Richard Ferguson

Draw your own conclusions


Written by Richard Ferguson (Richard Ferguson)

Posted in :Bulls, Original Content, Sharks, Super Rugby on 24 May 2011 at 09:01
Tagged with : , , ,

A lot of the readers on here have told me that statistics can manipulated or read in different ways so that it can be portrayed as either a positive or a negative. So it would be natural for any Sharks supporter to go digging in the stats to find some positives from the game against the Bulls. Either this, or you will go searching for a player in specific to blame for the loss. I have put together a few interesting facts and figures about the game, and will leave it up to you to decide whether it is a positive or a negative, and feel free to debate me where I do make a call.

A certain blogger yesterday made a comment yesterday about counting phases and how much South African teams like to do that, even though it is not as effective as we would like it to be. Case in point, the Sharks managed double the amount of rucks/mauls compared to that of the Bulls, and yet both teams scored only two tries, and the Sharks still lost. The Sharks got themselves to 5 phases or more seven times, with the highest being 10 phases, where the Bulls never got past 5 phases.

I would to add that in the Super Rugby competition so far, most tries have been scored from 1st phase ball, which completely throws the counting phases attitude out the window.

We are all already aware of the amount of handling errors made, as this has been much publicised over the last few days. (For those that missed it, the Sharks made 13 compared to the 10 of the Bulls), but I would like to concentrate on other areas which have not really been spoken about.

For instance, the Bulls conceded 19 penalties compared to the 11 by the Sharks, and taking into account that the Sharks had the upper hand in the territory stakes, why were these penalties not put to more use. These penalties specifically exclude any advantage that was played, so the figure is higher than we see here.

With regards to the battle at flyhalf, Lambie got 24 balls during the game compared to the 20 by Steyn. Interestingly enough, Lambie varied his play more than Steyn, where Lambie kicked twice, ran at the defence 3 times and passed 19 balls. Steyn didn’t run the ball at all, kicked away 15 balls and passed a mere 5 times. What exactly can be read into that, I will leave up to you to decide.

To end off, the talk at some point over the past few days was the lack of strike runners and the use of our backline, what is surprising to me is that the Sharks managed more line breaks than the Bulls, even though we can all agree that the Bulls’ line breaks were far more successful. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that the Sharks battle to finish, but we all knew that already.

Thanx must go to ruckingoodstats for their continued great work in analysing rugby statistics.


121 Comments

  • Must be the first time that I’m glad I missed a Sharks game…

    We need some centres, good ones.

  • Comment 1, posted at 24.05.11 09:07:18 by PTAShark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Dragnipur
     
  • We need to lure Brad Barritt back from the Saracens 😈

  • Comment 2, posted at 24.05.11 09:08:47 by SharkyTaylor Reply

    SharkyTaylor
     
  • Interesting facts and I wouldn’t have guessed as such. Perhaps it’s WHERE and WHEN we do make mistakes that is the difference between the sides. In other words the lack of BMT.

  • Comment 3, posted at 24.05.11 09:33:30 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
     
  • Rich, I am completely gobsmacked. How on earth we lost this game based on the stats is beyond me! What amazed me most is the penalties conceded. It seemed SO much more than 11. It just goes to show that we actually performed better than all of us out there in supporterland thought. But that at the end of the day, it’s the numbers on the board that count.
    Re: the “battle of the flyhalves”… I don’t think I need to say what I read into that! :mrgreen:
    :mrgreen:

  • Comment 4, posted at 24.05.11 09:44:49 by SharonvanWyk Reply
    Author
    Shaz
     
  • I still say it`s not one player who let us down but the forward pack as a whole who failed to perform for the fourth time this year.

  • Comment 5, posted at 24.05.11 09:48:58 by Original Pierre Reply
    Author
    Original Pierre
     
  • @SharonvanWyk (Comment 4) :

    It does open your eyes a bit to what went wrong.

    I’m not saying the Sharks have no issues or that they deserved to win, but I think there is more right at the Sharks than most of the supporters think..

  • Comment 6, posted at 24.05.11 09:50:13 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 6) : Agree. They’re just not playing pretty rugby at the moment. And certainly are not playing anywhere near as well as they can.

  • Comment 7, posted at 24.05.11 09:56:49 by SharonvanWyk Reply
    Author
    Shaz
     
  • WTF? not the first time we leading the stats dept and still lost the game. It sure as hell didn’t look like this on Sat night!!!

  • Comment 8, posted at 24.05.11 09:57:15 by SharksRTB Reply

    SharksRTB
     
  • To keep it in perspective I agree with Pokkel completely. Bearing in mind Lambie only missed one kick, it would seem the Bulls were disciplined when in their half while the Sharks conceded penalties in their own half (usually after having been shunted there by a driving maul from a Bulls lineout on their own 22). Secondly, I would wager a fair amount of the Sharks handling errors occurred within 5 meters of the Bulls try line. The battle of the flyhalves was arbitrary. Once the Bulls took a 14 point lead after as many minutes, and were thoroughly humiliating the sharks in both the lineouts and driving mauls, there was only ever going to be one tactic transferred to Morne’s already one track mind. Kick for touch, often and from anywhere.

  • Comment 9, posted at 24.05.11 09:59:51 by Pablo Dinero Reply

    Pablo Dinero
     
  • @SharonvanWyk (Comment 4) : @Richard Ferguson (Comment 6) : Gobsmacked is a good word because watching the game it felt as if we were well and truely rodgered. Maybe that is what happens when the points are scored against you at a rate of knots at the beginning of the game and you have to claw your way back.

  • Comment 10, posted at 24.05.11 10:00:01 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
     
  • Most important stats not shown… missed tackles and meters gained. I would assume the Bulls gained more meters off one rolling maul than the Sharks backline achieved the whole night.

