the Saders attack and I think the tactic against the Sharks will be the same.
Michalak might just use grubbers or little kicks over the backline to hopefully unlock a bit of space. We will need him to vary his play and keep the Chiefs guessing.
I just hope the right Freddie pitches although he’s been very consistant lately.
July 31st, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Reply to bryce_in_oz @ 1:15 pm: Reply to Pokkel @ 1:26 pm:
Who would your centre pairing be for the weekend?
July 31st, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Reply to Pokkel @ 1:26 pm:
Jeez mate… that’s a toughie… I’ll leave that to Bashford
It makes it only tougher with Whitehead injured and Lambie back and me not wanting to mess around too much… so it’s more the entire backline than just the centre pairing…
I’d be pondering a few backlines…
Does Lambie get a start after injury, the same applies to Jordaan?
Probably start with Bosman/JPP with Mvovu and Ludik on the wings and Lambie at 15… Bosman handled SBW well the last game…
July 31st, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Reply to bryce_in_oz @ 1:50 pm:
Either way I’d be dropping Ndungane for Jordaan and Viljoen with the above mix in any form…
July 31st, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Reply to bryce_in_oz @ 1:50 pm:
I’m undecided as well but probably Bosman/Pieterson if I had to chose. Lambie hasn’t played much recently and especially not at 12 so it might be too big a risk.
July 31st, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Reply to bryce_in_oz @ 1:52 pm: Reply to Pokkel @ 1:53 pm:
Lambie at 12, Jordaan at 13, the best win in SA back on wing.
Two kicking and thinking options at 10 and 12 to dictate play.
Dont pick a side with a view to defend against the Chiefs, its suicide – pick a side to beat them.
July 31st, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Reply to Morné @ 2:01 pm:
I’m confident at his best a settled Bosman is a better option at 12 (even on attack) than a Lambie who might (or might not) be injured and has not played 12 once this season with a rookie who might (or might not) still be injured) on his outside…
Another option (albeit riskier) is Jordaan to slot in to last week’s starting side with Ludik losing out to Lambie… but Ludik seems to be back to his fastest whereas Pat (and Jordaan) don’t appear to have the pace that the Chief’s quick’s do…
July 31st, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Reply to bryce_in_oz @ 2:33 pm:
Really Jordaan and JPP can mix it up swopping from 13/14…
July 31st, 2012 at 2:38 pm
I was at the game when the Stormers lost narrowly to the Crusaders in CHC this year. Mentally, they looked up for that game and at times I really thought they might pull off another meritorious win away from Newlands. Yet the year before, they were in some bad headspace at that semi played against a very similar Crusaders side at Newlands, they just weren’t in the game from start to finish and were outplayed. Do they get themselves up better for away games?
July 31st, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Reply to bryce_in_oz @ 1:13 pm:
if all SA teams play all their home games at the start of the season at home then the conference is pretty much like the CC – a trophy the Stormers cannot win either.
They have had a favorable touring schedule the last 2 years by starting most of their first round games at home while other SA teams had to travel.
Winning the conference is not the same as winning the tournament. I am sorry , but its not. Its the same as leading the CC going into the semis. No different.
July 31st, 2012 at 2:53 pm
I will nail my balls to the wall on this:
I dont think the stormers biggest issue is their mental strength or weakness.
I honestly believe their gameplan to be insufficient to play knock-out rugby. Especially not against NZ teams who dont have that uber conservative approach to semi/final rugby.
They lack a quality 9/10/12 combo also. No team has won a super title with shortcomings in this area.
July 31st, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Morne, how about something on the Sharks chances this w/end? They have certainly got every Saffer (well most) and his dog behind them and have cleverly based themselves in Sydney away from all the media hype. It is only 2 hours time difference to NZ and I believe they arrive in Hamilton late on Thursday. Clever.
In the meantime we hear in NZ that the Chiefs skipper Craig Clarke strained his medial ligament and may not be ok on Saturday? He would be a big loss as captain and lineout specialist – significant that he was missing when the Crusaders snotted them in Hamilton in the middle of their 3 match losing streak.
Also, what has happened about that white card Joubert awarded on Saturday. Wyatt Crockett was seen by Kaplan to have thrown a retaliatory punch but who was it in the Chiefs side that threw the punch that started the whole thing? That was just one of many niggly off the ball incidents last week and could result in someone being stood down v the Sharks. Several commentators have said that the Chiefs indiscipline could let them down – Kerr-Barlow doesn’t seem to know that raking has been outlawed for instance. Hopefully Plumtree will have a chat to Bismark and tell him not to let the vuilgatte get under his skin. They certainly pissed off some Crusaders and it cost them dearly.
July 31st, 2012 at 2:54 pm
and as Morne has said elsewhere – its as if the Sharks chucked the rule book these past 5 weeks to just go out and play the game.
We need much much more of this in SA rugby.
Freedom!
July 31st, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 2:54 pm:
freedom to chance the off-load has opened up the best defense in the comp (stormers)
Go sharks and if you keep on playing like you are I will even go as far as calling my self a Guppie fan!
