Dour game: Sharks v Stormers
This week we will mostly be concerning ourselves with substitutions, philosophies, disciplinaries, and zero-G rugby...
Award for the substitution least likely to make an impact on a match this week goes to Allister Coetzee of the Stormers, who brought on Gerhard van den Heever about seventeen seconds after the 80 minutes were up in his team's 12-6 non-event defeat at the Sharks on Saturday.
What the hell for? Waste time? Erm... well, you are six points down, in your own half, with seventeen seconds to go... probably not.
Impact? Change of pace? Erm... being as the Stormers had almost completely failed to pass the ball beyond the second receiver all night, hardly. Also being as Van den Heever is hardly King Kong, he was not going to be tasked with thundering in off his wing to breakdown the black wall, nor was he ever going to have enough of a feel for the game to dance his way through a half-gap.
So no, there can be no other reason for the change other than Coetzee having some inherent desire to make sure all 22 players got a run, although given that the game was an absolute car crash in terms of running rugby, Van den Heever probably worked up more of a sweat coming onto the field than playing.
It wasn't just the Stormers, mind. Cheetahs coach Naka Drotske brought on his reserve hooker Ryno Barnes with a measly 120 seconds remaining and his team 42 points adrift.
It's difficult to know what might be more of a slap in the face to a player, not getting on at all or being entrusted with about 60 seconds of a lost cause. At least if you don't get on at all you will probably be told: "well I didn't feel you would have made the difference I wanted" or something like that, but to be given any kind of task on a rugby field you'd probably, on average, need a good five minutes, perhaps even ten.
Any coach making a change later than that is just paying token heed to a player's presence, merely doffing cap and saying 'thanks for coming'. Such carrots are not what these players sweat and toil for, nor are they any kind of game experience boost to the paying viewer/punter.
A rule prohibiting token substitutions is too open to misinterpretation to be feasible, but we are calling on the conscience of many a coach here when we say: if you are going to bring a player on, give him a realistic chance, in terms of time, to make his presence felt. If you don't feel he is up to it or that the game is not going to his strengths, tell him so and leave him for another day. Ultimately, he might appreciate the honesty a bit more.
Back to that Stormers-Sharks blight on the Super Rugby landscape: fascinating opposites in philosophies by two men who supposedly once thought the sun shined out of the others' proverbials: Bob Skinstad and Nick Mallett.
Skinstad, never one to let thoughtful observation obstruct the charge down his vocal chords of the first thing that comes into his head, described the miserable, error-laden kickfest as a 'classic derby'.
Mallett meanwhile, coping in the studio with the shower of stutterings from Ashwin Willemse and the cold, tactical slicing of Naas Botha, came up with something along these lines (any errors are down to the fact that we did not record the studio post-match, but the gist is definitely this):
"If we are sitting here and reviewing highlights, and all of those highlights are of crossfield kicks or high balls, then something is wrong. It cannot be that we have two supposedly top teams who can barely string more than three phases together, or have the skills to get two passes out beyond the rucks without making mistakes. If that's the case, we have a serious problem. It's very disappointing."
So, a classic, full of passion, or an over-conservative, skill-less example of what is missing in South Africa right now?
We'll let you decide, but remember this: Lwazi Mvovo and Gio Aplon, two of the country's finest runners with ball in hand, received the ball deep from kicks (or passes from catchers of kicks) about 10-15 times each. We cannot remember Aplon running the ball back once, and Mvovo only twice. The rest of the time they barely looked up before smashing the ball downfield. Isn't that a bit of a waste of runners?
Over to the disciplinaries, where again the tangled web of practices and directives is punishing the innocent and flattering the guilty.
Cian Healy's suspension reduction - he got a week less on the technicality that the suspension should run from the date of the offence rather than the date of the hearing - means he can now take the field against France next weekend, something which you rather feel was clearly not the intention of the judicial officers who handed out the ban in the first place.
So for the love of all things oval, why this ludicrous systems of banning someone for weeks rather than matches? Even soccer has worked out you are banned for a certain number of matches, be that over ten weeks or four, and there is nothing the player can do about it.
Obviously rugby's calendar is fragmented and tournaments overlap.... so simply cover all the matches. A centralised disciplinary system could have banned Healy for two Six Nations matches and two Leinster matches, meaning Healy would have had no grey areas to launch his appeal from.
