Dwyer's View

Throughout the past week, the All Black team management, and indeed the New Zealand rugby public, bemoaned their team’s errors in the first of their 2009 Tri-Nations contests in Bloemfontein. “We’ve got to cut out the errors”, they cried, giving the impression that, if they could do just this, they would then beat the Springboks.

Well, surprise, surprise! It’s not as easy as just saying it. Working out how to cut out the errors is a little more difficult.

In this week’s game in Durban, their error count increased alarmingly and they were soundly beaten again. Two losses in two weeks is not something which we’ve come to associate with the All Blacks.

I’m beginning to sound like a broken record in this column, and I constantly remind readers of my Coaching Manual, but quality performance with a minimum of errors is ALWAYS based on the application of perfect technique under the pressure of game situations. Faulty technique will never survive a stern examination. This was at the core of an error strewn All Black performance.

One of the problems which we have is that many, if not most, coaches have neither the inclination nor the knowledge to insist on perfect technique at practice sessions and subsequently in games. We are letting our players down. It is the elite coach’s responsibility to add polish to the diamonds which he has at his disposal.

Catch and pass technique and correct lines of run and support were largely absent from the All Black performance and, if your tactical approach is to “move the big Boks around”, then these are essential components of your performance. Alas for New Zealand supporters, this was not the case.

It was clear from the start that the All Blacks were intent on replicating the successful approach of the British Lions in their recent Third Test victory over South Africa. Quick ball movement, with short passes and “long place” for immediate recycle of the tackle ball, was to form an important part of their approach.

No problems with me so far! I have always loved this style of play. It’s fun for players and spectators and it’s SUCCESSFUL, if it’s well executed! This was where the problems, and there were many, began.

In the first quarter, the approach soon bore fruit. The All Black attack was immediately dangerous and we all thought that, with enough possession, the Springbok defence must be breached. Before long we had Isaac Ross’ excellent try and the All Blacks looked well capable of victory.

Pietersen was sin-binned and South Africa were under more pressure. The All Blacks, however, hell bent on suicide all game, gave away another of many stupid penalties, and gifted an opportunity back into the game for the Springboks. 

Soon after, Isaac Ross was the victim of a most dubious sin-bin decision by the referee, Nigel Owen. This leveled up the numbers for the two teams, but it was a cruel blow for New Zealand, who, in the process, lost their No.1 lineout forward. This was a facet of the game which was always going to be difficult for them; now it was getting closer to impossible.

Before long, under increased pressure without Ross, they over-complicated a defensive lineout and their long throw came unstuck. They defended manfully, but eventually their own five-metre scrum was fractured for a try by Morne Steyn.

By half-time, I had noted a number of great plays.

Great play leading up to try by Isaac Ross.  Fantastic defence by South Africa – Bok scrum feed.  Fantastic kick by Francois Steyn.  Cowan’s amazing tryline tackle on Bakkies Botha.  Huge Springbok scrum wins ball against the head for a try.  Botha’s tackle on Sivivatu!  Habana’s great chase.  Habana’s great chase again, Smith under pressure, three points.

I pointed out to my colleagues that most of the great plays of the first half belonged to South Africa. This was significant, because they had also enjoyed most of the territory and a small majority of possession. It was going to take a massive second half turn-around from the All Black team, if this game was to be saved.

This was not to be! The half-time discussions, I believe, went something like this.

In the All Black camp. “Look guys, when we shift the ball and move them around, we quickly have them under pressure. Look at Isaac’s try. There’s plenty more of that available, we only have to take it!”

And in the Springbok camp. “There’s only one way they can win this match and that’s by keeping the ball in hand and trying to move us around. If we lift our urgency in defence, we’ll have them under pressure and that will cause them to take risks. There will be heaps of opportunity for us here!”

And so it was. As in last week’s game, increased physicality, pressure and power – and indeed plenty of pace – soon gave the Boks a strangle-hold on the game. Lack of technique in the fundamentals of the game saw the All Black performance gradually deteriorate.

“Focus on result and not on performance” frequently caused breakdown of All Black composure and elementary mistakes crept in. As many as five passes did not go to hand at all; a couple more were virtually uncatchable; lineouts were turned over, plus a couple of forced crooked throws; stupid penalties conceded; we even had a clearing pass go directly over the dead-ball line! The saying “More speed. Less haste!” came to mind.

The game became a succession of, the All Blacks trying to run their way out of trouble, under pressure from urgent Springbok defence, concede another penalty. Morne Steyn converts penalty.

The All Blacks were courageous and never gave in, but the Springboks were significantly better. As always, Springbok form away from home will be keenly anticipated. They look a very good side at the moment, and seem to me to be improving each week. Importantly, they appear to have worked out what their best side is. They’ll take some beating! But then again, the Blue Bulls didn’t look that flash in some away games during the Super 14.

The Springbok side took another step up again yesterday. This was naturally influenced by some outstanding individual performances. For me, the following were significant.

Mtawarira was much more prominent. Spies lifted another cog. Brussow was perhaps even better. Morne Steyn had his best test. Habana was really up for it. The Boks were much better under the high ball.

Bob Dwyer.

Q1. The New Zealand commentary team said that “Rodney So’oialo knew that he was off-side, but he had to gather that ball, otherwise the Springboks would almost certainly have scored.” Isn’t that the very definition of “the sin bin”?

Q2. What is the point of putting four substitute players on the pitch, with three minutes to play, as the South African team did yesterday?