July 31st, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Reply to out wide @ 2:53 pm:
you mean have something written about a team other than the stormers? Surely not?
July 31st, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 2:56 pm:
agree – i love the sharks approach right now.
pisses me off how against the cheetahs many teams suddenly find an attacking spark because they know the cheetahs dont have a great defense but they also know that you cannot easily beat the cheetahs with 3 pointers.
The Sharks now play like this against all-comers and its bloody awesome to see.
July 31st, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Reply to out wide @ 2:53 pm:
Will have something on the Sharks on Thursday mate.
Thanks for the news on Clarke.
Actually asked SANZAR about the white card and the answer was no further action will be taken.
Funny thing is, no email was sent out with the official outcome of that white card…
July 31st, 2012 at 4:03 pm
After all is said and done, one thing stands above all else, you have to play with ball in hand to win big matches, you can trust your defence as much as anything, but at the end of the day you nee dto score points, preferable in multiples of 5′s or 7′s and if that doesn’t come to bare then you score in 3′s, but without intent and ball in hand you won’t win the tough matches.
July 31st, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Oh, I forgot to add, it has to be quality ball, and the best quality ball is quick ball, not the dredging through the mud kind of ball.
July 31st, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 2:49 pm:
The Currie Cup does not contain the best player’s in RSA any more… it hasn’t for quite some time… the S15 does and for 85mins every single weekend for months on top of playing some of the worlds best international stars.
“They lack a quality 9/10/12 combo also. No team has won a super title with shortcomings in this area.”
So now you’re going against your previous season’s stance on Morne Steyn and Wynand Olivier?
“its as if the Sharks chucked the rule book these past 5 weeks to just go out and play the game.”
That’s simply not the case… they’re now finally dominating the collisions, their tackles are sticking and they’re not giving away mindless possession with turnovers with their game-plan that sees them making almost twice the amount of tackles their opposition does… and the rest is flowing on from that…
I suggest you read some of the Aussie press match-reports on just how they took apart the Reds… and it most certainly wasn’t due to your seemingly romantic notion that they’re suddenly flinging the ball around with ‘gay abandonment’, socks around the ankles and shirts untucked…
July 31st, 2012 at 5:50 pm
•Ross Tucker, Mens Hockey
———
They really need him now in London.
Ditto the women.
TOTALLY OUTCLASSED 9ON THE FIELD.
July 31st, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 5:50 pm:
Its how they actually got to the Olympics in the first place which is an achievement in itself.
July 31st, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 5:50 pm:
Didn’t they have to fund themselves also?
July 31st, 2012 at 6:10 pm
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 2:53 pm:
That pretty well sums it up IMO.
And then cut the senseless kicking
away of hard fought posession ala
Saturday.
July 31st, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Reply to Morné @ 5:55 pm:
Probably yes. The willing sponsor was told
by Sasco the money is too little. Dunno what
happened after that.
But considering the tough route they had – not
merely qualifying through Africa – I expected
more of them.
How many shots at goal in two games? 3? 4?
Same goes for the men’s team.
July 31st, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 6:16 pm:
Don’t follow hockey much to be honest. But for my money just qualifying (through a tough route and tournament in Japan if I recall) is something special.
Especially given they have zero backing from SA (financially or otherwise).
July 31st, 2012 at 8:09 pm
How to ‘draw’ a man ‘out of the bush’ hahahaha
Thanks for well written arti – well done – again
20min into the game I told the mate watching with me the Stormers are going to lose!!!
Purely based on their – States – compared to the Sharks.
Is MindCoaching seriously taken in Rugby? The replies to your article is answer enough
Would I coach a Super team – ONLY if they are willing to pay my ridiculous fee !!! A fee so HUGE – everyone in the Union – coaches, players and management will FULLY participate and support !!!
Will it make a difference ? YES – Stormers would have been in the Finals – punt-oor-en-uit !!!
July 31st, 2012 at 8:11 pm
The Stormers do not have a 9 and 10 to dominate and win big games. I’ve always maintained that with Grant the Stormers will do well but not win the trophy. Before him it was De Waal. Same story. A special 9 and 10 is needed and worth investing in. How I see it. Nothing more complex.
July 31st, 2012 at 8:16 pm
WP/Stormers need a 10 that can fire up that backline and create magic. Jantjies, but with more muscle.
July 31st, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Reply to Morné @ 6:21 pm:
Ja, but losing by 6, 5, 6 goals is not
good enough. Then you rather stay home.
They will again finish 12th out of 12 teams.
Men and Women.
July 31st, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 8:17 pm:
I’d imagined you of all people would know just how difficult it is just to qualify for the Olympics?
Reply to The Brand @ 8:09 pm:
Goed om jou weer te sien maat.
July 31st, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Hey Brand
Het jy al gedink om in MMA betrokke te raak?
July 31st, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Second gold for SA!!!
What a swim by Chad le Clos!!! What a finish!!!
July 31st, 2012 at 10:09 pm
No Pissant
The reality is much simpler. On paper, the Stormers have only the 3rd best team in SA. The number of comparative Bok selections accurately depicts that.
