Let’s have a look at the positive and negative points after Friday night’s outing against the Pumas.
Starting with the positives, of which the most obvious has to come first.
1) We got a bonus point. When last did that happen? Yeah, that’s right, the last time the Sharks scored four tries in a match was on the 8th of March. Let that stat sink in a little before poo-pooing the result.
2) We are unbeaten after two games. It might not sound like much, but many, many Currie Cup campaigns that have gone on to end well have started a lot worse than this one. Nobody is ignoring the fact that there is plenty of work to be done, but with a new head coach and a drastically re-jigged team, a two from two start is as good as we could have asked for.
3) A big improvement in the line-outs. I don’t think we lost a single ball at this key phase; moreover, three good tries were scored directly from 5m attacking lineouts. Let’s not forget that just last week we managed to screw up a lineout 5m from the Griquas line.
4) There’s some composure there. These Currie Cup Sharks may be light on big name players, but the resolve to dig deep is there all the same. For the team to come back twice from going behind and find the mental strength to go on and win well, despite resolute Puma defence and rather vague refereeing, is a positive indeed.
5) Patrick Flipping Lambie. The kid is class personified, of that there is no doubt. His 25-minute cameo brought plenty of smiles, as did Matt Stevens’s. Here’s hoping that a well-rested Pat will be released towards to business end of the competition.
And the not-so-good bits, which the coaching staff will need to look at.
1) Discipline. There was far too much indisciplined play, which the referee picked up on. Marco Wentzel copped a yellow card for team indiscretions and that card properly halted the momentum that the Sharks had finally managed to build after a poor first half.
2) Goal-kicking. For a second week, Fred missed a few kicks that could have yielded valuable points. We must give him credit, though, for having the balls to attempts a few very long ones this week, one of which did go over (just).
3) Kick accuracy. Cam Wright, Fred Zeilinga and SP Marais were all guilty, at times, of being off with their radar when it came to clearance kicks. Too many went out on f the full, or straight to a defender.
4) Tackle dominance. While you can’t fault the overall team effort on defence, there were too many instances when the tackler, despite making the tackle, failed to halt the momentum. For a team that thrives on go-forward ball, this was like mother’s milk to the Pumas.
5) The first half. It’s hard to put your finger on exactly what went wrong in the first 40 minutes (I guess it was a combination of factors) but for the Sharks to enjoy quite so much possession, yet be unable to actually finish off any tries, points to major issues in terms of accuracy and decision-making on attack. While the lineout drive proved a sure route to tries in the second half, questions remain about the ability of our talented backs to create and finish tries.
Tweet
That bonus point comment :shock:. Wow! Did not realise that!
Well at least we are moving in the right direction with the team!
The off the field bad – Stonehouse’s girly whinge.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 3) : Both him and his captain….poor poor form 🙄
@FireTheLooser (Comment 4) : My recording ended as the final whistle went so didnt see the interviews. I read in the papers what Stonehouse had to say. What did the cappie say?
Good article again and I agree..some of those negatives have become a trend of Sharks teams of late hwoever. Our high penalty count- we often blatantly ignore the refs instructions and hence give away a stupid penalty. Do the players think they kno better than the ref and he will see it their way?? Our aimless kicking…yes there is a need to kick and even play a kick based game…but aimlessly kicking the ball will get you dropped from an u13 side so why should we accept it from professionals. When the Sharks up the tempo they look very good- so why not do that from the start?? The class of Lambie and Stevens was very evident…as was Wentzel in the lineouts…his yellow as his first infringement i think.
@FireTheLooser (Comment 4) : I suspect that’ll improve as they learn the ropes of the CC Premier Division. I’m sure a lot of coaches feel the same way after a loss but have the good sense not to verbalise it.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 5) : Cappie blamed the ref
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 5) : Blamed the ref, said the ref gave the Sharks fast ball which he didn’t allow them to have, and gave no credit to the Sharks whatsoever….looked all sour and “dik bek” like a typical sore loser.
Following in the footsteps of his coach it seems, I am NOW glad the Sharks didn’t get Stonehouse, seems to be breeding a few unwanted team characteristics.
@vanmartin (Comment 7) : Well, this is not their first time playing CC premier division, Stonehouse at least should know better….
I just wish Lambie could kick further.
A 10 needs to kick his team out of trouble and it just feels to me that he is lacking.
Just my opinion do not be to harsh.
@FireTheLooser (Comment 10) : Last time they played in this division was in 2010 though. I’m sure their PR will improve. Besides, it’s kind of refreshing to hear a coach and captain speak their mind instead of the usual: “we gave a 110% out their but congrats to the opposition, they were the better team…” 😀
@Honey Badger (Comment 11) : He’s got decent range but not the biggest boot so a valid concern (Fred Z surprised me in this department on Friday). One of the reasons why I believe he should focus on fullback for the Boks.
@vanmartin (Comment 12) : Id prefer the truth, which would have been…“in spite of giving 110%, the Sharks still beat us with their rookie team, even scoring a bonus point try, all this in-spite of the ref being absolutely clueless as to how the game of rugby has to be officiated” 😈
@vanmartin (Comment 13) : For me, a fullback needs an even bigger boot…which is why Frans Steyn would be my fullback.
@vanmartin (Comment 13) : 😎 thats the only reason I am never upset when he isnt picked for the boks.
@FireTheLooser (Comment 14) : In a rather interesting twist to the usual criticisms of the Boks gameplan, Heyneke seems to prefer his fullbacks to be playmakers first and tactical kickers second, which suits le Roux and Lambie’s style of play.
@vanmartin (Comment 16) : Lambie though is a bit too slow
@SheldonK (Comment 8) : Yeah, that is poor form, mind you they are from Witbank and are probably used to speaking that way.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 18) : Yeh look ref was guessing a lot…but hardly his fault Pumas lost. Pumas offered very little other than defense and a couple driving mauls all game…
Nice one Rob think you got it spot on. Hope the Sharks can play like they did in the second half the whole game against the States. Come on Sharks!!!!
@FireTheLooser (Comment 17) : I’ve heard this before but how true is it, is he really that slow? (Asking because I don’t know but surely he can’t be slower than Frans Steyn)
Anyway, personally I’d prefer an elusive runner to a fast runner at fullback.
@Honey Badger (Comment 11) :
Poor guy looks like he’s trying to drive down the fairway using a sand wedge.
@FireTheLooser (Comment 17) :
How slow?
@VinChainSaw (Comment 22) : 😆
@VinChainSaw (Comment 23) : @VinChainSaw (Comment 22) : a tortoise with a sandwedge,eish
@VinChainSaw (Comment 22) : its his kicking action/motion,for proper examples of how watch Fred,FS,Marnitz and Glass boy
@vanmartin (Comment 21) : @VinChainSaw (Comment 23) : That seems to be the million dollar question….
Maybe it is a perception which is completely false…wish somebody would give us some stats on his speed.
@VinChainSaw (Comment 22) : @benji (Comment 25) : I prefer a straight sandwedge to a wayward driver any day!!!!!!