Who's to Blame?

[Jiggles]

I wouldn't expect anything more constructive than that from you. You've made your views on SA clear a number of times, thanks.

BTW, I didn't realise winning 3 out of the last 5 Super Rugby competitions and 1 Tri-Nations was considered a failure. Clearly it would be considered a failure by the lofty standards set by Australian rugby "in recent times" though.

Well done for taking the thread down this path btw.

Nice personal attack there.

My views on South African Rugby is that they have a lot of quality Super Rugby standard players who play a style that suits them and is successful at that level. direct close running forwards, and backs who don't attack the line with ball in hand but can play an excellent territory game.

The same players aren't dynamic enough to play their style of game at pace which is required if it is to be successful at test level. It worked in 2009 due to the interpretations, but hasn't since as the rules favour a faster game. Meyer ins't too keen to fix this if his first squad is any indication.

The African Press in the majority fail to recognise this and like to look externally for reasons as to why they haven't succeeded at international level in the last couple of years. This article is just another one of those. The RWC loss was coming from a mile away and is a culmination of this, just like the Wallabies Irish/Scottish losses were. All the indicators were/are there pointing to the obvious for both countries, yet its much easier to point to external factors rather than take ownership and control your internalities.

The Australian Press is equally as bad in its failure to recognise the fact that we continue to get dominated at the breakdown through a lack of execution and accuracy. Yet we continue to select players which lack the fundamentals to exceed in this area. And we continue to see results like we saw against Scotland, and like we will probably see against Wales on Saturday.

 

[Brisbok]

What are the interesting points?

Clearly none from your perspective...

Just 1 example would be; will the increased length of the season in the SH and the injuries and general physical battering the players take over an extended period, lead to more players considering going to play in the less physically demanding leagues (Japan etc.) earlier in their careers? Obviously the money helps, but this may increasingly become another reason.

 

[mudskipper]

It amazes me that more people voted to blam the 2 guys who weren't on the field... Deans and JON... Are you guys cpmletely mad, there was no leadership or organisation on the field by the Wallabies halves between each set piece... the players are to blam for their loss...

 

[Brisbok]

It amazes me that more people voted to blam the 2 guys who weren't on the field. Deans and JON. Are you guys cpmletely mad, there was no leadership or organisation on the field by the Wallabies halves between each set piece. the players are to blam for their loss.

That is obvious. The lack of good decision making and poor execution would be the first place to look. However, having 2 or 3 days with your full squad to prepare for a test match is quite ridiculous and is basically unprecedented in the modern era.

 

[Brisbok]

My views on South African Rugby is that they have a lot of quality Super Rugby standard players who play a style that suits them and is successful at that level. direct close running forwards, and backs who don't attack the line with ball in hand but can play an excellent territory game.

That's funny, those characteristics seem to be more prevalent in test rugby than Super Rugby to me.

The African Press in the majority fail to recognise this and like to look externally for reasons as to why they haven't succeeded at international level in the last couple of years. This article is just another one of those. The RWC loss was coming from a mile away and is a culmination of this, just like the Wallabies Irish/Scottish losses were. All the indicators were/are there pointing to the obvious for both countries, yet its much easier to point to external factors rather than take ownership and control your internalities.

You obviously don't follow SA Rugby that closely, but the majority of journo's/fans in South Africa blamed the previous coaching team for the majority of the failures. There were pretty much weekly calls for PdV's sacking from June 2010 until the day he resigned.

Bryce Lawrence was most likely the 2nd major target for blame!

Nowhere has anyone blamed the increased length of the season for the failures of the National team. Nor was the conference system in Super Rugby used as a reason for Springbok failure. South African fans are largely critical of the extended Super Rugby season and conference system because it dilutes the Currie Cup. Nothing to do with the National team.

 

[Jiggles]

To be honest, the best thing about rugby is that there is no right or wrong way of playing it. You need a plan to suit your players. The big South African teams play successfully that way and they've been trying to play that way at test level which they're just not good enough to do. I think the results speak for themselves.

If I remember correctly the media was boldly predicting a Bok win in the RWC, and we're genuinely shocked and played the blame game after the loss. It was embarressing because just like for the wallabies game against the Irish, the writing was on the wall years in advance and the media didn't address it as such.

The article seems to be looking at all sorts of excuses for the springboks and south African rugby, but doesn't really address the primary issue. It just points at an Australian loss as to why it's right.

 

[Brisbok]

To be honest, the best thing about rugby is that there is no right or wrong way of playing it. You need a plan to suit your players. The big South African teams play successfully that way and they've been trying to play that way at test level which they're just not good enough to do. I think the results speak for themselves.

If I remember correctly the media was boldly predicting a Bok win in the RWC, and we're genuinely shocked and played the blame game after the loss. It was embarressing because just like for the wallabies game against the Irish, the writing was on the wall years in advance and the media didn't address it as such.

The article seems to be looking at all sorts of excuses for the springboks and south African rugby, but doesn't really address the primary issue. It just points at an Australian loss as to why it's right.

Out of interest, are you in favour of International teams playing mid-week tests followed by tests on the weekends? Tests being played a couple of days after domestic games. Or the further extension of the domestic season for our teams in the SH? So much so that in the future, the only factor to come into consideration when scheduling games is the amount of money to be made with no consideration of player welfare? That's what the article is addressing IMO. Nothing to do with the strength of the Springboks or any other National team, relative to another. I'm not sure if we actually read the same article...

We could sit here and argue all day on which type of rugby is best suited to test rugby and what the problems are in South African Rugby vs Aus. But I don't think that was the point of the article. Probably best to leave it and move on...

 

[cyclopath]

I think Nic White and Brendan McKibbin have been two of the better halfbacks at delivering quick ball this season.

The only problem for the Waratahs is that this normally means the opposition fullback fields a kick on the full before the forwards have had time to get their heads out of the ruck.

It's partly a "player" problem, in that Genia (and others) have a tendency to do it at times, but it's more an ingrained thing in Aus rugby I feel, that goes back to the days of Brumbie-ball, where multi-phase play with relatively low-risk was king. Gregan was the master. It was all about keeping the structure, making sure the next runners were set and so on. We still seem to do it, with the runners set right on the gain line, so they tend to be static and flat-footed, as opposed to the patterns many NZ teams employ, where they are far more dynamic and come from depth, and they usually have a big munter on their hip, rather than going one-out like a roo in the spotlight.
That's not to say Aus half-backs cannot move it quickly - clearly they can. But they don't do it enough. It's like a default position, to me.

 

[Ash]

Generally Aus halfbacks also seem to like some structure before they move it. If they don't see a forward in exactly the right place with a second forward up his ass sitting there for a few seconds, then they hesitate and wait.

My other gripe is that Aus forwards don't seem to be as adept as protecting the ball in the ruck as other teams. Watching a Scottish player step over a ruck and kick the ball out is, frankly, ludicrous.

 

[Richo]

Right, Cyclo. And Gregan eventually became far too slow and it killed any number of opportunities for the Wallabies. Interesting that Nic White provides such quick service -- benefits of a Saffer coach, perhaps?

 

[Bullrush]

Right, Cyclo. And Gregan eventually became far too slow and it killed any number of opportunities for the Wallabies. Interesting that Nic White provides such quick service -- benefits of a Saffer coach, perhaps?

Benefit of being young, keen and doing something you love for a living....

 

[daz]

Fuck it. You know what? I'm to blame.

There, I said it.

 

[Richo]

Benefit of being young, keen and doing something you love for a living..

If Genia is so jaded at age 24 that this doesn't apply then I don't know what to say...

 

[Jiggles]

Out of interest, are you in favour of International teams playing mid-week tests followed by tests on the weekends? Tests being played a couple of days after domestic games. Or the further extension of the domestic season for our teams in the SH? So much so that in the future, the only factor to come into consideration when scheduling games is the amount of money to be made with no consideration of player welfare? That's what the article is addressing IMO. Nothing to do with the strength of the Springboks or any other National team, relative to another. I'm not sure if we actually read the same article.

We could sit here and argue all day on which type of rugby is best suited to test rugby and what the problems are in South African Rugby vs Aus. But I don't think that was the point of the article. Probably best to leave it and move on.

Good Questions.

I am not a fan at all for the situation which resulted in the a Scottish being played on a tuesday night, 3 days after Super Rugby and 4 days before an important test series with an improving welsh team. However this deal was done 9 months in advance. The powers to be knew what was coming and they didn't plan accordingly. Heck the weather was known 5 days in advance and we still decided to put a fair few bombs up in the first half! I don't know what this has to do with South African Rugby, Super Rugby or an impending doom, or Storm, as the author puts it. It has no link, whats so ever to Ted getting a place on that board, and the lack of a place for a South African.

The sticking points for me, which made me think this is just another excuse piece from the Republic, is the fact that he Blamed JON for the conference idea as it stands and the "one team from each" finals situation. This isn't true, thats a SARU request. He also points out a gold rush for Australian rugby, well this just isn't true either.

He then goes on to state that Australians want to make the game more like rugby league. I think you will find 99.9% of the rugby public in Australia, those who like me are lowly players/supporters, and those in charge, like JON, love rugby for the fact that it is not rugby league. If us Australian rugby fans wanted rugby to be like rugby league, we would just go watch rugby league, a sport in which we the undisputed best at.

He tries to use the scrum, as it stands as proof of this. The Scrum now is so far from the scrum I grew up with it beg belief! Australians, and the ARU would love to return to the days when the scrum was about scrumaging, and not about the power hit and the random penalties that result.