The fact that they topped the SA conference is a credit to them performing above themselves, the Bulls totally underperforming and the Sharks only hitting their stride once their superstars returned from injury.
But as Ross Tucker said today – the Sharks had at least an 8 point disadvantage in this game, and still won by 7.
Frankly, this Stormers team doesn’t have the talent to go toe to toe with the Sharks heavies.
Their fanatical fans simply turned a blind eye to that, until the Sharks forced them to come back to reality.
July 31st, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Reply to Tacitus @ 10:09 pm:
Explain 14 out of 16 to me. Explain 3 semi’s, one final, log positions 2nd, 2nd and 1st in Super Rugby to me in the last 3 years and then again come again with the notion about ‘punching above their weight’.
July 31st, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Reply to Tacitus @ 10:09 pm:
And as far as Bok representation goes, Vermeulen, Burger and Bekker would have been in the squad if not injured, not only would have increased the Stormers’ numbers in the Boks squad, it would have meant players from Sharks/Bulls would have been less.
July 31st, 2012 at 11:32 pm
Reply to Morné @ 10:44 pm:
Would that have stopped them from kicking
good balls away?
Stormers had the shittiest game plan of all
- 14 wins or not. When it mattered the failed
AGAIN. They can’t even gain ground with a
good ball!
Good fight back in the last few minutes.
Just a pity when the ball was lying there
waiting to be picked up there was no one
around to do it.
July 31st, 2012 at 11:34 pm
Reply to Morné @ 8:46 pm:
I know exactly how difficult it was for
the two hockey teams to qualify.
That’s why I feel they are letting themselves
and the country down with their pathetic
performances in London.
Mind you, pathetic is an eufemism in this case.
August 1st, 2012 at 8:35 am
Reply to Boertjie @ 11:32 pm:
Of course, they failed when it mattered – again – which is what this article is all about.
August 1st, 2012 at 8:49 am
Reply to Morné @ 10:35 pm:
14 out of 16.
But did they beat the Chiefs as one of those 14 wins?
Did they beat the Crusaders?
Did they beat the Sharks once the Sharks had their heavy hitters back?
No to all 3 of the above.
Hence, while their team spirit, discipline and defensive excellence was enough to see them scrape through against the lesser teams – including the Bulls who played like a lesser team this season – it was never going to be enough to pull it off against the elite sides.
As was proven when the travel weary Sharks still smashed them in a home semi last weekend.
To put it into context. The travel weary Bulls lost by 5 points to the Stormers after returning from tour, but were pumped by a massive margin by the Sharks.
There is simply a massive difference in quality between the Sharks and the Stormers.
August 1st, 2012 at 9:29 am
Reply to Tacitus @ 8:49 am:
Sharks heavy hitters returned?
Care to list the injury casualties of the Stormers?
Also the losses of the Sharks against ‘lesser’ teams including the Lions (when they were at full strength), Bulls, and Waratahs? Not to mention the snotting they received against the Canes?
3 years occupying the top 2 log positions, 35 wins out of 45 games with a margin of 78% wins over 3 years.
You might fluke a game, you might fluke even 2 or 5 games. Hell you might even fluke a season if you are very lucky.
3 Years? Please…
August 1st, 2012 at 9:46 am
Reply to Morné @ 9:29 am:
Pissant
You’re not arguing rationally here.
I’m not talking about the full strength Stormers team. I’m talking about the one that lined up against the Sharks in the semi.
In comparative terms, the one is totally outclassed by the other.
And the weakness of the Sharks was their consistency, but that doesn’t change the comparison of the two teams in peak form.
In peak form, the Sharks totally outclass this particular Stormers team.
Hence beating them both home and away, despite the odds being stacked against them.
August 1st, 2012 at 9:47 am
Reply to Tacitus @ 8:49 am:
Some more perspective.
Over 3 years win percentages in league stages are as follows:
Reds 71%
Crusaders 67%
Bulls 67%
Sharks 60%
Stormers 78%
Now re-think your post a bit.
August 1st, 2012 at 9:48 am
Reply to Morné @ 9:29 am:
And I’m not referring to fluking 14 wins.
I’m stating that their low risk brand of rugby, coupled with strong defense was enough to eke out wins on a consistent basis against all but the elite teams.
But that this was never going to be good enough to beat an elite team in top form. Because the Stormers weren’t holding back from their full potential. They were already playing at their full potential, when eking out these wins.
The strength of their approach was that it enabled greater consistency of performance, and hence piled up the wins.
The weakness was that it was never good enough to match teams like the Sharks when in form.
August 1st, 2012 at 9:57 am
Reply to Tacitus @ 9:46 am:
Let Bryce give you the stats of this particular game to give you an idea what actually happened on the park.
And if you have not noticed – this article deals specifically with their inability to win play off games (of which Saturday was one).
The Stormers have managed the best winning percentages over 3 years of all the teams in Super Rugby during league stages, they fail every time in playoffs.
You are judging a team on 80 minutes of rugby to justify an argument, I am using 3 years to make the same point (they cannot win play-offs), but argue from a completely different perspective.
78% over 3 years shows me they are a bloody good team – no trophies shows me they choke.
