Thursday, June 28, 2007
The World Cup is starting to take on the predictability of a Michael Schumacher F1 race. Sure the All Blacks could stumble and there is always a chance that they have a really bad experience in one of the playoff games, but these options are in the realm of possible not probable. Only France and South Africa came into this year with the genuine prospect of being able to win a game off the All Blacks. South Africa seem to have folded. Sure I know its not over till the fat lady sings, but in watching Jake White whining away to the NZ press as to why he was sending a second string team to play a Tri Nations game, I am sure I could discern the sound of C Minor in the background.
Besides that fact that I seem to be the only one that feels the Tri Nations fiasco is an embarassment to us as a rugby nation, there seems to be a solidarity that "resting" our players is the good that is going come of this. This is not only incorrect coaching strategy, it is also closing the door on the opportunity to fix the only thing that can possibly be done to beat the All Blacks.
The All Blacks beat the Springboks in Durban, not because we were fatigued, but because we were completely outplayed technically. The solution is to fix the technical problem. No amount of rest or conditioning is going to do this. Focus - its a difficult concept to follow. If Jake White and the rest of the Springbok advisory panel don't get it, you can easily miss it if you don't concerntrate.
I am going to use the analogy of boxing to explain it. The Springboks have a great Hook but no Jab. The All Blacks have the best Jab in the business. The difference in Rugby is that you have to knock out the whole 15 as this is not possible, the game always results in a points decision. Now there are two games going on. There is there is the scoreboard which we all watch and there is the score of the gain line, which very few people watch, but which ultimately determines the outcome of the game.
Usually the winner of the gain line wins the match. The losing teams may be ahead on the score board and something exceptional happens to reverse this. Its a very uncomfortable feeling when it happens. Examples of this this year were the Sharks outplaying the Bulls and still losing, or the Wallabies outplaying the Springboks and losing. Generally the gain line winner is the game winner. Even in cases like England South Africa 2 and All Blacks South Africa in Durban, while the side losing the gain line was ahead on points at half time, the winner comes through in the second half.
So what do you mean by "winning the gain line"? Good question. I see rugby games as a series of bumps. Two people bump into each other and one goes backwards. These bumps vary in quality and character, but every losing bump takes more out of the loser than the winner. This is very similar to boxing, its better to give a punch than receive one. A professional boxer explained boxing to me as two guys moving around the ring until one if them is too tired to keep his hands up and the other comes in to finish him. I mean thats about it in rugby right?
This is the reason that so many games are decided at the 60 minute mark. This is about how long it takes for two evenly matched sides to decide who is the winner. Games would be a lot easier to predict if not for the substitution rules that gives the loser a second chance. But unless his impact players have a marked effect, the games goes the way of the gain line winner.
Now the simplest stat to see, is the turnovers stats. Turnovers show that you are winning the gainline, but they are not all. There is also a more subtle more incidious side to it.
This is how I watch it. I keep a running counter. Everytime two players meet, if the offense move forward through the encounter I add one point, if the ball carrier is stopped or pushed backwards I take 1 point off. Break the game into micro periods, but you seldom need more than a few minutes to determine who is winning the gain line. After a while it becomes second nature and you can watch a game with this as a background process.
This winning the gain line is dominated by forward play. Often it takes multi player impact to determine the outcome. If your lose forwards are not getting to the ball, or worse if their tight forwards get there first and start roughing up your loose forwards and backs, the result becomes inevitable.
This does not mean that fixed pieces are not important, its just that there are not as many of them as there are loose encounters. It is the shear volume of the slaps in the face that mount up to the "60 minute lapse of concentration"
So why cant we beat the All Blacks? Because the Springboks have a hook and no jab. We play great plays - interceptions and power push over plays. Facing up to the fact that we have no jab and deciding what to do about it is going to stab right at the heart of what we have come to regard as precious. If you have no jab, the primary problem is going to be found in you loose forwards and your props.
So unlike boxing in rugby a hook does not hurt as much as a jab. When Butch james runs in an intercept try, it may make the fans scream, but to those of us watching the "gainline game" this is nothing. When the All Blacks grind out 50 phases like they did in the latter part of the first half, it matters not that the score does not change, what matters is that they have taken away our legs and we are starting to notice how heavy our hands are to half them up.
