WP wil weer hol met die bôl

Gert Smal, nuut aangestelde direkteur van WP Rugby, se hoof mikpunt sal wees om weer ‘n kultuur van vyftienman-wenrugby in die unie te vestig.

“Dit gaan harde werk wees om weer daarby uit te kom nadat die spelers etlike seisoene lank gestruktureerde wenrugby gespeel het,” het Smal aan Die Burger gesê.

Op sy beurt het Thelo Wakefield, president, gesê Smal is geen towenaar nie en sy aanstelling is maar die begin van ‘n “strategiese proses” wat Kaapse rugby tot sy ou glorie moet herstel. Wakefield het gesê daar is reeds in Januarie begin met ‘n strategiese beplanningsprojek en die voltooiing van die “hoëprestasie strategiese plan” sal einde Junie wees.

Allister Coetzee se posisie as senior beroepsafrigter is ook nie in gevaar nie en hy sal aan Smal verslag doen, maar die talentvolle John Dobson is wel aangestel as die WP se Curriebeker-afrigter om Coetzee se vrag ligter te maak.

Smal het die kwessie van die Stormers se gebrekkige aanval as ‘n “brandende kwessie” uitgelig. Hulle het laas in hul vierde wedstryd van 2013 ‘n bonuspunt vir drieë verdien en kon dit in 2012 glad nie vermag nie. Die span is tans na ses wedstryde saam met die Cheetahs onderaan Superrugby se puntelys.

Onder Coetzee het die span in 2010 se Super-eindstryd gespeel en in die twee daarna in tuis-halfeindstryde – sonder om in enigeen sukses te behaal

Smal was onder meer hulpafrigter van die Springbokke wat in 2004 die Drienasies en in 2007 die Wêreldbeker gewen het. Hy was Ierland se voorspelerafrigter toe hy in 2009 die Sesnasies, Grand Slam en Triple Crown gewen het.

Wat die Stormers se ander afrigters – Robbie Fleck en Matthew Proudfoot – betref het Smal gesê dis belangrik dat hulle in die volgende paar weke wys wat in hulle steek en dat niemand summier afgedank gaan word nie.

Facebook Comments

51 Comments on WP wil weer hol met die bôl

  1. @Boertjie: Wel my Oom, as hulle HOL en dit bring dat ons driee druk, dan sal ek ook daarvoor stem, maar die slapgat draf op aanval sien ek nie meer voor kans nie.

    Almal dink hulle is a Campo en kan om spelers hardloop en die dom donners dink hulle is Alberts en kan oor die ouens hardloop.

    ReplyReply
  2. @Morné:

    Well in this PC world.. England youngsters are heading for ‘no score’ rugby… and just yesterday Australia (one of the most competitive nations in sport) have announced the same in Aussie Rules… i.e. ‘there are no winners and losers’!!!

    ReplyReply
  3. I grew up having a certain image of what WP rugby represents. You guys might think only a scoreboard matters (and even thats been shit) – but the game is about more than that. Its also about dreams and aspirations and identity.

    Kis wanted to play for WP because of what it represented. Take that away and the lure and aura disappears – as it has done with WP for the past 5 years.

    Winning rugby is about more than the scoreboard. Hearts and minds….

    ReplyReply
  4. How often do you hear players talk about pulling ‘that jersey’ over their heads?

    But what if in the backyards and streets of Capetown kids suddenly dont dream about that anymore, because even if their team wins there is no romance to it? No great tries and no memories other than a good defensive record?

    Yes the reality of ‘adult world’ calls for more pragmatism, but you guys underestimate the effect of winning in style on the future preservation of the game.

    ReplyReply
  5. @Cheetah Glory:

    The only thing WP or the Stormers have been shit in up to 2014 in the last 3 years was win play-off or finals rugby. That is a very specific problem that has more to do with what goes on in the top 3 inches of their heads than through a season of rugby.

    It is the same reason the All Blacks choked for over 20 years at the RWC.

    ReplyReply
  6. @Morné:

    I dont agree. I used to like watching WP the way I like watching the Reds. The last couple of years I literally could not watch them play as they destroyed everything I like about the game.

    They became the ultimate ‘lets not lose’ team and in the process scraped some wins. Great.

    Reaching finals by using every little loophole to not play the game is not inspiring to anyone.

    ReplyReply
  7. @Cheetah Glory:

    Ag spare me the semantics and romanticism.

    You play to win, simple as that. People love winners.

    The era Smal and people are referring to was the 80’s when they won the CC 5 years in a row. With the exception of 1982 (14) and 1986 (13) the winning margin never exceeded 10 points and WP’s highest score achieved in all those finals was 24.

    ReplyReply
  8. @Morné:

    I agree that this is just (good) PR, but great sports teams dont only play to win. Sport (unfortunately for you) is not about teams who win. The great ones win AND dominate, while the legendary ones win, dominate AND do so in style.