August 1st, 2012 at 9:59 am
Reply to Tacitus @ 9:48 am:
The only team they consistently fail against is the Crusaders.
August 1st, 2012 at 10:06 am
Reply to Morné @ 9:57 am:
Is it choking if they come up against a team with 3 times as many current Boks in it?
A team that nullifies probably the Stormers greatest strength this season -which is the physicality of their pack?
A team that beat them just a few weeks earlier?
A team that beat the Bulls by 4 tries to 1, while the Stormers could only eke out a 5 point win in the week when the Bulls were still suffering from jet lag after arriving home from their overseas trip?
And a team that – when much weaker, lost to the Stormers at Newlands only thanks to a last minute penalty kick from Peter Grant, in the early rounds of the tournament?
This was no choke. The Sharks are just much, much better than the current Stormers team.
August 1st, 2012 at 10:20 am
Reply to Tacitus @ 10:06 am:
Oh that explains why the Stormers won the conference trophy (best SA side against SA opposition) in the last 2 years?
With 3 losses out of 17 games against SA teams in the last 2 years (82% win record)? 5 losses out of 22 games in the last 3 years (77% win record)?
Head to head v Sharks from 2011: Stormers 3 Sharks 2 (wins)
Head to head v Bulls from 2011: Stormers 3 Bulls 1 (wins)
I am seeing a Stormers side that has beaten SA’s best in the last 2 years more than they lost.
Of course the Sharks were the better team on Saturday, they won, and won deservedly.
A team with an 82% win record against SA teams, 78% against all teams with no silverware chokes.
August 1st, 2012 at 11:17 am
Reply to Morné @ 10:20 am:
I think it is a mistake to tie this year’s outcome to that of previous years.
I don’t think it was a choke in 2010, when the Bulls were by far the form team, hosted the final, and beat the Stormers through a superior performance in Soweto.
And I don’t think it was a choke this year, when the Sharks simply outclassed them.
Last year may come down to a choke. But then, it may also just be a case of the Crusaders being the better team, and Newlands not being much of a home ground advantage when the Crusaders are getting cheers from large portions of the crowd.
August 1st, 2012 at 11:25 am
Reply to Tacitus @ 11:17 am:
The Sharks executed very well on Saturday but both tries came from individual mistakes on defence rather than poor play by the team.
Sharks had to make the most tackles by quite some margin which suggests the Stormers created more than enough opportunities to score.
Of course their game plan is much talked about and we all agree it sucks and needs attention. But their inability to change out of said structure forms part of the discussion in the article itself, mental application.
The question is not whether the Sharks deserved to win, I think they are playing magnificent rugby in the last 4 weeks. But there is no question that the Stormers were the favourites on Saturday. There is also no question in my mind they are a quality side, some names in that team and their record over 3 years supports that.
But the Stormers, and also WP, quite simply cannot handle the pressure of play-offs.
If a team wins 80% of their games but fail to win those games that matter, they choke.
August 1st, 2012 at 11:30 am
Reply to Morné @ 11:25 am:
Maybe our debate is due to a difference in expectations going into the semi final.
Heyneke Meyer has said in the past that to win the Super Rugby trophy, you need around 5 world class superstars in your team, and, and at least 10 Springboks, or something like that.
Just looking at the teamsheets, and bearing in mind the current Bok team, it was obvious to me that the Sharks were by far the stronger team.
The result did not suprise me in the least, in fact, I find the suprise of so many Stormers supporters to be the real surprise.
August 1st, 2012 at 11:44 am
Morne I get where you are coming from (RE the only problem being a mental one) but maybe look at last years REDS game at Newlands once more. The Reds played very much a tactical kicking game that day to keep the ball behind the Stomers. Once the REDS were in the lead it was easy to defend as the Stormers offered nothing on attack once they needed points.
This aspect for me is the Stormers biggest weakness. Once you are ahead against them they have no answer.
The good teams, as Tacitus points out, when on form – will always be able to exploit this,, as they have done.
Very much like the Boks the Stormers employed a low risk strategy which meant they would always win more games than they lose- hence their impressive win ration.
But it never was and never will be good enough to beat the best teams in crunch games.
August 1st, 2012 at 11:45 am
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 11:44 am:
They beat the best teams in any other games (with the exception of the Crusaders), what is different in a ‘crunch’ game?
August 1st, 2012 at 11:53 am
Reply to Morné @ 11:45 am:
They didn’t, this year.
They didn’t beat the Chiefs.
They didn’t beat the Crusaders.
And the only time they beat the Sharks (by one penalty kick) was when the Sharks were also losing to the Bulls and other crap teams.
Once the Sharks hit their stride, they beat the Stormers twice.
August 1st, 2012 at 11:54 am
Reply to bryce_in_oz @ 4:43 pm:
Never been a meisiekind fan but even he is a better distributor than JdV, who cannot pass properly and hardly ever does.
I am a huge Morne fan.
Fourie Dup was a legend.
So for me the Bulls 9/10/12 combo was simple in another leage than the Stormers, whose 9 and 10 wont make many teams, even in SA.
August 1st, 2012 at 11:58 am
Reply to Morné @ 11:45 am:
Tacitus is right here.