The harsh reality is that Burger and Roussouw simply do not win the gain line. But Os Scrums like hell and Schalk is the best loose forward in the world? I said it goes to the heart of what we regard as precious. The simple reality is that in Durban, NZ won the turnover and pushed us in the scrums. I don't deny that Burger and Os get out there and take a lot of punishment (hits in the face). But remember, that is not what wins games. What wins games is letting the other guy get hit in the face. Gary Botha, BJ did little better. Locks we excuse if they win the lineout, but Bakkies and Matfiled got completly over shadowed by Rawlinson in the loose. The NZ players and press will keep talking up Os, Burger and Roussouw, because with them there, doing what they did in Durban, All Black victory is certain.
So what can we do about it? Resting players is not going to do it. When they get back they are still not going to have the techniques to be able to win the gain line. Take a look at the game tape. Hayman, All the AB loosies, even Rawlinson. That are 'moving" differently to the Boks. They are coming into the contact, back arched, head up and they are looking to play the man. Go back to the boxers - The All blacks literally have their hands up going into contact, the Boks have their hands in their knees!
Our players, epitomized by Burger are coming in out of balance, backs bent and looking to play the ball. This body position does not help to land the blow. Its is these 'blows" that they strike - 1000 times a game - that count. Readers of ironrugby.com will know that I have for years advocated this style of gainline play - now the New Zealanders are actually doing it.
We should not be resting 10 weeks before meltdown, we should be focusing on fixing this gainline imbalance. Every bit of practice in facing this from the All Blacks is a opportunity to learn what it means. The solution is to understand this blocking process and implement it in the tackles, rucks and mauls- Sorry I dreaming again - OK maybe for 2011.
Besides that fact that I seem to be the only one that feels the Tri Nations fiasco is an embarassment to us as a rugby nation, there seems to be a solidarity that "resting" our players is the good that is going come of this. This is not only incorrect coaching strategy, it is also closing the door on the opportunity to fix the only thing that can possibly be done to beat the All Blacks.
The All Blacks beat the Springboks in Durban, not because we were fatigued, but because we were completely outplayed technically. The solution is to fix the technical problem. No amount of rest or conditioning is going to do this. Focus - its a difficult concept to follow. If Jake White and the rest of the Springbok advisory panel don't get it, you can easily miss it if you don't concerntrate.
I am going to use the analogy of boxing to explain it. The Springboks have a great Hook but no Jab. The All Blacks have the best Jab in the business. The difference in Rugby is that you have to knock out the whole 15 as this is not possible, the game always results in a points decision. Now there are two games going on. There is there is the scoreboard which we all watch and there is the score of the gain line, which very few people watch, but which ultimately determines the outcome of the game.
Usually the winner of the gain line wins the match. The losing teams may be ahead on the score board and something exceptional happens to reverse this. Its a very uncomfortable feeling when it happens. Examples of this this year were the Sharks outplaying the Bulls and still losing, or the Wallabies outplaying the Springboks and losing. Generally the gain line winner is the game winner. Even in cases like England South Africa 2 and All Blacks South Africa in Durban, while the side losing the gain line was ahead on points at half time, the winner comes through in the second half.
So what do you mean by "winning the gain line"? Good question. I see rugby games as a series of bumps. Two people bump into each other and one goes backwards. These bumps vary in quality and character, but every losing bump takes more out of the loser than the winner. This is very similar to boxing, its better to give a punch than receive one. A professional boxer explained boxing to me as two guys moving around the ring until one if them is too tired to keep his hands up and the other comes in to finish him. I mean thats about it in rugby right?
This is the reason that so many games are decided at the 60 minute mark. This is about how long it takes for two evenly matched sides to decide who is the winner. Games would be a lot easier to predict if not for the substitution rules that gives the loser a second chance. But unless his impact players have a marked effect, the games goes the way of the gain line winner.
Now the simplest stat to see, is the turnovers stats. Turnovers show that you are winning the gainline, but they are not all. There is also a more subtle more incidious side to it.
This is how I watch it. I keep a running counter. Everytime two players meet, if the offense move forward through the encounter I add one point, if the ball carrier is stopped or pushed backwards I take 1 point off. Break the game into micro periods, but you seldom need more than a few minutes to determine who is winning the gain line. After a while it becomes second nature and you can watch a game with this as a background process.
This winning the gain line is dominated by forward play. Often it takes multi player impact to determine the outcome. If your lose forwards are not getting to the ball, or worse if their tight forwards get there first and start roughing up your loose forwards and backs, the result becomes inevitable.