  • Comment 11, posted at 24.05.11 10:02:37 by Pablo Dinero Reply

    Pablo Dinero
     
  • @Pablo Dinero (Comment 11) : I would second that assumption. The Bulls maul was not rolling, it was a freaking steam train at full throttle… 😯

  • Comment 12, posted at 24.05.11 10:06:51 by SharonvanWyk Reply
    Author
    Shaz
     
  • Guys have become to complacent..I don’t care what anyone says..john smit still is the best hooker to lead out..bismarck..I don’t know so much..

  • Comment 13, posted at 24.05.11 10:07:14 by shaniboi Reply

    shaniboi
     
  • @Pablo Dinero (Comment 11) :

    Missed tackles:

    Sharks 9 (1 in every 6 attempts)
    Bulls 15 (1 in every 7 attempts)

    Meters Gained:

    Sharks 835 meters
    Bulls 401 meters

    I found these stats unimportant in the bigger scheme of things but will include going forward for completeness!

  • Comment 14, posted at 24.05.11 10:08:32 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • certainly stats can be used to justify anything…the stormers conceded more penalties in the win against the blues but conceded less in the loss against the chiefs, so is it a case of infringe but just be careful of where you do it?

  • Comment 15, posted at 24.05.11 10:08:46 by Megatron Reply

    Megatron
     
  • And just for all those calling for Ludik’s head, he made the most running meters at a staggering 141meters in the match.

    Only van den Heever has more after running 100m before tripping over his own boots..

  • Comment 16, posted at 24.05.11 10:09:44 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • I think stats can paint a picture but they do need to be viewed in the context of the game and where and how they occurred and what the result was from the kick, knock on or missed tackle etc.
    I think the Bulls won the collisions and lineouts and if you dont win or at least achieve parity in those 2 facets then you arent gonna win a rugby game. Its as simple as that really.

  • Comment 17, posted at 24.05.11 10:10:58 by SheldonK Reply

    SheldonK
     
  • Bismarck got shown up to such an extent we`ll probably have him for the whole CC !
    Not too bad for CC level me thinks! :mrgreen:

  • Comment 18, posted at 24.05.11 10:11:49 by Original Pierre Reply
    Author
    Original Pierre
     
  • Those that follow the stats from ruggastats might have noticed that the handling errors I have quotes here are much lower than theirs.

    This is as a result of ruggastats including backward knocks and wayward passes that are not necessarily lost ball, in their count.

    Ruckingoodstats only include those handling errors that actually result in loss of ball.

  • Comment 19, posted at 24.05.11 10:14:12 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • You can not look at stats and wonder why we lost and say that a player did good based on running meters etc,it’s how the players do under certain circumstances etc.
    What does it matter if we have more of the ball if we are stuck in our own half.

  • Comment 20, posted at 24.05.11 10:15:42 by Honey Badger Reply

    Honey Badger
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 14) : Thanks. It wasnt a criticism on your article, just a query. Again, these would seem to not be self evident from the game I watched, but then again, the Bulls made meters when they counted (ie close to the Sharks line) while the sharks made meters in the final 20 minutes when the game was lost. The missed tackles stat is also misleading it would appear. Bulls probably missed a few around rucks and mauls (see Pierre Spies) or open field late in the game and then scrambled to defend. The Sharks missed 4 tackles in 2 plays both resulting in tries.

  • Comment 21, posted at 24.05.11 10:17:13 by Pablo Dinero Reply

    Pablo Dinero
     
  • Rich – not mean to question these stats – but the stats on ruggastats are completely different and defnitely portrays a better picture of how we all felt that the team played…am I just not reading it right?

  • Comment 22, posted at 24.05.11 10:17:55 by Ice Reply
    Competition Winner Ice
     
  • Just a thought….
    Were the players informed that this is super(15) rugby and not super14?
    Because normally 43 log points will get you into a semi…..

  • Comment 23, posted at 24.05.11 10:19:12 by SharksRTB Reply

    SharksRTB
     
  • My comment on a previous post might just be more fitting here:

    @franshark (Comment 27) : Frans – I always maintain that most men (and some woman) analyses the game too much for their own good and then stop enjoying an overall performance, simply for the love of the game…

    Comment 36, posted at 24.05.11 10:06:43 by Ice

  • Comment 24, posted at 24.05.11 10:19:37 by Ice Reply
    Competition Winner Ice
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 16) : I dont think anyone is calling for Ludicks head, I think its more a case of “accommodating” Stef in the team and if thats to be done then rather do it at fullback than at centre, unfair to Ludick, yes, but could be seen in the view of Stef being a more solid fullback than a centre.

  • Comment 25, posted at 24.05.11 10:20:11 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
     
  • @Pablo Dinero (Comment 21) :

    I honestly don’t mind criticism, it makes for a better article next time.

    I agree with what you say, unfortunately stats are not of the nature that you can describe when an error occured or even what lead to the error.

    For instance, nowhere can you read in the stats that the Bulls defence is what forced most of the handling errors purely as a result of the pressure they put on us.

  • Comment 26, posted at 24.05.11 10:21:46 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 19) : I think the stats tell us that we have the goods, just not the wherewithall to use them properly and to our best advantage. The game was lost, mentally, when the half-time whistle went.

  • Comment 27, posted at 24.05.11 10:22:24 by SharonvanWyk Reply
    Author
    Shaz
     
  • @Salmonoid (Comment 25) : Agree 100%.
    Ludick tried his best out there.

  • Comment 28, posted at 24.05.11 10:23:22 by Original Pierre Reply
    Author
    Original Pierre
     
  • The sad thing is that it was a really fun to watch this game, right up until the kickoff screwed the festivities up.

