Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

John Dobson gives brutal assessment of Stormers' 'extremely poor' tour

Ben Loader of DHL Stormers during the United Rugby Championship match between Munster and DHL Stormers at Thomond Park in Limerick. (Photo By David Fitzgerald/Sportsfile via Getty Images)

John Dobson is one of the cheeriest, most upbeat figures in the game, so when he cuts a dejected figure you know times are challenging.

ADVERTISEMENT

It was all smiles for much of the DHL Stormers’ first two seasons in the BKT URC, with Dobson’s team reaching back-to-back finals.

But now they have hit their first major bump in the road – or on the road to be precise – losing four successive matches away from home, against Glasgow Warriors, Benetton, Munster and Cardiff Rugby.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

It’s left them down in twelfth in the table and there was no disguising Dobson’s disappointment as he spoke at the Arms Park following Friday night’s 31-24 defeat to Cardiff Rugby.

“It’s been a poor tour for us and – as our skipper Brok Harris said in the changing room – we all need to have a look at ourselves at what we could have done better right the way through.” he said.

“The two games we probably identified to win – Benetton and Cardiff – we chucked away, which is very disappointing.

“As a collective, we haven’t done ourselves any favours on our tour. I don’t think the competition thinks more of us, I don’t think some of the players or staff feel as good about themselves as we did.

ADVERTISEMENT

“When we came on tour, we were hoping to get two wins and we haven’t got any.”

Dobson had been in buoyant mood going into the game, saying how much he had been encouraged by the performance in the 10-3 defeat to Munster and talking about his fondness for Welsh rugby.

And it looked as though he was going to have further reason for optimism as the Stormers raced into a 14-0 lead after just 12 minutes at the Arms Park.

Evan Roos
Evan Roos reacts to the Stormers loss. Photo By David Fitzgerald/Sportsfile via Getty Images

Even though Cardiff fought back, Dobson’s men were still 24-14 up with less than half an hour to go and seemingly on course to end their European tour on a winning note.

ADVERTISEMENT

But it wasn’t to be, as the hosts drew level and then clinched a dramatic victory with a try deep in stoppage time from replacement prop Rhys Litterick.

“Cardiff played with real fight, but we were extremely poor,” said Dobson.

“For us to give seven scrum put-ins in the second half just through losing the ball in contact or by knocking on is not good enough at BKT URC level. There was some pretty careless handling.

“We seemed to just want to make Hail Marys all the time. It was a really poor performance by us in that respect.

“We pride ourselves on our defence, but we are hurting because it wasn’t our best defensive performance by any stretch. We gave too many yards, we gave them space on the outside, they got round us, we didn’t work hard enough for a couple of their tries.

Related

“Other than the set-piece, it was a really poor performance –  defence, attack, the contestable game, the kicking game.

“I didn’t expect us to play like that, I must say. That wasn’t a pleasant experience.

“It was by far our worst performance on this trip. It was a very disappointing way to finish the tour and a disappointing tour.”

What the losing run has done however is confirm Dobson’s growing belief that the BKT URC is the toughest it’s ever been right now.

“I feel it’s even more competitive this season, very much so,” said the 54-year-old.

“Everywhere you look, there’s a fixture or two that you can’t predict. I get the feeling no-one is going to pull away.

“We are all in a dogfight, there’s no question.”

Dobson has said the Stormers’ theme for this campaign is to be the hunters, with a nod to South African culture.

When it’s put to him they really have to do some hunting down now, he quips they are going to starve unless they improve.

On a serious note, he acknowledges there is a real need to turn things around, starting with next Saturday’s Round 7 fixture against Zebre Parma at the Danie Craven Stadium in Stellenbosch.

“We are certainly not off to a cracking start,” he admitted.

“Four defeats at this stage is a lot if you want to get to the sharp end of the competition, so we have got a lot of work to do.

“We will have some personnel back, we will play some games at home – we have had five games on the road – and we will start putting together some much better performances.”

Dobson admits the pressure is on given the success the Stormers have enjoyed in their first two seasons in the BKT URC.

“If we don’t make at least a semi-final, we are going to feel terrible,” he said,

“We have created a rod to beat our own backs with. Reaching the semi-finals is the minimum target, but we want more than that ideally. Our goal is still to be back in the final.”

Dobson Munster Stormers verdict
(Photo by Harry Murphy/Sportsfile via Getty Images)

It’s the second year in a row the DHL Stormers have lost at the Arms Park, having gone down by a near identical 30-24 scoreline in October 2022 when they were reigning champions.

“That was a seminal moment.” revealed Dobson.

“We had been unbeaten for something like 15 games and we lost. We saw Cardiff celebrating the way they did and we thought ‘Hang on, what’s this about?’.

“We realised it was because they had beaten the champions and we started to realise we were actually under pressure – teams wanted to raise themselves and beat us.

“It’s nice for us in a funny way, but it does make it a bit more stressful. We are a scalp now.”

It remains to be seen whether this season’s defeat at the Arms Park will prove an equally seminal moment as the FHL Stormers head home looking to get back on track.