This does not mean that fixed pieces are not important, its just that there are not as many of them as there are loose encounters. It is the shear volume of the slaps in the face that mount up to the "60 minute lapse of concentration"
So why cant we beat the All Blacks? Because the Springboks have a hook and no jab. We play great plays - interceptions and power push over plays. Facing up to the fact that we have no jab and deciding what to do about it is going to stab right at the heart of what we have come to regard as precious. If you have no jab, the primary problem is going to be found in you loose forwards and your props.
So unlike boxing in rugby a hook does not hurt as much as a jab. When Butch james runs in an intercept try, it may make the fans scream, but to those of us watching the "gainline game" this is nothing. When the All Blacks grind out 50 phases like they did in the latter part of the first half, it matters not that the score does not change, what matters is that they have taken away our legs and we are starting to notice how heavy our hands are to half them up.
The harsh reality is that Burger and Roussouw simply do not win the gain line. But Os Scrums like hell and Schalk is the best loose forward in the world? I said it goes to the heart of what we regard as precious. The simple reality is that in Durban, NZ won the turnover and pushed us in the scrums. I don't deny that Burger and Os get out there and take a lot of punishment (hits in the face). But remember, that is not what wins games. What wins games is letting the other guy get hit in the face. Gary Botha, BJ did little better. Locks we excuse if they win the lineout, but Bakkies and Matfiled got completly over shadowed by Rawlinson in the loose. The NZ players and press will keep talking up Os, Burger and Roussouw, because with them there, doing what they did in Durban, All Black victory is certain.
So what can we do about it? Resting players is not going to do it. When they get back they are still not going to have the techniques to be able to win the gain line. Take a look at the game tape. Hayman, All the AB loosies, even Rawlinson. That are 'moving" differently to the Boks. They are coming into the contact, back arched, head up and they are looking to play the man. Go back to the boxers - The All blacks literally have their hands up going into contact, the Boks have their hands in their knees!
Our players, epitomized by Burger are coming in out of balance, backs bent and looking to play the ball. This body position does not help to land the blow. Its is these 'blows" that they strike - 1000 times a game - that count. Readers of ironrugby.com will know that I have for years advocated this style of gainline play - now the New Zealanders are actually doing it.
We should not be resting 10 weeks before meltdown, we should be focusing on fixing this gainline imbalance. Every bit of practice in facing this from the All Blacks is a opportunity to learn what it means. The solution is to understand this blocking process and implement it in the tackles, rucks and mauls- Sorry I dreaming again - OK maybe for 2011.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Rush under threat
South Africa (15/3) vs Ireland (32/22) 11 November 2006
Jake White is giving the Rush Defense a bad name.
This was the worst defeat by Ireland in Springbok rugby history, and marks a new low for South Africa. This defeat will bring the concept of the Rush Defense into question. It would be a great pity if the only major power rugby power to play it were to give up the Rush. However as it is currently implemented, more teams, now including Ireland, are able to pick it apart.
The biggest problem with the Springbok Rush Defense is that it is played man on man. Man defense on the Drift is acceptable, because you are essentially covering the cut back. However in the Rush, you must play zone. You must be able to force the play inwards, and the worst thing you can do is let the runner through on the inside - going outwards. So you must always be able to cover the zone inside you, no matter how many people come into that gap. The very least you must do is let the play through inwards, towards the cover defense. You must be able to exersise control over the gap inside you and the next defender. The width of that capability is determined by your own speed limitations, not by the spread or numbers of the offense.
This is particularly shown up in Ireland's first try with the come- across- blind side wing. De Villiers, playing leaves too wide a gap as he is "marking 12" and he gets taken on the inside, by the worst kind - on the inside, moving out - going away from cover. In The Rush, The Defensive Lineman must always leave only enough space as to be able to close it down, irrespective of the number of people running into the hole. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the zone concept. While this is in play for the Springboks, they will always be predictable. Ireland merely took advantage of this.
If you have a weak defender at no 12, The Rush will ocme under pressure. He is not much better on the right, but De Villiers is incapable of tackling to his left - EVER.
In second phase, the Springboks leave huge holes around the shoulder of the ruck (See Ireland second half). Attacking teams can actually increase these holes by standing wider. Because the Defense is man on man, they follow you outwards like sheep. This makes them particularly vulnerable to the inside switch pass.
The idea of a rapid Rush is great, as long as it is controlled with a "breakdown", has sufficient cover backup and uses "stunts" to create uncertainty. Even the All Blacks rush up, but you have to get the basics right. Even pressure with the inside out defense (The Drift) is effective. The All Blacks make more interceptions with The Drift!
So this brings us to the crux of the matter which is that what is wrong with Springbok Rugby is that Jakes system is no longer able to function. Form has little to do with it. In Super 14 2006, not even Luke Watson was able to cover JDV. This weak axis was one of the key reasons The Stormers got whipped. Quite simply in the game against Ireland Jeanne De Villiers was his usual absolutely awful defensive self. Without Habanna at center - their best player, Brian O Driscoll would have run riot. This outside centre battle was one of the very few that we actually won in the game.
Number 12 has to be the key defensive position on the field. You can play an Aaron Major or Matt Gitteau there as long as you have an absolutely perfect open side. The Springboks insist on playing slower lumberers at loose forward. I will go further to say that in fact the only reason that the ABs get away with Major is that the rest of us don't have proper attack coaches to take advantage of this. You should be able to drive a truck (well at least a Porshe) through Major and Muliaina.
The Rush Defense has the potential to be devastating, but with this kind of inept display, it is in danger of going extinct in top level rugby.
South Africa (15/3) vs Ireland (32/22) 11 November 2006
Jake White is giving the Rush Defense a bad name.
This was the worst defeat by Ireland in Springbok rugby history, and marks a new low for South Africa. This defeat will bring the concept of the Rush Defense into question. It would be a great pity if the only major power rugby power to play it were to give up the Rush. However as it is currently implemented, more teams, now including Ireland, are able to pick it apart.
The biggest problem with the Springbok Rush Defense is that it is played man on man. Man defense on the Drift is acceptable, because you are essentially covering the cut back. However in the Rush, you must play zone. You must be able to force the play inwards, and the worst thing you can do is let the runner through on the inside - going outwards. So you must always be able to cover the zone inside you, no matter how many people come into that gap. The very least you must do is let the play through inwards, towards the cover defense. You must be able to exersise control over the gap inside you and the next defender. The width of that capability is determined by your own speed limitations, not by the spread or numbers of the offense.
This is particularly shown up in Ireland's first try with the come- across- blind side wing. De Villiers, playing leaves too wide a gap as he is "marking 12" and he gets taken on the inside, by the worst kind - on the inside, moving out - going away from cover. In The Rush, The Defensive Lineman must always leave only enough space as to be able to close it down, irrespective of the number of people running into the hole. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the zone concept. While this is in play for the Springboks, they will always be predictable. Ireland merely took advantage of this.
If you have a weak defender at no 12, The Rush will ocme under pressure. He is not much better on the right, but De Villiers is incapable of tackling to his left - EVER.
In second phase, the Springboks leave huge holes around the shoulder of the ruck (See Ireland second half). Attacking teams can actually increase these holes by standing wider. Because the Defense is man on man, they follow you outwards like sheep. This makes them particularly vulnerable to the inside switch pass.
The idea of a rapid Rush is great, as long as it is controlled with a "breakdown", has sufficient cover backup and uses "stunts" to create uncertainty. Even the All Blacks rush up, but you have to get the basics right. Even pressure with the inside out defense (The Drift) is effective. The All Blacks make more interceptions with The Drift!
So this brings us to the crux of the matter which is that what is wrong with Springbok Rugby is that Jakes system is no longer able to function. Form has little to do with it. In Super 14 2006, not even Luke Watson was able to cover JDV. This weak axis was one of the key reasons The Stormers got whipped. Quite simply in the game against Ireland Jeanne De Villiers was his usual absolutely awful defensive self. Without Habanna at center - their best player, Brian O Driscoll would have run riot. This outside centre battle was one of the very few that we actually won in the game.
Number 12 has to be the key defensive position on the field. You can play an Aaron Major or Matt Gitteau there as long as you have an absolutely perfect open side. The Springboks insist on playing slower lumberers at loose forward. I will go further to say that in fact the only reason that the ABs get away with Major is that the rest of us don't have proper attack coaches to take advantage of this. You should be able to drive a truck (well at least a Porshe) through Major and Muliaina.
The Rush Defense has the potential to be devastating, but with this kind of inept display, it is in danger of going extinct in top level rugby.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