  • Comment 29, posted at 24.05.11 10:24:01 by Pablo Dinero Reply

    Pablo Dinero
     
  • @Ice (Comment 22) :

    As noted in comment 19, they use a different system to complete their stats to what ruckingoodstats use, and as a result they are not 100% comparable, in specific the handling errors.

    What else does not make sense Ice?

  • Comment 30, posted at 24.05.11 10:28:40 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • @Ice (Comment 22) : @Richard Ferguson (Comment 26) :

    We are all already aware of the amount of handling errors made, as this has been much publicised over the last few days. (For those that missed it, the Sharks made 13 compared to the 10 of the Bulls), but I would like to concentrate on other areas which have not really been spoken about.

    Please see my question.. 😉

  • Comment 31, posted at 24.05.11 10:29:29 by Ice Reply
    Competition Winner Ice
     
  • @Original Pierre (Comment 28) : Again, thats a very misleading stat. The Bulls went through a stage of kicking the ball deep. Ludick had 30 meters to run before there was a Bull in the same postal code. Im not saying he didnt try hard, but meters gained in this instance dont tell the story… did he break any tackles or make any offloads?

  • Comment 32, posted at 24.05.11 10:30:25 by Pablo Dinero Reply

    Pablo Dinero
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 19) : @Ice (Comment 31) :

    See my response to that exact point in comment 19..

  • Comment 33, posted at 24.05.11 10:31:28 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • @Pablo Dinero (Comment 32) :

    Ludik broke the line once (one of the five line breaks) made a tackle and missed a tackle..

  • Comment 34, posted at 24.05.11 10:33:11 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • @Ice (Comment 31) : Like the fact that watching the Sharks take on the Bulls in the rolling maul was like watching Jonah Lomu walk on top of Mike Catt all over again?

  • Comment 35, posted at 24.05.11 10:33:55 by Pablo Dinero Reply

    Pablo Dinero
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 34) : In other words an average day at the office… not a good one.

  • Comment 36, posted at 24.05.11 10:34:30 by Pablo Dinero Reply

    Pablo Dinero
     
  • @Pablo Dinero (Comment 36) :

    Average to say the least..

  • Comment 37, posted at 24.05.11 10:37:33 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • Rich, stats are useful, but one does need a bit more to pinpoint the problem – can’t do it without examining the stats though.

    Problem for the Sharks was partly finishing, and this was often because we were uninspired and predictable on attack.

    Linebreaks also came to naught because rucking was poor – ball turned over, penalties conceded or, at best, slow ball secured.

    Would be interesting to see who gained the meters for us. Surely not the outside backs?

  • Comment 38, posted at 24.05.11 10:38:20 by Big Fish Reply
    Author
    Big Fish
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 38) :

    I hear what you are saying, and if you hadn’t noticed, it was you I was referring to at the beginning of the article..

    Meters gained:

    Beast – 24m
    Bis – 22m
    Jannie – 12m
    Sykes – 10m
    Hargreaves – 0m
    Botes – 25m
    Deysel – 35m
    Alberts – 45m

    McLeod – 94m
    Lambie – 87m
    JPP – 65m
    Adi – 66m
    Stef – 79m
    Odwa – 65m
    Ludik – 141m

    Hoffmann 31m

  • Comment 39, posted at 24.05.11 10:42:02 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • The Bulls tries came from poor tackling and to be honest a shakey defencive structure and understanding. Missed tackles and handling errors. Locks need and midfield played poorly -I feel inclined to mention that I think lambie is being obstructed by some of his own players ,the forwards keep standing infront of him ,so the ball just get distributed and only at wing or 13 do we straighten the line

  • Comment 40, posted at 24.05.11 10:42:15 by Talent Reply
    Author
    Talent
     
  • Sykes – 10m
    Hargreaves – 0m 🙁
    Matfield and Botha comparisons?

  • Comment 41, posted at 24.05.11 10:43:37 by Talent Reply
    Author
    Talent
     
  • Interesting aswell , scrumhalves have a restricted space with ball in hand

  • Comment 42, posted at 24.05.11 10:44:39 by Talent Reply
    Author
    Talent
     
  • @Talent (Comment 41) :

    Bakkies – 8m
    Matfield – 7m

  • Comment 43, posted at 24.05.11 10:45:04 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • Bulls concedeing 19 penalties to the sharks 11 and still won – smells of negative rugby – do anything to stop the try. Maybe the Sharks were naive in taking the high ground so to speak.

  • Comment 44, posted at 24.05.11 10:45:15 by Just a Fan Reply

    Just a Fan
     
  • @Talent (Comment 41) :

    But honestly, we don’t need our locks to gain running meters with the wings we have at our disposal..

  • Comment 45, posted at 24.05.11 10:45:47 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 43) : Then amount of breakdowns hit? per lock paring

  • Comment 46, posted at 24.05.11 10:46:51 by Talent Reply
    Author
    Talent
     
  • Hargreaves 0m?? Well at least he made up for it in the lineouts :mrgreen:

  • Comment 47, posted at 24.05.11 10:47:06 by Pablo Dinero Reply

    Pablo Dinero
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 45) : yeah I just got the impression that the bulls locks killed us and dannie rossouw was superb at flank ,perhaps a contender for number 8 springbok jersey? I certainly would rather have him than spies or vermulen

  • Comment 48, posted at 24.05.11 10:49:14 by Talent Reply
    Author
    Talent
     
  • My two cents, we lost the game because the Bulls blitzed us in the beginning of the game, champion teams have another gear and they used it at the start of the first half. The rest of the game was pretty even and I could even say we dominated the game for most of the second half. If we had scored after that linebreak from McLeod we would have been in the game, but we fluffed that chance and nearly conceded a try after that.