A centralised disciplinary system... *sigh*. If only.
It couldn't be any worse than the French one. Healy's case was heard five days after his little indiscretion against England, but it will take nearly three weeks for the French judiciary to convene and discuss the possible penalty against the tap-dancing Dimitri Yachvili (have a look at 1:50:45 here.).
Three weeks to get a hearing together? Going on Healy's appeal technicality.... he could serve his ban before the hearing was even convened! He clearly won't - that was an ugly incident - but the French have got their act together in so many ways in the Top 14, this is a glaring hole.
Finally, continuing on the theme started by the Sharks and Stormers of 'way up in the air', three Russian cosmonauts this week played what has to be the first ever game of zero-gravity rugby of all time in the International Space Station, to celebrate their country hosting the draw, and the finals on June 28-30, of this year's Rugby World Cup Sevens.
The three, all keen rugby players, sent this message home:
Also, other observations were noted:
Cosmonaut Oleg Novitsky landed a 240m drop goal with a back-heel
Whoever loses the scrum engagement finds it extremely difficult to push back
Novitsky, clean through and with only one opponent to beat, did so by chipping the ball under his opponent, also laughing heartily as his opponent's attempt to charge the chip down sent him crashing into the control panel...
Loose Pass compiled by Richard Anderson
Comments
letsgoboks says...
Bulls have a style that works. Everyone complaining about it need to move along... They scored the second most tries last year in S15 without making it to the final. Imagine steyn was on form?...
With regards to the Stormers. Fleck must waai. He's a useless backline attacking coach. We've known this for years...
Sharks... They need to play rugby and stop acting like the glory boys of SA. They have no metal. F Steyn is just not the player he used to be. Lambie still has not proved himself to be the shining light in sa rugby(although sharks supporters would castrate you if you said otherwise)... without frenchie around they have had a problem at no.9 for a very long time.
The Cheetahs are SA's only true exciting talent. They could be something magical but unfortunately that wont happen over night... and they don't have the support required.
Lions ... what a shame...
Kings ... Good luck to them :D
Posted 17:56 06th March 2013
markpat says...
@nefari, Ndungane hasn't played for the Bulls this year. The 2 games I've seen have had Basson, Mastriet and I tihnk it was Mapoe on the wings.
Presumably, you are referring to last year, whereas this article is about the games this year. Basson almost scored a try from a pass, but I tihnk it was his only pass, or close to it. He almost scored one from chasing a kick, which, from what I recall of last year, was the basis of a lot of his tries.
Richardc's comments was that Mastriet was not a brawn player. The same goes for Aplon, but the fact still remains that the gameplan of both the Bulls and the Stormers does not utilise the skillsets of these types of players, which is what the article was lamenting, unless I have mis-read it.
When I watch the Bulls or Stormers games, I often come away disappointed that they don't use the quality backs that they have available. I am not anti-SA or anything simliar, that is just a fact. Same as I am disappointed when England waste any talent that we have on the pitch (or not selected).
Posted 11:55 05th March 2013
JayStarr says...
@ ABlack: Thanks for that post - very good point. But I think the argument in SA isn't so much to change that, as @ Joburger said, but more to build on that and develop our game to... well, include our backline !
With our strong set pieces our backline stars like Habana, Aplon, Mvovo, Lambie, Goosen, Pietersen, F Steyn, De Jongh, etc. should be having a field day - but they're not. When our backline gets the ball, they kick the ball to the opposition. The NZ teams then gain an equal amount of territory than we do with our kicks - the only difference being that they are still in possession at that point, because they gained that field by running it up with the help of offloads, quick taps/throw-ins, pick-and-goes, dummies and other methods of momentum and deception... But when you look at our attacking play you see practically no deception - it is so predictable that you normally have at least two defenders tackling a player. If I was a coach I would look at that as a sign of how poor my team's attacking play was - if two or three defenders can get to my attacker almost every time, then something is seriously wrong with my attack! But no, we bash on to gain half a metre.
The Cheetahs are attacking well, but the other areas of their game is suffering... and unfortunately this reinforces the notion in SA that it is an either-or situation: you can't be an attack-orientated team and have a good defense. Which the Chiefs/Crusaders/All Blacks are of course proving to be nonsense, but the penny still hasn't dropped on this side of the pond...