Stormers for me had one really good game all year and that was against the Highlanders who at the time were flying – and away from home.
Many other games the Stormers actually showed great mental resolve to hang on and win some very close games.
August 1st, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Reply to Tacitus @ 11:53 am:
Sharks did not beat the Crusaders, inconsequential whether the Stormers beat the Chiefs – they did not play them – similar Sharks and Crusaders.
August 1st, 2012 at 12:04 pm
I think this season is one the Stormers should take credit for.
They performed way above themselves to win 14 out of 16 with the players at their disposal.
The fact that this created unrealistic expectations, which now results in over the top, damning post mortems, is unfortunate.
But you could see that they were already stretched to win some of the games in the league season. Once they came up against an elite side at the top of their game in the play-offs, things were looking bleak for them.
August 1st, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 11:58 am:
Stormers beat the defending champions in Aus, with a sleuth of injuries down to their 3rd captain of the season.
They lost to the Sharks in Durban by 5 points having lost Joe Pietersen & Duane Vermeulen to injury.
We can play this game all day.
August 1st, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Reply to Morné @ 12:02 pm:
The point is, the level of performance that the Sharks were able to produce against the Bulls (4 try whipping), against the Reds in Brisbane (game won by half time) and against the Stormers at Newlands (collissions dominated, travel fatigue notwithstanding) is a level that the Stormers have no answer for.
Their best hope was if the Sharks produced an inconsistent performance in the semifinal, and performed below their true potential. Then the Stormers consistency would have seen them eke out another close win.
But the moment the Sharks rose above a certain level, the Stormers didn’t have anything to match it with.
This loss was not due to the Stormers’ mental weakness. Willem Alberts, Bismark, Beast, Jannie and co. are simply too powerful for them.
Etzebeth’s elbow to Bismark’s Adam’s apple notwithstanding.
August 1st, 2012 at 12:10 pm
one thing is for sure, this tournament is too long and has a ridiculous format.
In a sense the Stormers ending first should have been the winners, yet they were never the best team in the tournament so maybe its fair to have play offs etc.
I dont know, but its not a great comp.
August 1st, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Reply to Morné @ 12:06 pm:
I dont rate Vermeulen and I think Kolisi is at this juncture a better player than Burger.
So I dont buy the injuries excuse.
But answer this, if the stormers are mentally so weak, why did they win 6 games they could just as easily have lost?
In contrast the Cheetahs lost those 6 games…
Is the problem thus really a mental one?
August 1st, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Great read.
The Sharks are running on gees. You see the chest pumping on the Sharks logo. Good, its make the game so much better when there is that kinda passion.
Stormers remind me of a time when England were too scared to lose games and feared failure. Focusing on what you dont want instead of what you want. Defensive mentality maybe?
August 1st, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Reply to Tacitus @ 12:09 pm:
What you are describing is a Sharks team clicking when it mattered. Every game for the Sharks from the Bulls game was a must win game, a final, some even requiring BP wins.
It is called BMT.
They had it, the Stormers did not. And this is what this article is all about.
August 1st, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 12:10 pm:
I view it this way.
The Stormers low risk, disciplined approach meant that they could consistently perform at 7 out of 10. Game in, game out. Whether they had quality players across the park or not.
The Sharks, in contrast, alternated a lot of 5 out of 10 performances with a few 9 out of 10 games.
The Bulls performed mostly at around 6 out of 10, with a couple of 5 out of 10 games thrown in for good measure.
So, the Stormers could be guaranteed to produce 7 out of 10 again in the semifinal. The question was whether the Sharks could get to 8 out of 10 or more despite their travel fatigue.
If they could, then the Stormers had no chance, because 7 out of 10 is the limit that their current personnel are capable of. You need more world class stars to pull off more than that.
August 1st, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 12:13 pm:
Ever played a final of significance in your life? Reckon its different to just a league game where you can correct a loss the next weekend?
August 1st, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Reply to Tacitus @ 12:15 pm:
So Stormers are consistently the best team they just cannot win finals?
August 1st, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Reply to Morné @ 12:15 pm:
I still feel you are refusing to accept the fundamental difference in the quality of the players in the Sharks and Stormers teams.
You feel comfortable attributing increased performance to better coaching, better frame of mind or better pressure handling, but haven’t once acknowledged the superior quality of the Sharks players, as far as I can see in the thread above.
The fact is, there is reason why there are 8 Sharks players in the current Bok team, and only 2 or 3 Stormers players.
This is a fundamental point which apparently will not be conceded by the Stormers camp.
And it comes back to the outcry when Meyer selected his Bok team. It turns out he was correct in his assessment.
Remember the moans about Coetzee being picked over Kolisi? Coetzee was in a different class to Kolisi on Saturday. Same with Kankowski who is in the form of his life, Daniel, the entire front row, Alberts, Pietersen, Michalak, Mcleoud and even Ludik, compared to Aplon or Habana.
The Stormers players just ain’t that good.
August 1st, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Reply to Morné @ 12:18 pm:
The Stormers are consistently a 7 out of 10. But they lack the quality to go to 8 out of 10.