  • Comment 49, posted at 24.05.11 10:51:02 by war1 Reply
    Author
    war1
     
  • @Talent (Comment 46) :

    Bakkies/Matfield hit 23 rucks between them

    Sykes/Hargreaves hit 39 rucks

  • Comment 50, posted at 24.05.11 10:53:09 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 39) :
    Thanks Rich.

    That tells me that firstly, the forwards were ineffectual in crossing the gain line. I don’t expect locks to necessarily be great ball carriers, but those 10m net gain is shocking when coupled with a poor lineout and anonymity at the rucks.

    Secondly the fact that we didn’t change gameplan despite those forwards being knocked back speak of lack of “heads-up rugby”.

    Thirdly, the lack of metres from the wings is just sad. JPP left Basson for dead in the first 5 minutes and never got the chance again.

    This guy scored something like 12 super rugby tries in a season in 2007, despite being just 20. That was under Dick Muir, and since then he has pretty much just become a defensive powerhouse out wide.

    Mvovo also has the attacking ability, but also seldom sees enough ball. Sad.

  • Comment 51, posted at 24.05.11 10:53:50 by Big Fish Reply
    Author
    Big Fish
     
  • In a nutshell the Bulls took their chances when points were on offer and we did not. Even when we scored our two tries, Morne Steyn kept us out of touch by putting the penalties over, which is why he was deservedly man of the match.

  • Comment 52, posted at 24.05.11 10:54:43 by war1 Reply
    Author
    war1
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 16) : made more metres running towards what exactly? for me ludik is NOT a threat, he can run straight for sure but he certainly has no guile, sidestep or electrifying pace! there’s nothing WOW about ludik.

  • Comment 53, posted at 24.05.11 10:55:08 by Megatron Reply

    Megatron
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 51) : I think that hit the nail on the head. The Sharks spread the ball near the end when the game was lost. They tried far to much bash it up rugby, that didnt work and only resulted in turning over ball. Gone is the style employed during the Currie Cup in 2010.

  • Comment 54, posted at 24.05.11 10:57:19 by Pablo Dinero Reply

    Pablo Dinero
     
  • @Megatron (Comment 53) :

    I don’t argue that at all..

    But he has a far great work rate and is much better than any other player in the current set up that can play full back..

  • Comment 55, posted at 24.05.11 10:58:04 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 34) : in more than a 100m of running he broke the line once?!!!! meaning he was either tackled backwards or was running back from his own goalline back into play…and you are still defending this oke 😀

  • Comment 56, posted at 24.05.11 10:58:35 by Megatron Reply

    Megatron
     
  • @Megatron (Comment 56) : He was adopting the Pierre Spies approach to gaining meters… run in the other direction.. fast!! 😆

  • Comment 57, posted at 24.05.11 11:00:46 by Pablo Dinero Reply

    Pablo Dinero
     
  • Reading the article and the comments posted I would have to agree with Richard and say that it is the sharks ability to finish that is lacking. Secondly it is where you make those mistakes and pick up the stats that makes the difference at the end of 80 minutes. But surely if you pick up 19 penalties you have to put it to better use?

  • Comment 58, posted at 24.05.11 11:03:15 by Viking Reply
    Author
    Viking
     
  • The fact that Steyn was kicking 3 in 4 balls received shows that he kept us pinned in our own half. Everytime just to run it back and lose the ball wherby it starts all over again. Teritorial advantage at the right time in the game is very important even if you do not have the ball you keep the other team from getting withiin reach.

  • Comment 59, posted at 24.05.11 11:07:56 by Viking Reply
    Author
    Viking
     
  • @Megatron (Comment 56) :
    I hear what you are saying, and I think Odwa should be considered at 15 (and Oupa, if they really can’t bare to play without him), but let’s be fair: unlike with teams like the Crusaders, the Sharks do not fall back to create running options for the fullback.

  • Comment 60, posted at 24.05.11 11:08:12 by Big Fish Reply
    Author
    Big Fish
     
  • @Viking (Comment 58) : I agree. I was stunned by the fact that they conceded more penalties and yet we paid the price. On reflection, though, the penalties we conceded were within kicking distance, the ones we gained were not all kickable, and we used up a lot of those penalties with kick-and-gos on the 5m-line aiming for tries which never amounted to anything.

  • Comment 61, posted at 24.05.11 11:09:35 by SharonvanWyk Reply
    Author
    Shaz
     
  • Aaahh stats… My favourite!

    Before I start let me state something very important. In my opinion, stats serves to illuminate aspects of play in rugby, it does not support it (success/failure).

    Now, it is stated that the Sharks enjoyed double the amount of rucks than the Bulls did (unfortunately Rich does not give the count but given you usually have about 150 rucks in rugby, I would take this as substantial) putting the ball through multiple phases sometimes even 10!

    Given they achieved this, it is not that hard to imagine they would have had more line-breaks – they had the ball to make more!

    So now we have to ask, what does that tell us about the game in context?

    If the Sharks managed to hold on, and control the ball more than the Bulls through large parts of the game, why could they not score points?

    It comes down to the fact that it does not matter that you have the ball, it is what you do with it.

    The Sharks employ a simple tactic, they have 3 main strike runners and they use, and rely on these guys to create momentum. The Bulls realised this as the Stormers.

    The problem with the Sharks strike runners is they are all forwards, Alberts, Deysel, Bismarck – put two or three defenders on these boys and you take away their main strike weapon.

    The fact that they put on so many phases but were innefective, also raises the question on the quality of ball they enjoyed at each phase?

    Was the majority of them over the advantage line? Was it clean and quick?

    If not, then were the cleaners and support players doing their job at the rucks or did the Bulls forwards and loosies win this battle?

    Also, given they had double the amount of rucks than the Bulls, I am quite shocked that Lambie only ‘handled’ the ball 4 more times than Steyn!