    Sometimes just winning is enough, but when you are the biggest rugby union in the world, you dont inspire anyone by scraping 3 point wins against the Griquas.

    ReplyReply
  9. Winning rugby wins hearts and minds. If you throw the ball about willy nilly you might score 50 today – but then next week you try it again and you score another 50 – but the opposition score 80.

    Tell me – how is the Cheetahs running game working for them so far this year?

    You play what is in front of you – if on the day you need to stick the ball up the jumper and maul it up to get the win you do that. If you can chuck it around and win you do that. If you play against a team that double tackles well and you can’t get the off loads going you go to ground with a few guys behind you to clean out quickly you do that.

    Saying “We want to play running rugby” is a load of kak. The first game you play in the rain people will be moaning about where is the running rugby… You play to win.

    Cheers

    ReplyReply
  10. For example – the club that I play for this year has had a pretty good season. We’ve played 17 games and won 16 with one draw.

    We’ve played against 2 or 3 teams that were our equal, or maybe better – we don’t have starts in our team – but we all know the system and respect the system. Our coaches have had us play very very simple rugby until about 5 games ago – then we started offloading etc. Of course we did it before but now there is more emphasis on it. Our defence is rock solid and we’ve let 7 tries the whole season. But while the others were trying to play running rugby and run everything at all costs we did the basics well like mauling, which can create a lot of space and can sap the energy from the opposition.

    The result? We’ve scored 701 points and had 111 scored against us…

    First you play to win…

    Cheers

    ReplyReply
  11. As I have tried to explain many times:

    All I want to see is teams using every weapon to try and 1) win 2) dominate 3) entertain.

    Some days you will only manage step 1 and doing that often enough means you are reaching step 2. Truly great teams then convert this dominance into an entertaining spectacle.

    SA teams lack the ambition to get to 3, and as a result hardly ever reach 2.

    ReplyReply
  12. @Jacques(Bunny):

    Gaan kyk the keywords in hierdie en die engelse berig wat oor die selfde praat.

    Attack
    Flair
    Traditional
    Tries

    Dit verwys definitief nie na ‘n territoriale gebaseerde game waarin eerste fase besit en ‘n goeie defence die grodnslag le vir oorwinnings nie.

    ReplyReply
  13. @Methos The French Stormer:

    Mauls are not evil. They suck in the defense which creates space.

    But why be allowed 10 seconds to get the forward shove on? I say once that thing is stationary the other teams win the ball. If you cannot from the throw in manage to go forward and steer the ball to the back, then your maul has been unsuccessful.

    This weekend finally against the ball the ref belatedly called ‘use it’ and then actually awarded the Chiefs the ball when the maul stopped a second time.

    I say its bullshit teams are allowed to be pushed back, then feck about for 10 seconds ‘re-organising’ and then get a forward shove on. Its unfair and its bullshit.

    ReplyReply
  14. In fact I cannot believe that no one interviewed in WP Rugby in the last week mentioned the fact our backs are kak and we cannot score tries because we cannot fucking buy a line out and we get smashed by the Aussies in scrums. You want to know why the Stormers have 1 from 6, start there.

    ReplyReply
  15. @Morné:

    You are a 30 something man who work in the game. You are not a kid whose heart needs to be won for the game.

    Big difference.

    ReplyReply
  16. @Morné:

    maybe this year. For a few years now the Stormers backs got some of the best ball in the game.

    You cannot score because you play with donkeys who cannot pass, and your fat arses litter the backline – setting up more phases…

    ReplyReply
  17. Ag you guys are talking kak of the highest note and forcing me to do something I hate doing. That is agree with Morne. Let’s be rather brutally honest here Brendon, the era you are talking about, WP won more than they lost, that is why kids wanted to play for them, not because they ran the ball a lot.

    You can run all you want to, if you lose the stadiums run dry. That is what happened at Province and they lost and the stadiums ran empty, supporters were disgruntled. Yet they lost beautifully. Then came Rassie, he brought in structured rugby, suddenly the Stormers started winning, suddenly the pavilions were full.

    Now they are losing again and supporters are disgruntled. That has sweet blu fokkol to do with the brand of rugby they play, rather the scorelines. You can fool yourself all you want, but winning is what attracts supporters, not running the ball at all costs.

    ReplyReply
  18. @Cheetah Glory:

    I hate watching the Reds… Brumbies have been the BOOM the last few seasons… Rebels are great in that ‘Rocky Balbao’ thang… and what’s happening at the Force is AWESOME…

    Mate you’re still stuck in some Bethlehem ‘art-class’ (let me hide from the Jocks) syndrome…

    Just saying…

    ReplyReply
  19. Sharks wins was AWESOME… considering their personnel… Bulls draw was disappointing… almost a huge upset!

    7’s is happening atm for you Shields… oh Shucks the bigger team THUMPED the Orks again…

    ReplyReply
  20. I saw two consecutive reports this weekedn which had me laughing..

