Bob Dwyer Rugby Workshops

Wellington, NZ.  Saturday, 17^th July, 2010.

For the second week running, the New Zealand All Blacks were far too strong for the current World and Tri-Nations Champion Springbok team. They scored four tries again, claiming their second successive bonus point, and surged to clear favouritism to claim this year’s premier trophy.

With the Springboks looking all but unbeatable just a few weeks ago, many pundits now see New Zealand as the current world’s number-one team, with one hand already on the trophy that all teams covet –amazingly,  one that New Zealand have not won for 23 long years – The Webb-Ellis Cup. They certainly are playing quality rugby, well in excess of all other international teams, but this does not mean that other teams cannot overtake them. An analysis of just what sets them apart – from my point of view – may encourage others, and, dare I say it, educate them.

The All Blacks are doing the “easy” things well – not even very well – and this allows the excellent instinctive qualities of some of their players to add to the quality foundation. I’ve used the description “easy”, because I think that these components of the game are indeed quite simple, but, strangely, not many teams exhibit them. We seem to have become lost in recent years in some strange variation on the game that belies logical assessment and only New Zealand, and only in the last year or so, have begun to extricate themselves from this pile of rubbish. I thought last season that South Africa were on the way also, but they have fallen back again, and are as deep in the mire as anyone.

Let me be more explicit. In recent weeks, I have been conducting coach education in Italy and UK. At these sessions, I have asked about the desire for quick ball from the tackle contest, and have been greeted with total enthusiastic support for such posession. But, as I said last week, only New Zealand are showing  any clear desire to achieve this. Some will say that such action may give opportunity to the defence to ‘steal’ the ball, but I don’t see any such problem for the All Blacks. At any rate, what about “risking failure in order to achieve success”.  I have no doubt that, in order to put pressure on any defence, you must put yourself under pressure. There is no pressure on a defence, without pressure on the attack. Take that as ‘gospel’!

Forwards chasing their own ball, with numbers arriving at the breakdown to assist in the recycle, is also at the forefront of New Zealand’s play. This is also very simply achieved. Indeed in any, and every, such support practice that I conduct, my only consistent correction is to insist that support players “Slow down!” Not very difficult, to “Slow down!” Accurate lines of support, with depth off the ball-carrier, are once again clearly a focus for this All Black team. Traditionally, such qualities were at the very core of New Zealand rugby. Maybe some of the “older” guys have reminded the current staff that the old values are still vital for success in the “modern game”. It was ever thus, pressure on defences at and around the tackle contest is essential if space is to be created. If defences don’t respond, opportunities will be immediately available and Nonu’s try from close quarters gives the clear example. Conrad Smith did likewise for a clear gain and made good space for the next phase attack,

As in last week’s match, there were numerous examples of excellent individual running skills from All Black players and many half-breaks, and more, were achieved. This gave momentum to the New Zealand attack and they responded. Four tries were just reward and, if Dan Carter’s place-kicking had been up to his own standards, the score would have been considerably more embarrassing for the Springboks. Mils Muliaina’s courage to run the ball back from kick receipts, even when short of support players, was admirable. In his, and the team’s, I imagine, desire to deny possession to South Africa, he was prepared to back his ability and came out well on top. Ranger was excellent on debut and I think that his qualities are better suited to wing rather than centre.  I thought that, once again, Mealamu, Muliaina and Read stood out amongst many good performances. Read’s move to No.8 for the Crusaders  – no doubt with the encouragement of the All Black selectors – was a master stroke. World Cups are built on less!

All things being relative, we should look at South Africa’s performance, in order to accurately judge the significance of New Zealand’s clear victory. Once again, I thought that they were poor – let me say that at the outset. Some, especially New Zealanders, will say that New Zealand’s “special performance” denied the Springboks any opportunity. There is always, however, the possibility that South Africa’s poor performance gave New Zealand extra opportunity. Some of each, I imagine, is the truth.

Let’s take the restarts, to begin our examination. Dan Carter’s kick-off was totally misjudged by South Africa and landed directly into the hands of a chasing All Black forward. Major contributing factor – poor South African play. Then Morne Steyn’s kick to start the second half saw Springbok forwards directly under the ball, with no All Black forward in position to claim the ball. The Boks inexplicably allowed the ball to bounce – straight into the hands of an All Black! Ditto for cause.  A wild fly-hack by, I think, Ricky Januarie, went straight to Peri Weepu and, one pass later, Mils Muliaina scored New Zealand’s second try. Ditto, again, for cause.  Jean de Villiers drops a simple high ball, under no pressure whatsoever, and South Africa find themselves under immediate pressure, with a penalty and three more points against. Ditto, yet again, for cause. I could go on. The Springbok defence was also poor, with an absence of any ‘shoulder’ at all, in much of their tackling. Israel Dagg’s try was very well taken, but he beat four tackles – all of them ‘arms’!

Last weekend, South Africa could not manage to score from about 30 metres, with a five-on-two overlap! Their play is, at the moment, nothing short of abominable! For the Wallabies, they will be hoping that this continues through next weekend.

Strangely, they did have a couple of moments when they played simply and accurately – nothing else – and scored two tries. In the 36^th minute, they threw deep to the back of the lineout, Ricky Janurarie ran on the peel and held the ball up nicely for Jean de Villiers. From the quick recycle, Danie Roussouw was too strong. Again in the 74^th minute – some 38 minutes later – Schalk Burger fed Andries Bekker and doubled around him for the return pass and the try. Maybe they could try this simple play again, instead of the wild cut-out passes that pervade their game.

The Boks have some current players with world class reputations, but their current form does not match up. I did not see Bryan Habana with the ball until the game was into the final quarter. Pierre Spies gave no value at all. I question – again and again – the selection of John Smit, and I don’t want any of that rubbish about ‘captaincy’. The team looked much better when Bekker and Pienaar came on. I had to actually ask a friend whether or not Olivier had played. That doesn’t say much for an inside centre.

I’m keen to see this “new look” All Black team against a quality performance. It may well result in an even better performance from them. Then we can all give justifiable praise.

Once again, the refereeing was puzzling. How many times is a referee ‘allowed’ to say “Next man to go over the ball, will go!’. Unless it Richie McCaw, that is. In the 47^th minute, he failed to release the ball-carrier, then went over the ball – three metres out from the line, no less -  and didn’t go. After Rousseow’s early yellow card – for what? – this was most surprising.