    Why wasn’t he used as first receiver more? Is this perhaps one of the major problems?

    OR

    Even though stats may show he ‘varied’ his play well, but the result shows he did not dictate play effectively.

    Momentum, or ‘pace’ on the ball is created more often than not by your scrumhalf and flyhalf. This does not just mean by carrying the ball up, or passing often, it means effective kicks too!

    Given the stats, I would suggest the Sharks mainly attacked the channels ‘close in’ of the Bulls, thereby becoming congested with the Bulls only left to guard these channels and smash their opponents in contact, depriving them of momentum.

    The Bulls however played away from the Sharks forward with ball in hand, their wider game meant they played away from the Sharks main weapon – possibly even the Sharks weakness.

    What you look for in execution is your success ‘strike rate’, meaning that compared to how many times you handle the ball, how often did you cross the advantage line, or make a line break.

    For example, if the Sharks won 80 rucks, or carried the ball up 80 times, how many times did they successfully cross the gain line or make a line break?

    If the answer is 20 for instance, it means their strike rate is 25% only.

    If the Bulls only won 40, but made 15 line-breaks or crossed the advantage line, their strike rate will be much higher.

    I would love to know how many times the ball moved past the inside center for both teams…

  • Comment 62, posted at 24.05.11 11:10:44 by Morné Reply
    Author
    Morné
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 60) : look i understand, it’s not only the sharks, in SA only the lions & cheetahs do it Taute/Kamana & Killian are supported most of the time, Riaan Viljoen also gets support.

  • Comment 63, posted at 24.05.11 11:14:10 by Megatron Reply

    Megatron
     
  • @Morné (Comment 62) : Well I doubt that the ball was moved past the inside centre channel much. Timotei made the most tackles (15) in the game. Other than that make of it what you want.

  • Comment 64, posted at 24.05.11 11:16:18 by Viking Reply
    Author
    Viking
     
  • @Morné (Comment 62) : As you say, Lambie may have varied is play more but Steyn dictated the game better from 10. He kicked more but kept us pinned by kiking into the corners and making us turn arround and start again. Good playing strategy for the day.

  • Comment 65, posted at 24.05.11 11:17:38 by Viking Reply
    Author
    Viking
     
  • @Morné (Comment 62) :

    You say things so much better than I can even dream up..

    I am looking into getting those ruck/maul stats for you..

  • Comment 66, posted at 24.05.11 11:18:32 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • @Viking (Comment 65) :

    Yeah its quite simple, the Bulls were allowed to effectively play to their strengths, the Sharks weren’t.

  • Comment 67, posted at 24.05.11 11:19:28 by Morné Reply
    Author
    Morné
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 66) :

    Nah mate, you are quite correct in saying stats are only important when viewed in context. It is used far too often to state an argument, and that can never be done with conviction.

  • Comment 68, posted at 24.05.11 11:21:18 by Morné Reply
    Author
    Morné
     
  • @Viking (Comment 65) : Did he now? I don’t actually think Morne dictates anything. My take on it is that he does what he is told to do (Frans: “Morne… net skop, asseblief”. Morne: “Seker, baas.”) I don’t think he has the capacity to think on his feet. He’s there to kick. Nothing more.
    Sorry, but that’s my opinion.

  • Comment 69, posted at 24.05.11 11:23:32 by SharonvanWyk Reply
    Author
    Shaz
     
  • @SharonvanWyk (Comment 69) : Regardless of who made the decision to kick he had to execute. I do not believe that Steyn has the ability to vary his game as much but the game suited him on the day. He played to his strengths and it worked for them. That is why I say he dictated the game better from 10.

  • Comment 70, posted at 24.05.11 11:29:29 by Viking Reply
    Author
    Viking
     
  • Another very interesting point to ponder.

    “Most tries in Super Rugby are scored of first phase”

    This is where your forwards are tied up in a scrum or a line-out, meaning that your striking weapons are more often than not, backline players.

    Does the Sharks have a strike weapon in the backline? Do they ever use him/them?

    Is this not where they are missing a trick?

    Defenses are most effectively broken at first phase play – reason is quite simple, it is set and you can implement pre-determined plans to break them down.

    Multi-phase defenses are unpredictable, and you rely on players to ‘out-think’, out-muscle, or out-pace defenders to gain an advantage.

    Given how few times Lambie handled the ball (compared to the amount of possession they had) they could not out-think the Bulls, their playmaker did not have the ball enough to effectively do this.

    Of course they tried to out-muscle the Bulls defense, but the Bulls simply fought muscle with mucle, and won that fight.

    Sharks do not have strike runners to out-pace the Bulls defense.

    Quite simply, Sharks are missing a trick, and have been terribly exposed as being limited in their approach.

  • Comment 71, posted at 24.05.11 11:30:16 by Morné Reply
    Author
    Morné
     
  • Yes – we battle to finish, and we seemed very intimidated by their biggest defender… That big open tryline… Our handling was atrocious – this is a momentum thief… Our defending in midfield remains poor and our set-piece is one of the worst in the competition… Lies, damn lies and statistics… We are poor at the moment and if we battle to gain supremacy VS the Tahs then the icing is on the cake for this tournament.

    I am sad that the only way Lwazi gets on the park is because of injury… He is too good to be left out – yes Odwa is playing some consistent rugby and can’t be dropped – then JPP is pure class – so what do you do? You gamble and drop your shit centres and put JPP in @ 13 and Lambie @ 12 and JLP @ 10 – Look at how easily “Shadow” slotted in at 15 for the Bulls – take calculated risks and stop being so boring, so one dimensional and so stoic on your substitution policy damnit!

    JUST DO SOMETHING AND SHOW US YOU WANT TO PLAY RUGBY!!!!!!!!!!