    On Friday I first saw a release from the Waratahs union saying that for each point the Tahs scored their one sponsor would give a goat to an African community… going on to ululate about how good goats were for African communities…

    The next report was from the Sun… which reported about a dusty African rural village guy being spotted by two teenagers chasing off a billy goat who was having sex with a nanny goat … only so he can take his place behind the nanny goat…

    So noow I’m wondering if the Aussies realise that they’re just going to satiate some bizarre sex needs in African villages… and then proviide some meat…

    ReplyReply
  21. Looking at past successfull teams in the pro era, I just wonder where this crazy notion comes from that you need to run and play unstructured to win and be dominant. In 2007, 2009, 2010 the Bulls dominated superrugby, not just won the tournament, with a structured approach. Play in oppositions half and attack from there. They dominated then.

    Ditto the Crusaders. These are 2 of the most successfull superrugby teams. When the Stormers changed from all out attack to a more structured apporoach they became a play off team with just maybe some bad luck in 2010 (playing a final away from home against the most dominant team in superrugby that year) costing them a superrugby title.

    Last year the expansive Cheetahs for all their attacking exploits, focused more on defense and setpieces and they had their most successfull year to date.

    This one is for you Oom Boer, the Lions who used to run everything, this year has a flyhalf whose boot dominates things and a solid pack of forwards who really scrums well, now they are better placed than in a long time, same when the Cats were successfull in 2001 I think it was.

    The Chiefs are a perfect example as well, their scrum has become really good and now they’ve won it twice. The Waratahs have a good setpiece and play good structured rugby, which makes them the danger they are. Do I even need to mention the Sharks under Jake White this year? Or the Boks in 2007 and 2009? Or 2013?

    Makes me wonder now doesnt it.

    ReplyReply
  22. And Im not throwing away the notion of running rugby at all, it is a thing of beauty and all successfull teams have that ability, but then all successfull teams are trained into a structure to make that running game a thing of beauty. Line breaks do not just happen and the support runner does not just pop up out of the blue. Also they do not run everything, the normally earn the right to run first.

    Even the glory days of Natal rugby with putt, honniball, joubert, small and cabous, most of those lovely sweeping moves and blind side tries were pre planned moves off good setpieces, not ‘playing what is in front of them’. Okay rant over.

    ReplyReply
  23. Planned attack vs the unplanned

    I love military history so yet again.

    In 216 BC the Roman superpowers face a military genius called Hannibal at a place called Cannae.

    The Romans have decided to sort out the Carthaginians once and for all so they assemble a massive army that outnumbers the Carthaginian mercanaries by almost double.

    The Romans at that republican democratic stage of their history elect generals so they’ve elected a moron called Varro.

    The Carthaginains however plan their attack very carefully and make it look like a defence. Hannnibal wants the Romans to “come on”

    Varro’s armies are too big to face the Carthaginians head on so he tightens their ranks so they can be of a similar lline then he marches on them. Because the Carthaginians are in a shorter line the moron also makes his army thicker in two formations so he can commit them straight agaiinst the Carthaginians’ line.

    The Carthaginians have put their best troops in the middle lines and the middle ranks take the brunt of the Roman assault. Hannibal is here and he shores them up. The Carthaginian lines bend inward creating a sickle moon… Varro thinks he is winning so he commits all his troops to the middle to break the line.

    In the meantime Hannibal’s cavaalry fight ooff and defeat the Roman cavalry… Romans were never very big on cavalry in any case and their cavalry was often beaten up on.

    In the meantime the Carthaginian heavy infantry on the flanks (Greek style long spear armed phalanxes) bend inward and suddenly the Romans are fighting enemies on three sides. Then the Carthagina cavalry ride round attack the Romans from behind.

    Almost 70 000 of 85 000 committed Roman troops are killed or captured and it is still the biggest defeat ever of Rome.

    THERE is the difference between planning and playing heads up to the situation.

    Forever in military history Varro will be called a moron for thinking on his feet while Hannibal is to this day revered as a military genius.

    ReplyReply
  24. @Aldo:

    Aldo – you have good points.

    What really beats me is when a good ball is kicked
    away to the opposition with nobody putting pressure
    on them.
    Which bring us back to heads up rugby, I suppose.

    But players won’t run the ball if it could cost them
    their place in the team.

    ReplyReply
  25. Yes useless kicks grinds me as well Boertjie, especially good ball, but then I guess it is down to execution more than gameplan or heads up rugby. Anyway, I guess the 2 sides will never really agree on structured vs heads up rugby.

    ReplyReply
  26. @Aldo:

    Whal Baartman het sy rugby oppie golfbaan geleer speel………sy pa het hom geleer “hou jou kop laag en dryf vorentoe”

    Die probleem het sy oorspronge gekry by Noord Transvaal :fishing:

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply