In his latest video blog, Springbok assistant coach Gary Gold discusses, after Week Two of the 2010 Super 14, the origin of the 82 tries scored to date.
With the use of Sportscode video analysis, Gary shows in this video that - although the season is only a few weeks old - it seems the try-scoring trends are already looking to shift dramatically.
This video blog is once again brought to you by www.rugbyiq.com and is also available on Gary’s page, www.facebook.com/ggsrugbystuff
Greetings rugbyiq.com friends, after the overwhelming responses to last week’s video blog, our next one is well underway and will hopefully be available later in the week. In the meantime, I didn’t want to lose the opportunity to share some very interesting facts that I have researched from the first week of the 2010 Super 14.
I am researching a number of trends within the game which I will be excited to share with you over the next couple of months. But the one that I would like to do today, which I thought would be the most relevant, is an analysis I did on the referees.
As has been very well documented in the build-up to the 2010 Super 14, the refs have been asked to exercise zero tolerance in certain aspects of the game; most particularly, those pertaining to cleaning up the breakdown and, in turn, allowing the ball to be produced quicker - therefore making the game more respectable.
Let me say from the outset that after only a week-and-a-half of Super 14 rugby it is very evident to see that that is being successfully done… One only needs to look at the 72-65 result in Johannesburg on Friday night to see that quicker ball at the breakdown certainly puts defences under pressure.
Before I share some interesting pieces of information with you, let me please state - emphatically - that I believe all the referees in Week One, by and large, really did attempt to fulfill the instructions given to them (about policing the breakdown). And, as I have mentioned before in previous rugbyiq blogs, as refereeing is such a tough and thankless job; I would really like to commend the refs from Week One on a job well done!
The following pieces of information are still areas I believe that can be looked at with an eye to improving. However, I stress again that in no way do I intend to, or would I believe it is correct, to criticise any referee. Once you have seen some of the information, however, I am sure you will agree that the game still has a way to go to improving the consistencies of calls made during 80 minutes.
Week One was a very interesting one for the following reasons; firstly, all three countries (Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) had two local derbies being played.
They were, namely:
Aus: Force v Brumbies; Reds v Waratahs
NZ: Blues v Hurricanes; Crusaders v Highlanders
SA: Cheetahs v Bulls; Lions v Stormers
Now why I believe this to be significant is that, by and large, teams from the same country more or less play a similar brand of rugby. Whilst I am not saying all teams from the same country are completely identical, there are attributes that are seen in the Kiwi game that are not always seen in the games by SA teams. (The Lions brand, for example, is very different to that of the Bulls, and it seems the Chiefs are the one New Zealand team that attempt to use a different defensive system.)
I found it quite strange that the penalty count in the derbies played, per country were quite different. (Please respect that I believe it would be wrong of me to mention the specific games - as this is an observation and not an attack on anybody.)
For example; in one country, one game produced 26 penalties. In the other derby, in the same country, the grand total of penalties was 13. So, I found myself asking the question, is it possible that four teams who all come from the same country - in two matches - can have a penalty count that is almost double? In fact, in the game that 26 penalties were awarded, one of the teams was penalised 14 teams - which is more infringements than the other game which took place down the road.
I will be monitoring these trends and I am sure as the weeks go by, I will find it particularly interesting to see the level of zero tolerance applied by one referee, as per the other. However, a fact that was particularly encouraging (from my Week One ‘case study’) was the amount of penalties awarded to the attacking team versus those awarded to the defending side.
Now, if you remember in our last blog of December I shared some IRB stats with you (from 2009); where we saw that more than 50% of penalties were being awarded to the defending team and, hence, the reason why so many coaches found wanting to play rugby from further out too high risk.
Week One of the Super 14, however, showed a very different pattern.
Below is a table of penalties teams conceded whilst on attack (A - below) or whilst on defence (B - below):
GAME 1: A - 6; D - 20
GAME 2: A - 9; D - 10
GAME 3: A - 4; D - 9
GAME 4: A - 2; D - 22
GAME 5: A - 3; D - 17
GAME 6: A - 10; D - 13
GAME 7: A - 4; D - 11
With the exception of games two and six, the penalties awarded definitely favoured the attacking teams and I can share with you that of the (total of) 140 penalties awarded in Week One, just 38 were given to the team who were on attack.
That means that 73% of all penalties given in Week One were against the defending team and a very high proportion of those penalties were against the tackler or defending arriving player who was either off his feet, not rolling away or playing the ball in a ruck that had already been formed.
This is a significant step forward in what I believe is the right direction and if this area of the game is able to be continually policed correctly, I am sure a lot more coaches will have confidence to encourage their teams to keep the ball in hand and thereby to attempt to score tries from a lot further out to what we have seen in recent years. (And, consequently, this will lead to a lot less kicking.)
To that end, next week I will be sharing with you some really interesting information on where the bulk of tries originate from.
Until then,
GG
In this fantastic www.rugbyiq.com video blog, assistant Springbok coach Gary Gold analyses the techniques - with the use of Sportscode - of how Heinrich Brüssow, the fiery openside flanker for the Springboks, makes his judgments at the breakdown when performing his highly skilled art of turning over opposition ball at the breakdown.
In this piece, Gold shows why Brüssow’s techniques, while lethal, are perfectly legal, even in spite of there being a far stronger drive by referees to police the tackler’s legality…
Greetings rugbyiq.com readers! This week I got to read about four areas in the game that the referees have apparently been instructed to police particularly vigilantly during the course of the upcoming Super 14.
It is my understanding that the reason these four areas have been identified is because of a recent criticism about the state of the game and is an attempt to clean up any uncertainty that surrounds these four particular areas. In doing so, I assume, it also an attempt to have more consistency.
Before we move on, let me tell you what four areas have been identified:
(1) The scrum:
Primarily, it is my understanding that the main thing the referees have been asked to police is the very high rate of collapsed scrums. I understand they will enforce the set-up and adherence to the calls very strictly and any team who - in the opinion of the ref - is not adhering to these calls will be penalised earlier, rather than later - hence eliminating a bore-a-thon of repetitive scrum resets.
In principle, the referees will be looking for offending teams to be attempting to change their behaviour and adhere to the call and, in theory, this is fine. My concern around this particular aspect of the game is that because the refs are under pressure to not allow scrums to regularly reset, I would hope that in the endeavour to penalise the offending team they do not end up ‘guessing’ who the offenders are.
(2) Off-sides (particularly during kicking):
What the referees and assistant refs have been asked to look at in this regard are the players who are in front of the kicker of the ball. The law states that there are three ways in which they can be put on-side.
A strong drive is on to ensure that none of the teams’ players who have kicked the ball contravene any of these three laws. Failing to do so would mean that the attacking team’s men who are in the off-side position gain a field-position advantage on the defending team’s player who is attempting to field the kick. I believe the reason why the referees are putting so much emphasis on this are is because if the law is now strictly adhered to coaches may find particular advantage in kicking more and it is my opinion that this is something the lawmakers are looking to discourage - and understandably so.
(3) Obstruction at the maul:
In the recent two Neo Tri-Series fixtures at Newlands between the Stormers and the Force and the Sharks and the Force, respectively, we saw no fewer than five penalties being awarded against the attacking team at the set-up of the maul.
After a consultation with Jonathan Kaplan, in preparation for this blog, he informed me that the refs have been asked to pay careful attention to the attacking team placing one of their own players in front of the lineout catcher whilst setting the maul in order, for them to buy some time in getting the maul set. Jonathan told me, quite correctly, that that player who was forming a ‘buffer’ whilst the attacking team set their maul is obstructing the defending team from legally stopping the attacking team from getting the maul set.
Whilst I totally agree and understand that this is necessary, the poor referee has already so many elements to pay attention to at the set-up of a maul such as; correct spacing at the lineout, the straight throw, a defender not ‘crushing’ in the air and both teams joining through the gate - that it may now make his job even trickier in this aspect.
I do, however, accept that it is an illegal practice and the lawmakers are quite correct in ensuring that the maul is a fair contest.
(4) The tackle area:
We have discussed in previous blogs what a vitally important aspect of a game this is and it is correct that careful attention and constant re-visiting of this area of the game needs to take place. Simply put, once the tackler has made the tackle and is on the ground, with the attacking player, he has absolutely no rights to the ball. I believe the referees have been tasked with ensuring that the tackler gets away from the tackle are as quickly as possible - hence taking any doubt of the refs mind that he is still involved.
This, in theory, should then make the complicated breakdown area slightly easier for the referees to police. However, the law does not stipulate ‘how’ the tackler removes himself from the breakdown area. And, also, the law clearly states that should the tackler release the player he has tackled, and get back onto his feet without any other players joining, he is perfectly entitled to steal the ball. In fact, in this scenario the tackled player has an opportunity to place the ball but he, too, has no rights to hold onto the ball whilst he is on the floor.
I perfectly understand why the referees have been tasked with getting the tackler away, but I will be interested to see how the George Smiths, Richie McCaws and David Pococks of the world are going to be managed in this aspect of the game. Surely, if they leave the tackled player and get back onto their feet they should still be allowed to have a crack at stealing the ball?
As I have said, I understand exactly what the officials have been tasked to do in the upcoming Super 14 season. However, in a recent discussion with one of the Super 14 coaches, who has recently had conversations with three different refs, he did express slight concern that whilst all three of them were certainly attempting to adhere to their instructions, there is still the possible problem of interpretation.
It is very difficult for the referee, whilst policing the tackler to roll away, that he also ensures the tackled player has also released the ball and that the arriving players - both on attack and defence - have done so legally and that none of them have attempted to put their hands in the ruck if, in fact, the ruck has formed.
We will watch these four areas very closely during the 2010 season and it is my intention to carefully analyse the management of all four of these areas to see how the outcomes affect the game. I remain optimistic that the communication shared by the refs and coaches, during the Super 14, will ensure that the competition is still a spectacle for everyone out there.
Until next week,
GG
Hello, rugbyiq.com friends! In our final blog of 2009, I asked all you up-and-coming coaches - and players - for some input into the coaching plan, called ‘Proportional Coaching’, that I was looking to devise.
Subsequent to that, I have received quite a lot of correspondence and I thought it would be appropriate at this stage to discuss how I came to devise my coaching philosophy.
Before I do, let me say that I believe every coach should have a coaching philosophy - whatever that might be based on.
This philosophy should be a framework that one uses to give oneself a focus and direction. The other specific detail, i.e. the input I asked for in December, can always be added to that framework and according to variables can - and probably would - change throughout one’s coaching career.
My philosophy on rugby coaching comes, really, from two different aspects in my life. Here they are:
(1) Many years ago, after I finished my studies and travels around the world, I started my working life in a large retail organisation. In this period of my life one of the most important studies I was exposed to was the scientific and incredibly difficult method of proportionately displaying merchandise within a large retail store. The study encompasses quite a few variables; some of these are the amount of product within the store (one can imagine the many thousands of items that are available within one supermarket), the shelf-life of the product, the desire for the product, the size of the product and, of course, the cost and profitability of each specific product.
Now, without completely boring you with the science of how one needed to merchandise a store or even a section within a store, imagine how tricky it becomes to determine which item needs the best exposure for the longest period of time in order for the store to be as profitable a possible? However, the fundamentals of this study are really not too dissimilar to that of planning a day, within a week, within a period of time of a rugby season.
The planning of a period of time, say for example a pre-season, also has many variables that as a coach one needs to consider and then apportion the correct amount of time for the necessary task. During your pre-season, a coach needs to consider that the team needs to cover the following areas: conditioning, skill-work, breakdown skills on attack, breakdown skills on defence, tackling skills, defensive strategy, defensive organisation, the kicking game and then, of course, the set-piece; lineouts, scrums and re-starts.
I am sure now you can see why the considerations of the study of proportional display, that I did very many years ago, plays such a huge role in strategising that all the above areas of the game get the necessary time and input needed in order for your specific team to perform optimally in those areas.
This task is enough of a challenge as a professional coach, I am sure you can appreciate how difficult it must be for a club or schools coach who has far less time in a week.
(2) The game of chess. As a young guy I was taught the game of chess and find the similarities between the games of chess and rugby quite uncanny. The fact that on a chess board certain pieces may only move in certain directions and are more or less valuable according to their role on the chess board is also not dissimilar to when planning your playing philosophy within a rugby team.
Simply put, like chess, half the team could be seen as your ‘workers’, the pawns, and the other half could be seen as your ‘magic makers’ - that have more latitude; like a rook or your queen.
It would be silly, I suppose, for me to specifically define each position on the rugby field with each position on a chess board, but the principle of how you get your most valuable pieces into a position on the board where they can create the most damage is similar to how we, as coaches, should look to get our best players into positions where they, too, can create some damage of their own.
That may be to create a mismatch by getting your big, strong, quick flank to run at the oppositions front row in a simple change of direction move, or being able to retain the ball through enough phases effectively that allow your pacy wing to have the space necessary to score the much-needed try.
That is just a brief overview, without going into too much detail, of how I marry my philosophy of planning versus strategy.
Of course, over and above this there are many more variables such as weather conditions, strengths of the opposition, and injuries to key players of your own team that may affect the way you are able to play that particular week. As I said in the beginning, have a philosophy of your own that you believe in that can act as a framework for you to put the rest of the pieces into place.
It would be great if you shared some of your philosophies with me.
Until next time,
GG
Hello, rugbyiq.com friends; Happy New Year, I hope your festive season was a relaxing one and that 2010 brings you everything you hope for… and, of course, a few Springbok victories!
I’ve really been looking forward to this week’s blog, the first of 2010, because as I said on Twitter last week I wanted to expand further on the controversy that is currently reigning in the UK over the quality of refereeing. But, much more importantly than that, the alignment of the roles of the referees in the modern game in comparison to that of coaches and players.
What apparently outraged Brendan Venter after Saracens’ narrow loss to Leicester Tigers was certain refereeing decisions that he believed cost Sarries the game. Brendan did not blame the referee for making a particular error, as such. However, what was interesting was that he pointed his accusations to the reason he believed the refereeing was sub-standard and inconsistent - and that was because he felt the referees do not prepare for a game to the same degree as professional coaches and players are expected to do.
Now, initially, I wanted to write on this topic alone, but then I was sent a fascinating piece written by our friends Down Under at www.greenandgoldrugby.com where Matt Gagger discusses a ‘How to beat the Boks’ gameplan.
In the article, Matt stumbled on some very interesting stats from 2009 - including one specific piece of information that I was shocked to read; 50% of the penalties that were goaled in 2009 were for ruck infringements on the floor - more than half of those were awarded to the defending team.
Now, obviously, I concede there were some very good fetchers in the Tri-Nations and some of the those penalties were legitimate but it was also clear to see that tacklers who were off their feet, not rolling away, and players arriving after the ruck had formed (where you may not use your hands once the ruck has been formed) who were clearly playing the ball illegally, from all teams, seem to get away with murder.
Also, and I see this as no fault of any specific individual, the varying interpretations of what is deemed the most important aspects of the breakdown were perhaps not refereed consistently. For example: certain refs focused more on the first arriving attacking player staying on his feet, versus other refs whose primary focus was to possibly penalise the tackler from playing no part whilst off his feet. Now as subtle a difference as this may sound, it bears a huge significance in whether the attacking or defending team is given an advantage.
Interestingly enough, in neither of the above examples would the referee be incorrect. What is important though I believe is that a clear decision be made in terms of what is the most important aspect that needs policing for the good of the game. The biggest criticism of the modern game is the lack of continuity and the refusal of teams to play too much rugby - I suggest the main focus of the breakdown should be a very harsh penalty on the defending team playing the ball or slowing it down whilst off his feet and in an illegal position.
This begs the question about the breakdown as we have discussed many times before in this blog; should the majority of the focus of the referees and their managers not be focused specifically on cleaning up the breakdown and, more importantly, having a strict form of consistency about what infringements are deemed more ‘criminal’ than others?
I believe, for example, that if a zero tolerance was applied as the main priority to the tackler rolling away, and also him not being able to touch the ball whilst off his feet, that would already make a remarkable difference to an area of the game that so many people are despondent about - that being continuity.
I, for one, as a coach know that if this area was being managed consistently and correctly I would certainly look to encourage any team I am involved with to play a lot more rugby from a lot further out and, possibly, not look to kick the ball away as much. Because I would believe the odds would be in our favour to be able to retain the ball through phases, legally and without conceding a penalty for ‘criminal’ behaviour from the defending team at the breakdown. Of course, it obviously goes without saying that I would have no problem with any team I am involved with to be policed in exactly the same way whilst defending the breakdown!
I also need to stress, in the strongest possible terms, that this is a factual and statistical analysis of the game and not at all a cheap shot at referees or the administrators in charge of the refs, who I know are working tirelessly to improve every aspect of the game.
In fact, I believe their task is a thankless one and like players and coaches that get hired and fired because of performances, I would love nothing more than to see the top refs in the world being able to earn as much as our best players because their performances week-in and week-out consistently allow the game to be the spectacle it should be.
As usual I would love to hear your comments on this blog and other aspects of this great game of rugby.
Until next week,
Gary Gold
Hello rugbyiq.com friends, in what is going to be our last blog of the year. Today’s blog is going to take a slightly different angle… As I have been so impressed and enthused by the recent feedback and comments by many of you on our coaches blog on rugbyiq - and on Twitter, I thought I would like to involve all you students of the game to help me compile a coaching project I am working on.
The coaching project I am doing is called proportional coaching. Let me explain; as we have discussed many times before in this blog, there are many different aspects to the game.
And, what I intend to do is to devise a tool that will allow coaches to accurately prepare coaching sessions and upon reflection - or in the planning stage - will ensure that with the time they have at their disposal, which obviously varies substantially according to the level you are coaching at, they would have been able to have coached the most important areas of the game that are particularly relevant to their team.
There are, of course, a number of factors that need to be taken into consideration when devising this tool:
(1) As mentioned, the amount of time you have with your team during the course of the week - for example, in a professional environment you obviously have accessibility to your team (and players) every day, whereas a school or club coach may have access to his team only two days a week for two hours at a time.
(2) Areas of strengths and weaknesses pertaining specifically to your team - for example you may have a team where you strength, quite literally, lies within your pack yet and they may be the more experienced, whereas your backs might be younger and less experienced - therefore you may choose to devise your gameplan around playing to your strengths; i.e. your forwards.
(3) And then, of course, and this is where I need your input; we have discussed at length, in many blogs before, the different areas of the game that need to be coached. For example; the lineout, scrums, the breakdown on attack and defence, the kicking game, general defence and, then of course, the fundamental passing and aerial skills, etc, etc.
Now, what I want to know from YOU is, which other areas do you - as a coach - deem as priorities and areas that need to be coached. Also, tell me if you believe that there are any other rugby-specific issues that should be covered; for example, possibly, the mental aspect. (Obviously, for the purpose of this exercise we are doing it on the assumption that the conditioning elements of your team have been taken care of.)
My objective of this entire exercise is to create a tool that will consider the three fundamentals mentioned above, whereby I will be able to share with you a device that you will be able to use to effectively plan your coaching sessions that will give you a peace of mind that you will be spending your time productively coaching your specific team in the areas of the game that will have the most significant effect on their performance in the time that you have at your disposal.
Any other ideas, that would aid me in devising this tool, would be greatly appreciated - but hopefully this will get you thinking over the Festive Season and away from the dinner table. I, certainly need to stay as far away from it as possible, so I will do plenty of thinking over the next few days!
Thanks, once again, for your support over what has been a very interesting year; for me, and the entire team at rugbyiq.com. We all appreciate the tremendous support and feedback, here at rugbyiq, so keep it coming in 2010.
I look forward to catching up in the New Year - in what is shaping up as yet another exciting rugby season - and would also like to take this opportunity to wish you a safe and prosperous festive period until then.
All the best,
GG
Ps. Follow me on Twitter; GaryGoldrugbyiq
Hello, rugbyiq.com friends! Thanks, once again, for your great comments last week; not only on rugbyiq, but I also received many interesting comments via Twitter - if you would like to follow me on Twitter, you can do so on twitter.com/garygoldrugbyiq
I thought the system worked out nicely last week, so I will again attempt to answer your questions in this week’s blog and I look forward to some more debate ahead of next week.
Here goes:
(1) In reply to Tanya and many others who commented on our lineout woes against Ireland:
I hope this answer finally brings some closure to the many questions around what went wrong on that fateful day at Croke Park and, also, Gert Smal’s involvement in the Ireland team.
Let me start off by saying that Gert is a fantastic coach, a good friend, a great person and one of the hardest-working coaches I have ever had the pleasure of spending time with. Ireland’s gain is most certainly South Africa’s loss… and I have absolutely no doubt that Gert would have analysed our lineouts to the last degree.
It is true that we did not change many of our formations for the Irish Test, but we did bring in a few new options within those lineouts that Gert would not have seen before. In saying that, and we spoke about this during the B&I Lions Series as well, we were always aware that with or without Gert, Ireland are probably the next best lineout - to ourselves - in the world - of course, post-Nathan Sharpe’s exit from the Australian team.
It was evident to see during the Six Nations, too, where Ireland were victorious, that - again - they put the other five nations under extreme pressure with their vigorous contesting; a characteristic that I have no doubt Gert has taken to a different level.
Also, as I stated last week, and as Tanya mentioned as well, by our standards it was not a great day - but it was not the disaster that it is being made out and, to remind you again, we did still win eight out of twelve lineouts on the day.
However, and I must say this in the strongest terms, reports that have been written after the Test - saying that Ireland had all of our calls - is, for me, hard to fathom. Let me explain; in modern-day rugby it is true we are all trying to find the edge on our opponents and if that means being able to study their calls - if we are able to pick them up from TV, and then being able to decipher those calls - we will do everything in our power to do just that. The truth is that really well-coached teams will also realise that and change their calls accordingly.
Back to the topic of our lineout performance against the Irish, however…
I cannot emphatically deny that Gert very well may have worked out one or two of our calls; after all he has worked intimately, and successfully, with the majority of our pack for four years.
But what does astound me, especially in light of the changes we made to our calling system that week, is how Gert supposedly would have been able to teach the Irish pack to speak fluent Afrikaans in the week leading up to the game… Also, teaching Afrikaans is one thing; teaching the entire Irish pack how to count in Afrikaans is another - especially with some of the numbers in Afrikaans being read out ‘back to front’ (so to speak), when compared to English, and not to mention if the numbers are in their hundreds or thousands.
Sometimes, as coaches, we can fall into the trap of looking for excuses and don’t often give credit where it is due. As much as I find it difficult to believe that the Irish knew our calls I do think they contested very well that day and definitely had the upperhand in the lineouts and for that I can only congratulate the Irish pack and, of course, our good friend Gert.
(2) In reply to Mike:
Hi Mike thanks again for an insightful reply. I must confess you really have given me some food for thought - especially with your ‘ranking of importance of quality possession’.
I think, generally, I would tend to agree with you and without being too pedantic I would probably add in a fourth element, as we discussed last week, and that would be the aspect of our kicking game. Therefore, my ranking would probably be: Scrums 15%, Lineouts 20%, Kicking 25%, Rucks 40%.
I have introduced the kicking game under your importance of quality possession because as discussed last week, I believe the primary cause of a kicking game should be - more often than not - to regain possession in a better position on the field.
I have to agree with you, also, that our ball retention against the French, and to a lesser degree against the Irish, was not where it needed to be and - again, as discussed last week - it is an area we need to pay attention, consistently, and always look to improve that area of our game.
I thought as this would be one of our last blogs of the year, I wanted to end it on a positive note.
One of the few downsides of our job is that when the team we’re involved with does not have a very good run it is natural for the media to unleash their full artillery on you. Sometimes, especially in South Africa and especially when it comes to rugby, some of those arsenals contain serious weapons of mass destruction that hit you on every conceivable front - including a personal one. Couple this with a few select ex-players who add their comments, too - many of whom it would seem never lost a game or played badly! - and I think you can see what I mean!
Nevertheless, every now and again we encounter a real breath of fresh air and I have recently experienced that breath of fresh air in some journalism that I have read on the SuperSport Zone written by the great rugby journalist Dan Retief.
Dan, in his column a few weeks ago, questioned and criticised the Springboks’ performance in a non-personal, fact-based report where he also was objective to give both sides of the story and not his own selfish one. In that original report he challenged me to submit my argument this time with reference to our scrums and then, subsequently, wrote his next column, again factually-based, and brilliantly presenting all the facts on offer.