  • Comment 72, posted at 24.05.11 11:31:43 by DarkDestroyer Reply

    Richard
     
  • @Morné (Comment 71) : Very well said…

  • Comment 73, posted at 24.05.11 11:32:26 by Viking Reply
    Author
    Viking
     
  • @Morné (Comment 71) : So, can we say that bosman and Stef are good players but lack the ability to be used as trike runners? How do we get runner like JPP, Odwa or Mvovo more into the game on first phase attack other than a double skip pass?

  • Comment 74, posted at 24.05.11 11:34:31 by Viking Reply
    Author
    Viking
     
  • OK, so we struggle in the back… particularly at 9, 12 and 13. Mmmmm. The only statistic that matters here is how three individuals got buggered around by Dick Muir at the sharks and two of them at the boks, now we are without Steyn, Barritt and Pienaar.

  • Comment 75, posted at 24.05.11 11:38:12 by King Shark Reply
    Author
    King Shark
     
  • @Morné (Comment 71) :
    Morne, I agree with most of what you say – particularly about us being outmuscled and not adapting to that – but I disagree that we don’t have the pace in the backs to burn the Bulls, or any team.

    Adi, Mvovo, JPP and Ludik have more than enough pace to take on and beat defences: we just don’t use them well.

    The forward-orientated style we play means that other than Lambie varying HIS OWN play by kicking, passing or running, their is little variation in skip passes, running angles, inside passes etc.

    Talk of set phase play, and when last did you see JPP or Mvovo brought in to run at the forwards or into gaps? Just doesn’t happen.

  • Comment 76, posted at 24.05.11 11:38:33 by Big Fish Reply
    Author
    Big Fish
     
  • @Viking (Comment 74) : Turn one of them into a center.

  • Comment 77, posted at 24.05.11 11:40:31 by King Shark Reply
    Author
    King Shark
     
  • @Viking (Comment 74) :

    Unless there is a bad mistake in the opposition defense, Jean de Villiers is never used as a strike runner (breaks first line defenses), he sets them up (Mossie, Aplon, etc).

    Point is, they are looking at ways to bring Mossie and Aplon into the game.

    I cannot remember one instance where you could positively identify a move or plan by the Sharks to ever bring Ludik or JPP into the game. They almost always receive the ball in a defensive situation (being kicked on) or through a thoughtless backline move which sees them with no time or space to work with.

    I am not saying the Sharks don’t have the strike runners, what I am saying is they never bring them into the game, hence their play is predictable and one-dimensional and effectively, easy to defend against.

    Match their big ball carriers physically, and you will more often than not beat them.

  • Comment 78, posted at 24.05.11 11:40:34 by Morné Reply
    Author
    Morné
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 76) :

    Yeah basically what I said in #78.

  • Comment 79, posted at 24.05.11 11:41:30 by Morné Reply
    Author
    Morné
     
  • As has been said a few times… Sharks NEED to invest in technical coaches… Defense.Attack.Set-Piece.

  • Comment 80, posted at 24.05.11 11:42:02 by DarkDestroyer Reply

    Richard
     
  • @DarkDestroyer (Comment 80) :

    As is the case in rugby since 1900.

    You have to continually ‘add’ to your profile as a team to stay on top.

    The Sharks added nothing since 2010, and given the time teams had to study their approach, it was inevitable that they would have devised ways to counter them.

  • Comment 81, posted at 24.05.11 11:47:24 by Morné Reply
    Author
    Morné
     
  • @Morné (Comment 79) : Agree with you there. We need to get the wings and fullback more into the game. Wre have not used our set pieces very effectively this year and I would like to see Lambie develop his game there a bit more so that we can use those option to more effect. However, I do not believe that our current centre combo is effective ebough to get us ober the gain line and get the back 3 into the game more. They are to predictable in their play, but so is our entire backline at the moment.

  • Comment 82, posted at 24.05.11 11:49:07 by Viking Reply
    Author
    Viking
     
  • It all comes back coaching and in particular the lack of a decent backline coach.

  • Comment 83, posted at 24.05.11 11:50:36 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
     
  • @ darkdestroyer its at least two seasons I am saying that! I work with oom Rudi’s cousin maybe we should all sign a petition asking for centres, defence coach and technical advisors and ill ask my colleague to give it to Rudolf at the next family reunion 😈

  • Comment 84, posted at 24.05.11 11:50:54 by Sharksmad - The Blog's Dudette Reply

    Sharksmad - The Blog's Dudette
     
  • @Morné (Comment 81) : Yep… Too late in the season to develop new things technically, but what is disappointing is that we can’t execute our only game plan – despite opposing teams knowing what we are made of, we don’t even show them at the moment. For a team with only one game plan – you’d think that they would at least be proficient at it? Please someone explain why we no longer have a functioning lineout?

  • Comment 85, posted at 24.05.11 11:52:29 by DarkDestroyer Reply

    Richard
     
  • @King Shark (Comment 75) : In all honesty, Dick has been gone for a long time. we need to stop reminiscing of what could have been had certain players not left and focus on whereto from here. Barrit, Steyn and Pienaar is gone. Would we like them back? Probably. Will they return? Other than Pienaar, no one has shown any intentions to return to the tank.

  • Comment 86, posted at 24.05.11 11:52:34 by Viking Reply
    Author
    Viking
     
  • @Viking (Comment 82) : That’s why I have been advocating that we turn Kanko and Oddie into our new centre pairing. 😯

  • Comment 87, posted at 24.05.11 11:52:48 by King Shark Reply
    Author
    King Shark
     
  • @Viking (Comment 86) : One word: Chequebook!

