Traditional Styles

Not wanting to divert the match thread:

blackcanelion wrote:I see it as a clash between traditional South African/NZ rugby.

Less so with SA, who have not varied their style much in the 40 years I have been watching rugby, but what do you see as the traditional styles?

Only ask because when i first started watching bothe SA and NZ were teams with big hard forwards who dominated the style their teams played - main difference being SA tended to maul and wrestle while NZ tended to ruck (and stamp? ).
By comparison, in recent times NZ forwards have become more lightweight (but only in comparison) and much more emphasis has been placed on running the ball.

Now it is only in recent years that we have had the blanket, wall to wall coverage of matches round the world, so much of my early experience of NZ rugby was based on the tours to the NH - when I guess conditions were pretty bad, which may account for the style of play I tended to see.

so any way:

What is the traditional game of your country? (any team can take part)
Has it changed over the years/decades?
If it has - why?

I will quote Heyenek Meyer on this.

"I have analysed all the tests of 2011, and all teams play the same way for 80% of the time"

I tend to agree with him on that.

It is more about what teams do with the other 20%.

In my view that is where the difference lie between most teams.

It is all about the focus of how teams want to attack, and I am not talking about the kicking only, both OZ and Argentina kicked more than SA did in their matches, it is often the execution of the kicks that vary.

What Australia attempted against the Boks was their attacking kicks that were better executed, 4 times they grubbered the ball through the rush defence and although three times they lost possession, the fourth time it created a try.

So it is the variation of attack, how do you use the kick.

On attack SA takes the direct route, still focusing on beating the defender physically, where teams such as Australia and New Zealand go for the space.

There are two vital elements to attack, variation which causes unpredictable which in turn create hesitation in oppostion defences and the other is having the ball do the work.

Whether it be via offload into space, passing to a guy in a better position or using a well executed kick behind defences.

We don't do variation or allow the ball to beat the defenders.

The NZ game has generally been about pragmatism 1st and foremost, play the way most likely to get a win. That said, the 1905 and 1924 teams to the UK were noted for their ball skills, "even" amongst the forwards - so there's always been that dynamic.

The most consistent theme to NZ rugby for me is getting and retaining possession - NZ invented the concept of the "fetcher", and the openside flanker is the "icon" playing position - like the fly-half to the Welsh.

In more recent times (last 30 years or so) we've bolted on some big, fast backlines and the willingness to use them.

Scotland used to thrive (well, sort of!) on Jim Telfer's fast rucking style (taking no prisoners) but changes to the rucking laws, a drop in the quality of Scots players and some weak coaching have seen us move away from that - Robinson appears to be trying to get us to play a fast off-loading game now, but again there has to be some question over whether the available players have the necessary skills to deliver on that and whether the coach has the nous to select the right players for the job

Agree with Taylorman. I think the kids in NZ growing up with a ball in their hands plays the biggest part as their skill levels are generally the best going round. The grilled forward pack was the thing that got NZ most of its victories but the skill sets of both forwards and backs was always there and I think from the 70s onwards coaches looked to better utilise the skills of the backs and started to play a more open game whilst keeping the pack as confrontational as it ever was. The result is that NZ are the most versatile side in the game-SA is on a par skill wise but don't play as wide generally. However that's not to say that they don't play at pace.

Traditionally NZ/SA clashes involved SA trying to obliterate us up front, smashing our backs and kicking for position. On the other hand we tried to run their forwards of their feet (whilst also smashing them as hard as we could). Whilst there is more similarity in the way all teams play, I feel that some differences remain.