The real reason why I thought it was particularly apt to mention Dan’s column, is because Dan actually does not agree with me but he does so in a way that is neither offensive nor emotional. Instead, he does so in a meticulous and sensible way and in a way that has certainly given me food for thought - as he has to many better coaches than me and players over the many years he has been writing.
I, personally, thoroughly enjoy reading his work - even if he chooses to disagree with me. And, as I have learnt from him, wouldn’t it be wonderful if other - dare I say younger - scribes could do the same?
Please feel free to post any other questions you might have, as judging from the responses in recent weeks, it is a great way for us to communicate with our rugbyiq.com followers.
Otherwise, as I said above, follow me on Twitter: www.twitter.com/garygoldrugbyiq
Until next time, rugbyiq.com readers,
GG
Hello, rugbyiq.com friends! Last week’s blog produced a great response amongst rugbyiq readers and I’d like to thank you all for taking the time out to read my take on proceedings this past international season.
Of course, as I said, not everyone could possibly agree with my opinions, but it’s great to be able to debate things and for that reason I thought I would reply to some of the comments made by you - the readers - in last week’s blog.
I was able to select a few only, but thanks to everyone for taking the time out to comment!
Here goes then:
(1) In reply to Johan, Ricky, Patrick, Met, Bongi and Michael - on our kicking game:
You guys have all made some very interesting comments about the Springboks’ kicking game. I agree with a lot of your comments and, as Darren requested (also see below, Darren), let me give you a little bit more insight into the philosophy of our kicking game.
First up, let me say I do not believe there is no place in rugby for kicking - on the contrary actually. However, I believe very strongly that the outcomes of each and every kick must be strongly evaluated and the required result must be achieved or, as you have all correctly put it - especially Patrick in his great response, it would just be a case of us handing the possession to our opposition.
Our philosophy is a simple one; and one that can be highly effective as we saw in the Tri-Nations this year.
Simply put, I see four outcomes that we should achieve from a kick:
(1) If we are deep in our 22, or under pressure near our own tryline, we must have the ability to kick in order to relieve that pressure. This kick is the only kick where I accept - because of the circumstances; the pressure we are under - that we may not be able to retrieve possession, however we should always aim for that kick to go out as close to the halfway line as possible. This is also not a situation we should find ourselves in often during a game, so one or maybe two of these kicks per game are acceptable.
(2-4) The next three outcomes, in order of priority, should be the only acceptable outcomes of our kicks:
- This is obviously first prize; that any kick we kick - be it a box-kick or an up-and-under - should give us the very best chance, with an organised chase and a strong secondary line of defence, to win the ball back by contesting vigorously in the air. Once that ball has been won by us, our secondary line of defence that is advancing now becomes our line of attack and, in so doing, we turn what was a defensive kick into an attacking opportunity.
- Exactly the same scenario as before; we contest the ball but we don’t win it. We then tackle their player who has won it and because of our speed of the chase, and the numbers we are able to get to the breakdown, we are able to turn the ball over - either by winning the penalty or, as before, turn our secondary line of defence into attack.
- As with the previous two, we contest the ball vigorously. Because we have chased well, we have got numbers there and if we don’t win the ball or we don’t turn them over, we offensively tackle them into touch - thus winning the lineout throw.
Now, I am fully aware that obviously these scenarios are all theoretical and they may not always materialise in a game situation. However, and this is the point I really want to make, unless we are able to consistently achieve any one of the above results, we should really question why we are kicking the ball away. Because without being able to exert the necessary pressure on the opposition - as I have explained in the above scenarios - we are, as so many of you have correctly said, simply handing the opposition free possession.
Finally, on this point may I please also illustrate from a coaching point of view that it is very important for us to analyse - as has been mentioned in blogs before - what the source of the problem is.
In respect of our kicking game; is the problem our plan, or is the problem our execution. This is where I must agree with many of your observations, but would like to stipulate; I feel our plan is the right plan, but in the two Test matches - against France and Ireland - our execution was certainly well below par. Our kicks were too far, our chasers were not accurate enough, we did not get enough numbers to the ball and, generally, our kicks - and the pressure that should go with our kicks - was not sufficiently exerted against our opponents, as we had done so well earlier this year. I would go as far as saying that for all the debate and all the soul-searching that has taken place around why we lost those two Test matches in November; I think our less-than-perfect execution of our kicking game was probably one of the biggest reasons.
(2) In reply to Darren - also on the kicking game:
Darren, in terms of your response, I hope I have answered some of your concerns above. However, whilst fascinating, I would like to know where you get your statistics from about the six things that occur when aimlessly kicking the ball away.
I am particularly interested in the information you have shared with us but cannot possibly see, knowing the stats as I do, how you have been able to provide such definitive stats around how many more tackles we make, how much more energy we spend and our error/turnover rate.
It would be fantastic if you would be prepared to share your source with us.
(3) In reply to Phillip - on the penalty count situation:
Phillip, I hear what you are saying about the psychological effect of a powerful scrum, and I have to agree wholeheartedly with your statement.