If the Stormers can get their defense, set-pieces and mauls to work as well as they have the last couple of seasons, keep their goal kicking as accurate, but then lift their attack to its potential (just look at the players they have), then they will win the tournament. But they just seem completely incapable of doing it.
Posted 11:26 05th March 2013
lawynd says...
@Joburger - the best way for South Africa (and England) to move forward in terms of matching and beating the All Blacks is to play a half-back combination that will bring the backs into the game. England are getting there slowly, with Youngs and Care and players like Burns potentially set to have a bright future, but South Africa, like France, can't seem to settle on a consistent pairing at this most crucial position. From what I've seen, Goosen is the heir apparent to the 10 shirt but I don't know who you'd play at 9...Hougaard? Beyond those positions there are so many talented players in the rainbow nation that the main difficulty should be in disappointing people who don't get a shirt!
Posted 10:18 05th March 2013
Joburger says...
@ABlack
Thing is we would like to beat you lot slightly more than, or at least, half the time, and at the moment the Springboks are not doing that. Hence the debate that is going on in South Africa about what style rugby we should play, and what New Zealand does that we do not do. Because we think we have the depth and strength in players to match the All Blacks.
Also we can see that the rule changes over the years are designed to favour attacking teams such as the All Blacks versus defensive teams such as SA.
I think the concensus is that SA should stick to its strengths, but also try and find ways to attack better - but I guess that is stating the obvious since all teams are trying to do that though.
Posted 08:16 05th March 2013
Ramage says...
I wonder if the IRB could put into effect a ruling that was used in Taranaki during my time on the Rugby Union. When a player was stood down he was given a suspension which was up to and including the final date of the suspension. There was no doubt about the time and included all games up to and including that date. At some stages of the season it could actually mean more games could be missed as there could be mid week games. This was the outcome if you were found guilty of an offence and stood down. Instead of arguing weeks put a finite date on it.
Posted 06:54 05th March 2013
missionary says...
at Ben7 - yes the Cheetahs like to attack. But what was the score v the Chiefs?
Posted 21:59 04th March 2013
ABlack says...
Personally I like the fact that South Africa teams are a mix of huge forwards and exciting backs and usually a good kicking No10. This is what SA rugby has traditionally been about since Danie Craven was running around in bare feet as a kid.I cant see why they should try and change their model and mindset as after NZ they are still easily the next best team in world Rugby since the day dot. And they have won 2 world cups and the Bulls 3 Super rugby titles using exactly the same tactics for the past 100 years... why change now ?
Posted 21:48 04th March 2013
kybone says...
To move on from the debate about SA rugby, what about the Cian Healy farce? He has effectively served a 1 game ban as he wouldn't have played in either of the Leinster games that were played during his ban anyway. I agree that its about time that bans were handed out in numbers of games as opposed to weeks.
Posted 21:08 04th March 2013
nefari says...
@markpat, thats a crazy assessment. So are you assuming the bulls only score tries through their forwards? I got to be honest, if the bulls can score 50 tries from the driving maul they would be idiots to change a thing. But anyway, Basson(wing) 10 tries, ndungane (wing) 4 and kirchner (fullback) 6 tries.
Posted 20:16 04th March 2013
nefari says...
... Specially from stormer supporters
Posted 20:08 04th March 2013
nefari says...
@jaystarr don't worry, just like last year heyneke meyer will again cop all the blame.
Posted 20:06 04th March 2013
RugbyOrDie says...
I was Skiing in the French Alps this weekend, for a while i considered finding a bar to watch the games live. Luckily i never actualy did, and after reading the score on the internet when i got home i prompltly deleted the Sharks Game, and watched the Blues v Crusaders, who would of thought.....
Posted 17:41 04th March 2013
melkdave says...
Every league NH or SH has its fair share of dire /dour games,and the NH does take alot od stick,mostly from OZ fans ,who are lucky enough to live in a country ,where for the most part ,the pitches are hard ,and the weather dry and warm,all conditions made for fast tempo,running,passing rugby.While here in the NH we have to suffer with rain ,heavy pitches and cold .Also before the OZ fans start,why is it that given the conditions in Australia and NZ which is more like NH conditions at least on south island ,its the NZ players who seem to be the masters of the high tempo all running ,passing game ??At least England ,Wales and the other NH teams are making big strides in skill levals to play better in bad conditions ,Australian teams i expect wouldnt be able to play at all in freezing rain with a nice wind blowing on a heavy sodden pitch.Oh wait they can but lose AKA against Scotland last summer
Posted 17:15 04th March 2013
JayStarr says...