  • Comment 88, posted at 24.05.11 11:53:31 by King Shark Reply
    Author
    King Shark
     
  • @Sharksmad – The Blog’s Dudette (Comment 84) : For a team with such a budget – we have a kak technical set-up… World class facilities, world class players, world class fitness regime – KAK technical support…

  • Comment 89, posted at 24.05.11 11:54:07 by DarkDestroyer Reply

    Richard
     
  • @Pokkel (Comment 83) : It really makes sense when you read the comments posted here today. The backline has not had alot of firepower and is really needed to round off our game.

  • Comment 90, posted at 24.05.11 11:55:09 by Viking Reply
    Author
    Viking
     
  • @DarkDestroyer (Comment 85) :

    No need to develop new things across the board – just tweek.

    A lot in rugby change, but the basics remain the same.

    Get the basics right, and that means line-out and scrums first.

    Also, just start getting clever, us Lambie more as first receiver so the boy can dictate – add variation – use Alberts, Bismarck as decoys in plays (as they will have 2 guys on them all the time guarranteed) freeing up space for other players.

    It’s not rocket science nor should it be.

    Make the best of what you got – evolution in rugby or evolving your game takes time, Sharks should be patient.

  • Comment 91, posted at 24.05.11 11:56:29 by Morné Reply
    Author
    Morné
     
  • @DarkDestroyer (Comment 89) : Ouch!!!! But true…

  • Comment 92, posted at 24.05.11 11:56:46 by Viking Reply
    Author
    Viking
     
  • Marius Joubert will make some difference.

    But I would also like to see the Sharks back some of their youngsters more.

  • Comment 93, posted at 24.05.11 11:57:42 by Morné Reply
    Author
    Morné
     
  • @Morné (Comment 91) : Yes… Agreed. Indeed… Lets see what happens this coming week. I sincerely hope its not bang – crash – pass – bang – crash etc…

  • Comment 94, posted at 24.05.11 11:58:09 by DarkDestroyer Reply

    Richard
     
  • @Sharksmad – The Blog’s Dudette (Comment 84) : let me know how that works out for you…. :mrgreen:

  • Comment 95, posted at 24.05.11 11:58:26 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylan
     
  • @DarkDestroyer (Comment 94) : More like swish, blegh, try!

  • Comment 96, posted at 24.05.11 12:02:40 by King Shark - Kanko at 12! Reply
    Author
    King Shark
     
  • @King Shark (Comment 87) : Just once I would like us to try that. If not for anything other than to get you an answer of what will happen.

  • Comment 97, posted at 24.05.11 12:02:55 by Viking Reply
    Author
    Viking
     
  • @Morné (Comment 93) : Bosman also didn’t have the impact you predicted in the beginning of the season. Is it him or the coaching? Also the Cheetah’s backline seems to be doing just fine without him.

  • Comment 98, posted at 24.05.11 12:04:12 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
     
  • @Dark destroyer exactly what frustrates me after each unsuccessful SR season!

  • Comment 99, posted at 24.05.11 12:04:27 by Sharksmad - The Blog's Dudette Reply

    Sharksmad - The Blog's Dudette
     
  • @Viking (Comment 97) : Kanko is our SBW! (Or could be…)

  • Comment 100, posted at 24.05.11 12:06:10 by King Shark - Kanko at 12! Reply
    Author
    King Shark
     
  • @DarkDestroyer (Comment 94) : I’m sorry, but bang – crash – pass!? I must have missed the pass the one time I went to fetch a beer…

  • Comment 101, posted at 24.05.11 12:06:21 by Culling Song Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Culling Song
     
  • @King Shark – Kanko at 12! (Comment 100) : I just wish we can get a good centre from our ranks rather than having to buy one or move another player from his prefered position to fill the gap.

  • Comment 102, posted at 24.05.11 12:08:08 by Viking Reply
    Author
    Viking
     
  • @Rob I don’t think I’ll have much success 🙂

  • Comment 103, posted at 24.05.11 12:08:09 by Sharksmad - The Blog's Dudette Reply

    Sharksmad - The Blog's Dudette
     
  • @Pokkel (Comment 98) :

    Mate in all honesty, not one Sharks backline player has had any impact!

  • Comment 104, posted at 24.05.11 12:11:45 by Morné Reply
    Author
    Morné
     
  • @Pokkel (Comment 98) : So Barry Geel and Corne Uys are both better options?

  • Comment 105, posted at 24.05.11 12:18:32 by Original Pierre Reply
    Author
    Original Pierre
     
  • @Sharksmad – The Blog’s Dudette (Comment 103) : nah – you’ll have none. Trust me 🙂

  • Comment 106, posted at 24.05.11 12:20:01 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylan
     
  • @Culling Song (Comment 101) : Nah we were chatting about tweeking the game, so wishful thinking putting that pass in there… 😉

  • Comment 107, posted at 24.05.11 12:26:10 by DarkDestroyer Reply

    Richard
     
  • @SharonvanWyk (Comment 69) : “seker baas” go Shazzy :mrgreen:

  • Comment 108, posted at 24.05.11 12:46:52 by Megatron Reply

    Megatron
     
  • Haha guys this is so funny, it almost makes up for the bad rugby news. Courtesy of iol.co.za:

    Teams not pleasured by sex toys

    By Dasen Thathiah

    Sharks and Blue Bulls management are not pleased that their brands have been linked with these pleasure rings.

    Vibrating pleasure rings bearing branding similar to two provincial rugby teams are causing a stir.

    The cheeky items, created by STA Healthcare and Pharmaceutical Engineering, feature either a blue bull or a shark on the packaging. They went on sale ahead of Saturday’s match.

    However, Sean Armstrong, who is behind the concept, said the product was designed with tongue firmly in cheek.

    “Some will laugh and some will take it the wrong way. It’s more about the novelty of the item than its actual use as a pleasure ring.”

    On a possible trademark infringement, he said he hoped rugby bosses would see the humour in the rings, but his company was prepared for a legal battle if it boiled down to it.