My point, however, which I feel has been misunderstood, is that I am not saying all scrums are not important or, in fact, that a powerful and effective scrum is not essential - of course it is. I was merely trying to paint the big(ger) picture and explain that as much as it is our focus to improve our scrums next year, there are other areas of our game - dare I say it! - that also need improvement and those other areas will have a more significant effect on the outcome of Test matches.
As per your request in terms of analysing the Ireland game, I have done so and out of 10 penalties we were awarded; only two were awarded at our scrum time. Now, take into account that we did not concede any penalties at scrum time, which I accept we have done in the past, one/two penalties/free-kicks is actually the norm each team gets in a Test. I am certainly not using this as an excuse that our scrum has not performed, at times, optimally.
(4) In reply to Mike:
Mike, in terms of your comment, where you believe that we lost most of our lineouts; may I say that we definitely had one of our poorer performances at lineout time against Ireland… but it always amazes me how perceptions tend to be deemed as realities.
For your interest, as poor as I agree our lineout functioned, we had 12 lineouts against Ireland; we lost three, we were awarded a penalty for ‘crushing’ in a fourth lineout and won the other eight. I don’t believe this can be deemed as most of our lineouts. But, again, it wasn’t a great day by our lofty standards.
To all of you out there, I do hope these answers have given you a bit more insight into my thinking, and that of the Springbok coaching staff!
Thank you sincerely for all your responses, they have been fantastic and enlightening, and having such constructive, intelligent points being made constantly adds to my learning. Keep them coming and next week I can possibly answer a few more questions.
Until next time,
Gary Gold
Good day to you, rugbyiq.com friends! What a year we’ve had… Unfortunately, it didn’t end too well for us with a defeat to Ireland, and there seem to be a few question marks over our side - in particular our scrum. This week, as promised, I will attempt to show you just where the Springbok scrum stands in relation to our opposition from 2009.
First up, it was obviously very disappointing to have come back from the tour having won just one of our three Tests in November.
It is post-mortem time, as it would have been had we come back with a 100% winning record, but we do now at least have the time to reflect on just where it went wrong for us - in particular in Toulouse and Dublin.
Hopefully, we will rectify those mistakes in our post-mortem process, and for that very reason I would like to respectfully disagree with those comments suggesting that we could not have learnt anything from this tour.
On the contrary, as painful as losing is, it is unfortunately when one tends to learn the most - possibly because we may tend to analyse our faults deeper off the back of defeats. On reflection, and I am sure Peter and Dick will agree with me, we have certainly learned more from our two defeats out of two visits to the northern hemisphere in the last year, than we did from the four wins…
It would very naive and arrogant of us, as coaches and no doubt the players too, if we did not take away plenty of food for thought, from this tour. I can tell you that we have and - as I mentioned above - we will be looking to fix those errors next year.
In last week’s blog - in the build-up to the Ireland Test - I had a look at the various selections in our starting XV. I alluded to John Smit’s move from tighthead back to hooker, saying it was not because he had failed in the No.3 shirt, but rather because of the match situation (our opposition and because of injuries).
As promised, I intend to illustrate further this week just why his move to prop is certainly not the disaster made out by all and sundry and, at the same time, why I think the hype around the Springbok scrummaging abilities - or rather the supposed lack thereof - is slightly off the mark and is possibly being over-played.
However, before I get down to this, let me stress in the harshest way possible; I do not believe that our scrum is the most powerful in the world and I will admit that we have not been firing on all cylinders or certainly to the level that we would have wanted to. I have no doubt, however, that we can improve our scrum and that is something high on our agenda ahead of the 2010 international season.
Before we touch on the scrums, it is important that I share with you some facts from international matches that have taken place this year - in order for you to get an holistic view of what actually happens in modern-day Test rugby, and hence where I believe our serious coaching energy should be placed.
Here goes:
- On average, there are 60-70 breakdowns (i.e. rucks, mauls, etc) on attack during a Test match.
- There are, on average, 65-75 ball-carries per Test match. That means our players will enter a contact situation - where a player either passes, off-loads or goes to ground (and then has to recycle the ball) - sixty-five to seventy times in 80 minutes. (Well, actually the ball is in play for 40 minutes only, but let’s not get totally pedantic - I think you know what I mean!)
- Whether we like it or not, there are on average, 30/40 kicks in every Test match; kicks to clear our line, but also those that need to be chased and hopefully retrieved. Those kicks, in turn, play their part in ensuring we can have between 17-20 lineouts, on our own ball, per game.
- Also, on average, each team out there needs to make about 85 to 95 tackles per Test match.
- And, finally, when it comes to scrums, there are on average, some eight to ten scrums in Test matches at present.
Do you see now what I am getting at? Do you see which areas significantly affect the outcome of a match and those that do not have as significant a bearing, although all are still incredibly important?
Against France, for instance, our ball runners lost the ball in contact 10 times. TEN TIMES we just handed the French ball whilst we were on attack, so in turn our defence was totally disorganised. Ten times… that is more individual turnovers than scrums we had in that entire game (we had nine scrums against France) - clearly we need to improve that facet of our game. (In the 2009 Super 14, 50% of ALL tries came from turnovers - it makes sense why, it is when one’s defence is at its least organised.)