The Sharks, in contrast, went from 5 out of 10, to 9 out of 10 once the Boks returned from the England test series.
August 1st, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Reply to Tacitus @ 12:19 pm:
No-where is the Sharks form, or performance on the day denied or questioned.
You can have 15 of the world’s best players in one team if that team does not click it will be useless.
An All Black laden Crusaders side lost to the Chiefs on Friday – it is not about individuals it is about the team and how they perform.
A Springbok laden Bulls team got absolutely snotted by the Crusaders.
You are trying to qualify individuals and match them up against each other to justify a point. I don’t see the relevance in that.
The TEAM performance is what counts – the Stormers have consitently delivered the best team performances of all Super Rugby teams over 3 years, but they lose when it matters.
The Sharks on the other side of the coin had no hope in hell 4 weeks ago, they stood up to the occasion when it mattered, showed the temperament required and will now go play in the final.
August 1st, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Reply to Morné @ 12:29 pm:
That’s not a straight answer. But probably the best I’ll get.
What I’m saying is that the Stormers had reached the ceiling of their current squad’s potential with their narrow wins during the season.
They didn’t play any worse in the semi final than they did in the narrow victories they achieved during the season.
The Sharks in contrast, played way below the potential for most of the season, until they finally got into gear post the England test series.
But once they did, all they need was for their superstars to perform according to their ability, and then everything fell into place.
I’m saying, the Stormers stars WERE playing to their ability in the semi final. Bekker and Etsebeth tried their utmost. Habana tried his best. So did Aplon and De Villiers.
But they simply aren’t good enough to match the power of the Sharks.
There was no choke in the final. They just came up against a stronger team.
August 1st, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Reply to Tacitus @ 12:22 pm:
The Stormers are consistant and can not seme to raise their game when needed.
Did they manage to raise their game and score 4 tries when needed?
August 1st, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Reply to Tacitus @ 12:35 pm:
But you are saying the same thing again, to which I agree. One team raised their game when it mattered, the other did not. That is what makes champion teams and champion players – the ability to raise your game when it matters – and the Stormers does not have that ability.
You put it down to individual skill or talent which is at best subjective, I put it down to what separates good athletes/rugby players or teams, from champion rugby players or teams.
Mental application.
August 1st, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 12:36 pm: No they didn’t and that is their funadamental flaw.
Looking at the Sharks game, the Stormers really only started their onslaught when they were 14 points down, it was too late then.
They should have had intent with ball in hand earlier.
August 1st, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Reply to Morné @ 12:48 pm:
Would you ascribe to the same theory if it was the Poms against the Kiwis playing against each other?
Because that’s the difference in quality I assign to the two teams.
August 1st, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Reply to Morné @ 12:29 pm:
I agree,
As a team the Stormers have done really well. Before 2010 they were a middle of the table team at best, sometimes with better squads than this one. They do have some very good individual players at the moment but it was their team spirit and guts as well as a well planned game plan that got them to top the table. The Stormers first choice loose trio, Burger, Vermeulen and Kolisi would have made a huge different in the collisions battle and physicality.
I also don’t buy counting the number of Springboks in a team. Before their title last year the Reds had very few starting Wallabies in their team, and still won.
The Bulls had 13 boks in the squad, and is probably the 3rd best team in SA at the moment. The Bok coach looks at the style he wants to play, and select the appropriate team to fit that style. I have no problem with that, but it was clear that Meyer selected a lot of Bulls players he is familiar with because of the short preparation time for the Eng series. Nothing wrong with that in my book.
The Bulls biggest problem was their captain(and I don’t want to sound like those irritating Pierre Spies bashers here). He simply isn’t good enough as a player to warrant a start in the Bulls team anymore. To me it was their own John Smit scenario. It is a pity they lost a player like CJ Stander that is a vastly superior player in all departments barring the line out.
As for the Sharks, I hope they win the trophy on Saturday. They are a bunch of great players and after the Bok series they came back with confidence and played some of the best, if not the best rugby of the series. They can become legends this weekend.
August 1st, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Reply to biltongbek @ 12:49 pm:
Precisely, they showed they have the ability to step up – albeit it was too late and they should have played like that from the kick off.
August 1st, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Reply to Vetgesmeerde Blits @ 12:56 pm:
I don’t think the Sharks will win on Saturday. Not because they aren’t good enough. But because this travel hurdle will just be one too many, given the quality of the opposition they’ll be facing.
If they do, it will be a superhuman effort.
August 1st, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Reply to Tacitus @ 12:56 pm:
No, because the Poms do not win more games consistently than the Kiwis. The Kiwi’s, like the Stormers, win close to/over 80% of their games, the Poms? 50%?
August 1st, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Reply to Morné @ 12:58 pm:
Again, totally overrating the Stormers ability and ignoring the onset of travel fatigue. Ross Tucker specifically pointed to the Stormers late fightback as the evidence of the Sharks travel fatigue finally taking its toll.
In reality, the Sharks were about 15 points better than the Stormers, but the travel fatigue closed the gap to just 7.
That fightback was only possible because the Sharks players were not dominating the collissions as regularly anymore, due to exhaustion.