Amen to Nick Mallett - he and Naas Botha are the only people in that studio who ever talks sense. Ashwin Willemse suffers from the worst case of verbal diarrhea I have ever seen from a comentator... and nothing that comes out of his mouth is ever relevant - he just talks for talking's sake. I just switch the channel. As for Bob Skinstad - he's normally the guy to point out when a match/player/referee is not good enough, while other commentators won't. However, his commentating partner on the day, Andy Cappastanio, can comment on paint drying and make it sound like the best drying paint in the history of man. I think even Bob was convinced by Andy's convictions on Saturday... The tension of a test match was there, yes, but the quality was most definitely not. For me it was effing tragic from start to finish. I am almost wishing we try and play like that against the Chiefs next week, just so we can be taught a lesson... Because one thing is for certain - they're not going to kick back.
Maybe a propper ass-whipping by the champions is what we need to make us really wake up, because narrow victories to equally below-par South African competition is obviously not doing it.
If they're still as one-dimensional next week, I say drop all the old dogs and pick the young team who won the Currie Cup. And Peter Grant at 10 (since Catrakilis is now at the Kings). It's time some of those "incumbants" realise their spot in the team is not guaranteed. JdV front of the line.
@ Stellenbosched: Trust me, after what they've been dishing up so far, after the frustrations of last year, Newlands will be uncharacteristically empty this weekend. The Chiefs will probably feel like it's a home game.
@ TheGreatOne: Spot on.
Posted 15:07 04th March 2013
daibok says...
Ben7, we all love the Cheetahs and their attacking mindset. Unfortunately where NZ teams play like this and win, the Cheetahs are usually the gallant losers.
Now, a coach who can put the Cheetahs philosophy with the Sharks/Stormers grit would be onto something.
Posted 14:14 04th March 2013
Joburger says...
@lawynd
To be fair though probably a lot of that stick is based on results over recent years where the Southern big three national sides are seen to be consistently stronger than the big Northern teams.
New Zealand in particular who almost never lose to anyone. Most of their teams play a running try scoring brand of rugby at Super 15 level, and they can often translate that to test level. A lot of people equate that with the style played in the South versus the North, though in reality teams like South Africa and England play very similar style rugby. England is defintitely rising again and that may change perceptions.
The North also has its flair teams at national level (like New Zealand in the south). France can be the best in the world, on certain occasional days, and they have played some of the best most entertaining rugby I have ever seen, but what days those will be only they know. And Wales, the other NH flair side, from my perspective, after seemingly arriving has sadly faded again.
Also I think a lot of that stick on running rugby comes from Australasia. I think many South African supporters appreciate the merits of Northern Hemisphere rugby and the style played, necessary to the conditions.
All that said, I think the exposure to New Zealand style rugby is probably the best thing that could have happened for South Africa considering its traditionally conservative style. It (and the rule changes) is forcing coaches and players to try and adapt without losing their existing strengths.
Posted 12:49 04th March 2013
chubbylugs says...
i think theres a danger of falling into a big "entertainment" trap. rugby cannot be great in every game. some games are great, some are poor, some have flashes of brilliance. there are different ways to create excitement and rugby beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder
the danger of wanting to create a spectacle in every game is that we prostitute the game and its principles in favour of entertainment
One of the great thing about the game is that evolves. new defensive patterns create problems that get solved by increasing skill at the breakdown, handling, running lines etc. so it changes, but evolution can take time and new ideas
soccer hasnt changed much in decades. many games are dull affairs, but the great moments are more special because of that very reason. the same applies to rugby
The game will take care of itself. great moments will continue to happen, but they cannot be watered down in the name of entertainment.
PR please dont take such a short sighted view based on one game
Posted 12:36 04th March 2013
markpat says...
@richardc - and exactly how many times did the Bulls give him the opportunity to run with ball in hand? Once from a pass? Maybe twice? He was completely wasted by the Bulls game plan of "don't give it to the ouside backs!".
Posted 11:37 04th March 2013
lawynd says...
@Joburger - I agree with plenty of your points, but you should bear in mind the stick we get from those one-eyed fans of Super Rugby who constantly tell us Europeans that our rugby is awful...
Posted 11:37 04th March 2013