Springbok Worrier Ethos Referring to the fans, perhaps?
Otherwise great stuff, haven't gone through it all yet.
Very interesting piece.....defence, defence, defence. And no doubt Nienaber is a defensive guru.....the signaling, edge defence, role of the sweeper all superbly explained in this piece.
This kind of thinking has been part of American football for a long time. The Steelers in the seventies......the great Bears’ defence in the mid 80s.
Fans spent so much time focusing on attacking aspects, they never grasped a good defence can nullify all that and create the platform where even a half competent offensive side must score.
Defence has the advantage in that it's more about maintaining a structure, offence is about breaking that structure. Offence requires more problem solving and sophistication. The easy route to "fixing" the Coetzee model was to limit attack and conceal its weaknesses. Offence also requires risk, a team sitting back can exploit those opens. Kick high up the field, and just hope that you can take your chances whilst minimizing critical openings of one's own as much as possible. Credit to Nienaber.
Alister Coetzee took a Japanese team from first in the league (Defending champions) to 10th in 2 years. He is useless. Simple as. He had no model.
Suddenly he wanted to play running rugby after getting smashed in his first games.
Coetzee think like a backline coach, and seeks to use the backs as the platform, not the pack. His attack figures for the Boks were actually quite high, and there was a big leap from year one to year two. He isn't a great head coach; he harbors the same misguided vision as the plastics who criticized him. He isn't totally useless, however.
So if Coetzee likes to attack, why was the Stormers the lowest try scoring team in Super rugby for ages- despite making it into the quarters many times etc?
“ Posted by: sharkbok (11907 posts)
This was down to defence - as the Stormers had the best defence for years - due to Neinabher. “
Tsk, tsk, tsk. The answer is right there in front of you.
“ Posted by: Augenöffner (4862 posts)
Coetzee think like a backline coach, and seeks to use the backs as the platform, not the pack. ”
Coetzee does not think, he is useless. He was outsmarted with ease by Brendan Venter who coached the Sharks to a Currie Cup victory vs WP in Capetown.
The Stormers had the lowest attack figures because of the Jose Erasmus model. It's uncanny, so I'm perplexed that you asked that question at this point. Coetzee took the blame for being a useless attack coach, but the reality is that he was just a figure-head that Jose hid behind. Now that we have seen the two independently of each other, we can say, without question, that Jose is the source of the bland rugby the Stormers have put out for over a decade. The patterns, the usage of personnel, the same stagnant phaseplay and dead-end carriers... it exists for Boks and Stormers. Jose's Boks are the lowest of all RC teams in his years in charge, in all but one attack figure. They never featured in top 10s on attack in the World Cup either. Skop 'N Pop model is the flavour of the day, with a sprinkling of "lets hope Mapimpi or Kolbe can do something".
Erasmus was Coach of the Year and every rugby expert thinks that he performed wonders with the team in record time. This test was the best ever backline performance I have seen against a Top 6 team in the open era. Previously for many years played a game plan with good backline performances for decades, but the process died out hen the most backward form on rugby took over.
There was some really good performances in the final - with excellent play between forwards and backs with great consequences in scoring two wonderful tries in the Final.