    After the much-publicised Tiger Woods sex scandal, Armstrong and his team capitalised on the hype by launching the Tiger’s Wood Pack, which contains condoms and sex enhancements.

    “We had a legal battle then with Tiger’s law firm and if we have a similar situation with the rugby bosses, then we are prepared for that.”

    Armstrong said sales had exceeded expectations and the first batch of Blouhoring and Shark Attack pleasure rings had sold out.

    Sharks chief executive Brian van Zyl said that although he had not seen the items, he disapproved of them.

    “All our licences are approved by Signet (licensing and marketing agent). But we would never, ever want the Sharks brand to be associated with something like that,” he said.

    Blue Bulls chief executive Barend van Graan agreed, saying he would not want the franchise brand linked to pleasure rings.

    “I don’t know anything about it yet, but I will look into it. We have got an agreement with Signet, who handle the licensing of our merchandise.”

    Van Graan said all items representing the Bulls brand had to be cleared by the management. – Daily News

  • Comment 109, posted at 24.05.11 13:13:05 by KingRiaan Reply

    KingRiaan
     
  • the biggest problem the sharks have is that when they do eventually get to the tryline, they freeze and don’t know what to do with the ball. That is when our ball gets slowed down and that is when the opposition regroups and stop us. We need to get the ball wide as soon as possible and I promise you we will score loads of tries. Everybody know we will pass the ball to bissie or alberts as soon as we hit the tryline, so why don’t we just send the ball wide as soon as possible and surprise everybody. I’m not sure if I can take a beating again this w-end, it’s making me old

  • Comment 110, posted at 24.05.11 13:14:26 by jovner Reply

    jovner
     
  • @KingRiaan (Comment 109) : :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: Almost as bad as those dangling balls that a lot of people have on the towbar of their bakkies.

  • Comment 111, posted at 24.05.11 13:34:59 by Viking Reply
    Author
    Viking
     
  • @Original Pierre (Comment 105) : Just wondering!

  • Comment 112, posted at 24.05.11 14:01:24 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
     
  • @Pokkel (Comment 112) : :mrgreen: Hey no arguments from my side!

  • Comment 113, posted at 24.05.11 14:09:56 by Original Pierre Reply
    Author
    Original Pierre
     
  • I have a simple question. Last year we played with almost an identical team against an almost identical Stormers AND Bulls team. We won those games and there were never any question about our line-out ability vs. the likes of Bekker, Matfield, Bakkies. Our forwards were dominant. Now all of a sudden the media questions the team’s ability to win line-outs against these teams, and on the day it seems like they were right. WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? We HAVE locks, tall locks, just as good as other teams. We have forwards, bigger and better than most, but we get crushed. WHY? I dont give a damn if someone knows we play with our forwards. Even if teams know Willem Alberts or Jean Deysel are going to run at them, these blokes are huge, they are still suppose to break through the defence. And if an opposing team uses more than one tackler, then there should be space available where a runner can be used. All I am trying to say is that I think the team doubt their abilities. We won with the same team vs the same teams, but suddenly we cant jump, run, tackle, maul….

  • Comment 114, posted at 24.05.11 14:58:01 by SmileyFace Reply

     
  • @SmileyFace (Comment 114) : hey dude – welcome to the site.

    Yes, your question is telling…. Wish I knew what the answer was.

  • Comment 115, posted at 24.05.11 15:02:14 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylan
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 115) : From Dewaldt Potgieters column in Supersport:

    Chiliboy accomplished what is known as a Triple Crown in the award ceremony, as he walked away with the most tackles, the biggest hit, and the highest work rate trophies. Evidently, the prospect of playing against the incumbent Springbok hookers resulted in him harnessing some Herculean strength. Morne Steyn received the award for the best backline player. His ability to play general had provided us, the traditionally directionless forwards, with a clear beacon throughout.

    The coveted Bumblebee award for extraordinary effort went to Fourie du Preez, as he displayed the ultimate level of determination and valour, soldiering on for 80 minutes despite what has proved to be a pretty severe knee injury.

    Even young Gerhard van der Heever performed tremendously after he was asked to fill in for Zane Kirchner at fullback at number 99, and defence coach John McFarlane will be proud of the quality of hits that popped up all over the park so frequently.

    Everyone excelled.

  • Comment 116, posted at 24.05.11 15:23:16 by Megatron Reply

    Megatron
     
  • @SmileyFace (Comment 114) : We misunderstood the “be disciplined” to ” be passive”….? perhaps?

  • Comment 117, posted at 24.05.11 15:24:33 by Ice Reply
    Competition Winner Ice
     
  • @SmileyFace (Comment 114) : a year is a long time in rugby mate…2009: Springboks 3 – All Black 0

    2010 Springboks 0 – All Blacks 3

  • Comment 118, posted at 24.05.11 15:25:39 by Megatron Reply

    Megatron
     
  • @Ice (Comment 117) : One can play hard and disciplined…I need to get to the boys and tell them that! Although it’s a good stat to have, that’s not the stat I’d like to own! I want the stat of Superrugby 2011 Champs! 😆

  • Comment 119, posted at 24.05.11 15:25:56 by Ice Reply
    Competition Winner Ice
     
  • @SmileyFace (Comment 114) : Welcome! You’re certainly made of sterner stuff than I, using a name like ‘smiley face’ in these grim times… 😉

  • Comment 120, posted at 24.05.11 15:26:03 by Culling Song Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Culling Song
     
  • I’m quite looking forward to the bulls vs cheetahs game, especially if Brendan Venter is still in the mix at the vrystaat, he seems to have a knack at figuring out weak spots in the opposition.

  • Comment 121, posted at 24.05.11 16:53:03 by Crock Reply

    Crock
     

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.