It is not indicative of what the Stormers are capable of when the Sharks aren’t playing with a handicap.
August 1st, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Reply to Tacitus @ 1:02 pm:
No, they completely changed the way they played the game. Kicks were less, they built phases, created momentum on the ball and attacked wider channels because their strength was and is in their outside backs.
A completely different approach from the Stormers saw them get reward where in the opening 55minutes they kicked the ball once every 35 seconds.
August 1st, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Reply to Morné @ 1:07 pm:
So no travel fatigue in your equation then, I take it..
August 1st, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Reply to Tacitus @ 1:08 pm:
Travel fatigue was largely debunked by the Crusaders last year when they were robbed in the final in Brisbane – there are thousands of articles on their season and their travels.
Travel, like fitness and general player fatigue (rest and recovery) are all factors that influence player’s abilities but it can also be managed.
Why do you think home advantage (to which most of these margin points pre-kick off is awarded) plays such a crucial role?
I mean it is just a stadium like any other, grass stays grass, field size stays the same as does the position of the posts…
Perhaps the influence on the team mentally?
August 1st, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Please continue guys…..I’m enjoying this.
August 1st, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Reply to Morné @ 1:14 pm:
You really don’t think travel fatigue exists?
August 1st, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Reply to MornĂ© @ 12:58 pm: I agree with you they can, the question then is why didn’t they.
Is it a mental thing, is it that they are too conservative, I cannot understand why.
August 1st, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Reply to Pokkel @ 1:18 pm:
I love debating with Tac – been doing it for years and he makes excellent points even for a one-eyed Bulls supporter.
August 1st, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Reply to biltongbek @ 1:20 pm:
I have little doubt its mental.
But not just in relation to actual games and players ability to step up – it starts on the practice field, it starts with the players ability, and option (provided by the coach) to think and challenge themselves, the game plan and their team mates.
Mental application and how to use it effectively is as important as someone taking the team through weekly defensive drills.
It can be coached.
August 1st, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Reply to Morné @ 1:21 pm:
I have also never seen Tac so complimentary of any team other than the Bulls.
August 1st, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Reply to biltongbek @ 1:20 pm:
Brand (blogger on here) can take you through examples of sports men and women and ‘mental states’ – fascinating stuff.
You can also google Science of Sport, The Sporting Mind, and guys like Tim Goodenough.
August 1st, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Reply to Pokkel @ 1:25 pm:
Great thing is that he loves his rugby and, when the moment grabs him, can be very objective.
I even had him liking PDV at one stage 2 years ago!
August 1st, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Reply to Morné @ 1:28 pm:
I know you’re busy but I would like your opinion about the squad that Heyneke will pick on Saturday.
Do you see him picking more form player or sticking with the so called ‘tried and tested’?
August 1st, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Reply to Pokkel @ 1:33 pm:
Loads will be based on form but the good thing is loads of players are in good form.
Problem is 8, 9 and 10. We don’t have real options for 9 and 10 simply because he wants a kicking scrummy and only Hougaard and Pienaar tick those boxes.
Morne has had his first decent break in 3 years, so I will continue with him for at least 2 tests but Jantjies deserves a serious look in too I reckon.
At 8, only Kanko challenging Spies at the moment, Vermeulen coming back from injury. I would start Kanko.
So for the team:
Sharks front row
Stormers and Bulls locks
Sharks back rowers of Marcell and Kanko, openside up for debate.
Bulls halfbacks and Pienaar
Frans & JDV
JPP and Habs on wing
Lambie & Kirchner for fullback
Back up players will be interesting.
August 1st, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Reply to Morné @ 2:04 pm:
I agree 8-9-10 is the biggest concern.
Pity Lambie was injured or played out of (my prefered) position of 10.
Do you think Brussow will get a call up for the RC?
August 1st, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Reply to Pokkel @ 2:14 pm:
I hope so, but I don’t think so. Kolisi and Daniel seem to be favourites.
August 1st, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Reply to Morné @ 2:04 pm:
I think the Arg tests are a good opportunity to rest some of the Sharks players. Especially the ones that played most of the season and these gruelling finals.
Frontrow, Coetzee, Alberts and JPP to rest.
Kanko, Steyn, Lambie in the team.
August 1st, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Reply to Timeo @ 3:59 pm:
Good thinking.
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:29 am
Ahh the righteous know it all Tac is on board, no more sloppy blogging. Sharpen up troops Tac will cut you down.
Intent, what was the Stormers intent against the Sharks? They only started playing late in the game. They did not give their play makers enough ball. Aplon was roving and looking for work but virtually did not receive the ball at all.
They kept their predictable patterns and did not show the flair that Year of the Cheetah talks about.
I think the travel is going to hurt the Sharks. The Chiefs are going to target Freddy and expect a few very late hits.
So will the third placed Saffa team have more Bok players than the second placed saffa team. You betcha they will.
August 2nd, 2012 at 10:28 am
Reply to Morné @ 2:04 pm:
seeing as RW is up for a debate again – qualify for me once and for all based on stats why you automatically just put Jean De Villiers as the 12?