At the same time, in order to become a more consistent and world-class team we need to cut down our high penalty count. Against France, we had a penalty count of 5 v 13 (against us) - with 12 points coming from those 13 penalties in a game we eventually lost 15-20. Again, we have to be ruthless on our discipline, especially in our own 22m where most world-class kickers will punish you. This fact is also slightly skewed, because we thought Wayne Barnes was particularly harsh on us - but hey, cowboys don’t cry, and there was no way he got 13 penalties wrong.
We also need to take our try-scoring opportunities better. Points-scoring opportunities do not come around that often in Test match rugby - a world-class team needs to take its opportunities in the ‘red zone’ (in the opposition 22), as we did so regularly during the Tri-Nations, or at least convert 95% of the opportunities into points. An example of taking one’s chances came in the Test against France when we had a vital lineout five metres from the French line. I have no doubt we could have driven over from there, but we lost the lineout… and thereby the match.
As a coaching staff we are certainly not against criticism - as long as it is constructive and valuable and, most importantly, accurate and specific about where we are falling short.
Alright then, back to the scrums, have a look at the table below. The table, basically, is a summary of all the Test-playing nations we played against in 2009 (except the B&I Lions, as they are not a regular Test-playing country, and we all know how we fared at scrum time against them) - explaining how our scrum has progressed according to theirs.
Funnily enough, and possibly the most painful irony of the year, is it seems that most pundits out there thought our scrum was excellent against Ireland - yet we still ended up losing the match. How ironic that this should be the case in the week when I am attempting to highlight exactly how significant a dominant scrum is.
Again, before I continue, I have to stress once again - scrummaging is important in the modern-day game, but it is not the most telling facet of play. Yes, a strong scrum could certainly give you a psychological advantage during a match, of that their is no doubt.
The table below begins by showing the amount of scrums awarded (pack) versus ball actually fed (i.e. successful scrums that were not reset) and it also shows how much ball we were able to play off (ball out).
As you can see by the table we need to improve the amount of ball we actually play off - we need to get that percentage up to 92%+ at least (currently on 89.5). Interestingly, Italy have the best success rate in terms of the amount of ball they play off, 95.1%, but unfortunately had been winless in their last ten outings before beating Samoa this past weekend.
Significantly, however, we are second on the list in terms of actually getting the ball out - i.e. the least re-sets. Of course, it’s nothing to boast about, but it does show just how small the margins are in international rugby, yet it is significant that Australia are clearly the worst. This suggests, as has been suspected for years, that Australia are perennial scrum collapsers should they not get the hit they require, and have the most resets.
So as mentioned earlier, we have managed to play off 89.5% of our scrum ball, which means we have not off 10.5% of our ball, as I have already said this figure does need to improve by at least 3-4%, but it is also interesting to have a look at the same facts on all opposition ball; that is when it is our opponents’ scrum, and we are defending. That fact interestingly shows that our opponents, off 130 scrums against us, were able to play off 88.5% - which means we were able to turnover 11.5% of opposition ball. A memorable example was our scrum that turned over the All Blacks in Durban which led to Fourie du Preez picking up the ball and playing Morné Steyn who scored on the left-hand side of the uprights and, in turn, won us the game. Without getting too caught up in numbers, it is interesting that we can play off more ball than we allow our opposition to play off, albeit only 1%.
I do believe, however, that the quality of our scrum ball, which is not illustrated in any stats table, can improve significantly with an accurate set-up, quicker hit and a more powerful leg-drive. That improvement would then be able to give Fourie a better quality of ball for our backs to run onto and, in turn, will necessitate the opposition loose forwards being bound for longer - thus making our ability to break or penetrate the advantage line more significant. That, I concede, is not happening enough at present, and am the first to admit we really do need to improve that aspect, because quality scrum ball is great ball to attack off.
I hope these examples have allowed you some deeper understanding behind the perceived scrumming woes in the Bok side.
Some people might accuse me of being over-defensive… I am not. I have truly tried to be as honest and objective as possible, by using these facts, I hope one can now see that, although we need to improve, we are not losing Test matches because of our supposedly ‘dire scrum’.
Before I sign off this week, I must just add this: When we started our coaching website at the end of last year, our aim was (and still is!) to produce a coaching aid for aspiring coaches, players and supporters who want more in-depth information and, possibly - dare I say it! - even to assist the odd learned journalist who honour us by visiting this very website.
This site is a forum to debate the game at an intellectual level - dealing in hardcore facts, and not emotions driven by whether one’s team wins or loses, and not at all because we think we know more than anybody else - hence the name RugbyIQ.
To those of you who continue to visit rugbyiq - even if you do not agree with our views, which you are very welcome not to! - we humbly appreciate your visits to our site and hope you can share your views with us, whether you agree with us or not.
But we will do all in our power for this website to remain one where all of us rugby-lovers can debate the merits of the game without needing to be abusive, facetious or personal about any team or individual who loves this great game of ours, there are enough ‘Jerry Springer-esque’ websites out there for that…
Until next time,
GG