It is in all honestly, a rant of an article.

We could sit hear all day and argue which type of rugby our nations are best suited for, but I think we can agree right now that recent history suggests both nations are playing dumb rugby.

 

[Brisbok]

There is so much that I

Good Questions.

I am not a fan at all for the situation which resulted in the a Scottish being played on a tuesday night, 3 days after Super Rugby and 4 days before an important test series with an improving welsh team. However this deal was done 9 months in advance. The powers to be knew what was coming and they didn't plan accordingly. Heck the weather was known 5 days in advance and we still decided to put a fair few bombs up in the first half! I don't know what this has to do with South African Rugby, Super Rugby or an impending doom, or Storm, as the author puts it. It has no link, whats so ever to Ted getting a place on that board, and the lack of a place for a South African.

The sticking points for me, which made me think this is just another excuse piece from the Republic, is the fact that he Blamed JON for the conference idea as it stands and the "one team from each" finals situation. This isn't true, thats a SARU request. He also points out a gold rush for Australian rugby, well this just isn't true either.

He then goes on to state that Australians want to make the game more like rugby league. I think you will find 99.9% of the rugby public in Australia, those who like me are lowly players/supporters, and those in charge, like JON, love rugby for the fact that it is not rugby league. If us Australian rugby fans wanted rugby to be like rugby league, we would just go watch rugby league, a sport in which we the undisputed best at.

He tries to use the scrum, as it stands as proof of this. The Scrum now is so far from the scrum I grew up with it beg belief! Australians, and the ARU would love to return to the days when the scrum was about scrumaging, and not about the power hit and the random penalties that result.

It is in all honestly, a rant of an article.

We could sit hear all day and argue which type of rugby our nations are best suited for, but I think we can agree right now that recent history suggests both nations are playing dumb rugby.

There is so much that I disagree with in that dribble you just wrote that I would t know where to start my reply. So I'll just leave it, it is pointless arguing with you. One thing that typifies your ignorance - Australia are the undisputed best at mungo ball...care to take a look at the list of world cup winners and tell me who the previous winner was?

 

[Jiggles]

Sure mate, France were pretty good back in the 50s and 60s but couldn't get up on the day against either Great Britain or Australia. Australia has dominated throughout the rest of the time apart from the most recent cup, which NZ won.... whats you're point?

 

[FANATIC]

I would like to pose the question, however, of what would have happened if Quade Cooper was starting at 10?

Then I guess given his performances at an international level last year that his name would have also been in this poll.

 

[FANATIC]

I blame Deans for picking too many fair weather Queenslanders in this game (no offense QLD supporters). The Brumbies would have won this match. They eat that kind of shit up. Rain, wind etc. They train half the year in the cold shitty weather in Canberra. Nick White, Ben Mowen, Ita Vaea, Auelua, McCabe; these boys have been training for this kind of game in freezing Canberra all year yet they don't rate a mention in this team because Deans seems to have chosen his squad before Super XV 2012 kicked off.

YES YES YES !
Sometimes it is about the plan but it is mostly about the condition of the cattle. (which is the coaches responsibility!)
These boys have to toughen up they have gotten too soft. My lad grew up in the Snowy Mountains. bus loads of players from up north used to show up in Jindabyne and be too scared to get out of their warm buses and play in the snow. Our lads played in the snow without bloody shirts on and had the best home ground advantage in the world. Getting hit in the freezing cold when you are not hardened by training in the cold hurts. It hurts a lot. Then there is the added stress on a team as players are not performing as they get a brain freeze. As I have said elsewhere, Wallabies must stop training at a beachside resort like coffs, this is not golf it is rugby. If our pocock comes off the pitch with hypothermia then there is everythiing wrong with the entire training regimen.

 

[FANATIC]

Interesting article from a South African journalist below. I generally don't agree with most things he writes about but he does make some interesting points here. Obviously, being a South African journalist, it is written from the perspective of a South African with some South African bias.

http://www.supersport.com/rugby/blogs/brenden-nel/Theres_a_storm_brewing_in_world_rugby

totally agree with "John O’Neill, the ultimate commercial spin-doctor, has spun the web so well that team success and player welfare are a secondary consideration."
It is a shame to see a great rugby nation like RSA not have a seat at the table of world rugby.
Shame this writer has to finish his essay basically calling us mungo league lovers
but it is good to get a perspective from RSA
saffer fans must have been rolling on the ground with laughter to see scotland get up over us like that.
we are not known for wet weather rugby, that is for sure, and it is about time we seriously worked on it.

 

[FANATIC]

That article is just a thinly veiled swipe at Australian Rugby for the failures of South Africa in recent years.

ummmm.... which part of South Africa's Rugby World Champions did you not understand during the years 2007 to 2011?
Personally I got sick to death of hearing it, but it did not make it untrue.