He is one of the key reasons why the Stormers scored the least tries the past 3 years.
Why is he on the team sheet, and not just yours – everyones?
Am I missing something with this player, or does his defence override all other deficiencies?
August 2nd, 2012 at 10:43 am
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 10:28 am:
I can live with JdV at 13 or even 11 for the Bokke but as you say not at 12. However at the Stormers JdJ is not much better at 12 so who to play at 12 for the Stormers?
Sadie?
oops, we sold him 
August 2nd, 2012 at 11:09 am
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 10:28 am:
WP/Stormers problems are not their midfield, hasn’t been for the last 5 years.
It is their 9 (and to a lesser extent 10).
August 2nd, 2012 at 11:13 am
Reply to Morné @ 11:09 am:
hmmm you need to qualify that. I see a good many balls being being squandered because JdV always breaks inside and goes to ground. he also lacks a good passing game.
Just odd that he is always on everyones team sheet yet no-one can ever truly say why?
August 2nd, 2012 at 11:13 am
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 10:28 am:
And what you are missing is that players are coached to play within a pre-set structure. Watch the talent get coached out of Frans Steyn in the next 3 years.
Humanoids.
August 2nd, 2012 at 11:15 am
Reply to Morné @ 11:09 am:
just after the aplon try on saturday Keo tweeted “Jdv is such a clever player – Aplon try.
then go look at the play. jean ran and passed the ball to the guy on his outside. Thats it! Aplon did the work to run a great line.
Yet come bok time even knowledgeable punters like you straight away has him as your 12?
August 2nd, 2012 at 11:31 am
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 11:15 am:
because he is such a likable guy!?
Reply to Morné @ 11:13 am:
At the Sharks they seem to have found the correct balance and don’t think it will happen under the current structure there but maybe under HM?!
August 2nd, 2012 at 11:48 am
Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 11:31 am:
hehehe i dont doubt it. I even rate him as a player but he is a kak to average 12 yet his name is on the sheet everytime.
People scrutinize the flanks and props etc to the hill yet at 12 old Jean racks up with caps with no justification for it.
Yet poor Doppies never got a lookin
August 2nd, 2012 at 11:49 am
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 11:15 am:
For the Boks I have him as my 13, Frans 12.
August 2nd, 2012 at 11:51 am
Reply to Morné @ 11:49 am:
why as 13? Reckon we have much better options. Would love to see him and Habana swop jerseys.
The kid cannot offload or pass and lacks the pace to be a strike runner.
Why MUST he start for the Boks?
August 2nd, 2012 at 11:57 am
Reply to Morné @ 11:49 am:
and Frans is also not a 12. He also just bashes and cannot distribute properly.
maybe thats just how the boks prefer to play. Its HM’s choice.
Its also the Boks problem if they stay 3rd in the world
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 11:57 am:
It seems the whole world disagrees with you!
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Reply to Morné @ 12:00 pm:
true. nothing more sad than a guy stuck on something like i am on Jean so i want to understand where it comes from.
Yet even the stats almost always sees the opposition player contribute more than Jean.
Maybe its the calm factor and his communication – blind aspects of a game that stats cannot measure.
I dont want to not back the guy but I simply dont like the way our centres have been playing. Him getting benched in Ireland seemed the first time ever someone just judged him on performance. In SA he is too much of a legend. Much like Habana who had 2 bad years yet still got selected.
He is however back and who know Jean might be his 2008 self again.
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 11:57 am:
watch some of the Metro games, he does attack the defensive libne but looks for the off-load. With the Bokke he probably does not have that confidence in his team mates yet.
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Reply to Morné @ 12:00 pm:
or backline play is now so marginalised in SA that no-one really cares anymore who plays there?
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 12:19 pm:
or is told to rather go to ground and set up the next set piece?
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 12:20 pm:
I think he could be great as a straight running 12 attacking the line and looking for the off-load with guys on his shoulder like Hougie and Engelbrecht/JdV
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 12:21 pm:
true – just not wildly excited about HM’s vision for our backline play. Steyn will just be another JdV, straightening the line up until phase 8 not even looking to offload or pass someone into space.
Maybe thats what makes JdV a preferred 12 – he does what the coach says?
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 12:18 pm:
I reckon Whitehead is the best 12 in SA – he will never see a Bok jersey.
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:28 pm
just bloody unfair that all this magic gets to happen between Cruden/Carter and SBW yet we are forced to watch forwards in that channel all day long.
Our 10 and 12 are used very differently
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 12:25 pm:
Our 12′s main roles are to set up pods, nothing much else.
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Reply to Morné @ 12:27 pm:
True. Great vision and great skills set. One of the few distributor 12′s we have.
But yes, maybe he does not fit the Saffa vibe.
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 12:21 pm:
looking for the off-load with guys on his shoulder
—–
That word has not reached the dictionary
of the Saffa players yet.
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:55 pm
say ruggaworld, any update on the historical match to be played at Grey College this weekend?
Or is any news from the freestate now tainted because we dare run the ball from our own 22?
August 2nd, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 12:55 pm:
If they send us information we will publish – I had an article on this 2 weeks ago.