Related

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

f
fl 19 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"fl's idea, if I can speak for him to speed things up, was for it to be semifinalists first, Champions Cup (any that somehow didn't make a league semi), then Challenge's semi finalists (which would most certainly have been outside their league semi's you'd think), then perhaps the quarter finalists of each in the same manner. I don't think he was suggesting whoever next performed best in Europe but didn't make those knockouts (like those round of 16 losers), I doubt that would ever happen."


That's not quite my idea.

For a 20 team champions cup I'd have 4 teams qualify from the previous years champions cup, and 4 from the previous years challenge cup. For a 16 team champions cup I'd have 3 teams qualify from the previous years champions cup, and 1 from the previous years challenge cup.


"The problem I mainly saw with his idea (much the same as you see, that league finish is a better indicator) is that you could have one of the best candidates lose in the quarters to the eventual champions, and so miss out for someone who got an easier ride, and also finished lower in the league, perhaps in their own league, and who you beat everytime."

If teams get a tough draw in the challenge cup quarters, they should have won more pool games and so got better seeding. My system is less about finding the best teams, and more about finding the teams who perform at the highest level in european competition.

54 Go to comments
f
fl 55 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Would I'd be think"

Would I'd be think.


"Well that's one starting point for an error in your reasoning. Do you think that in regards to who should have a say in how it's setup in the future as well? Ie you would care what they think or what might be more fair for their teams (not saying your model doesn't allow them a chance)?"

Did you even read what you're replying to? I wasn't arguing for excluding south africa, I was pointing out that the idea of quantifying someone's fractional share of european rugby is entirely nonsensical. You're the one who was trying to do that.


"Yes, I was thinking about an automatic qualifier for a tier 2 side"

What proportion of european rugby are they though? Got to make sure those fractions match up! 😂


"Ultimately what I think would be better for t2 leagues would be a third comp underneath the top two tournemnts where they play a fair chunk of games, like double those two. So half a dozen euro teams along with the 2 SA and bottom bunch of premiership and top14, some Championship and div 2 sides thrown in."

I don't know if Championship sides want to be commuting to Georgia every other week.


"my thought was just to create a middle ground now which can sustain it until that time has come, were I thought yours is more likely to result in the constant change/manipulation it has been victim to"

a middle ground between the current system and a much worse system?

54 Go to comments
f
fl 1 hour ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Huh? You mean last in their (4 team) pools/regions? My idea was 6/5/4, 6 the max, for guarenteed spots, with a 20 team comp max, so upto 5 WCs (which you'd make/or would be theoretically impossible to go to one league (they'd likely be solely for its participants, say 'Wales', rather than URC specifically. Preferrably). I gave 3 WC ideas for a 18 team comp, so the max URC could have (with a member union or club/team, winning all of the 6N, and Champions and Challenge Cup) would be 9."


That's a lot of words to say that I was right. If (e.g.) Glasgow won the URC and Edinburgh finished 16th, but Scotland won the six nations, Edinburgh would qualify for the Champions Cup under your system.


"And the reason say another URC (for example) member would get the spot over the other team that won the Challenge Cup, would be because they were arguable better if they finished higher in the League."

They would be arguably worse if they didn't win the Challenge Cup.


"It won't diminish desire to win the Challenge Cup, because that team may still be competing for that seed, and if theyre automatic qual anyway, it still might make them treat it more seriously"

This doesn't make sense. Giving more incentives to do well in the Challenge Cup will make people take it more seriously. My system does that and yours doesn't. Under my system, teams will "compete for the seed" by winning the Challenge Cup, under yours they won't. If a team is automatically qualified anyway why on earth would that make them treat it more seriously?


"I'm promoting the idea of a scheme that never needs to be changed again"

So am I. I'm suggesting that places could be allocated according to a UEFA style points sytem, or according to a system where each league gets 1/4 of the spots, and the remaining 1/4 go to the best performing teams from the previous season in european competition.


"Yours will promote outcry as soon as England (or any other participant) fluctates. Were as it's hard to argue about a the basis of an equal share."

Currently there is an equal share, and you are arguing against it. My system would give each side the opportunity to achieve an equal share, but with more places given to sides and leagues that perform well. This wouldn't promote outcry, it would promote teams to take european competition more seriously. Teams that lose out because they did poorly the previous year wouldn't have any grounds to complain, they would be incentivised to try harder this time around.


"This new system should not be based on the assumption of last years results/performances continuing."

That's not the assumption I'm making. I don't think the teams that perform better should be given places in the competition because they will be the best performing teams next year, but because sport should be based on merit, and teams should be rewarded for performing well.


"I'm specifically promoting my idea because I think it will do exactly what you want, increase european rugyb's importance."

how?


"I won't say I've done anything compressive"

Compressive.

54 Go to comments
J
JW 1 hour ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

Generally disagree with what? The possibility that they would get whitewashed, or the idea they shouldn't gain access until they're good enough?


I think the first is a fairly irrelevant view, decide on the second and then worry about the first. Personally I'd have had them in a third lvl comp with all the bottom dwellers of the leagues. I liked the idea of those league clubs resting their best players, and so being able to lift their standards in the league, though, so not against the idea that T2 sides go straight into Challenge Cup, but that will be a higher level with smaller comps and I think a bit too much for them (not having followed any of their games/performances mind you).

Because I don't think that having the possibility of a team finishing outside the quarter finals to qualify automatically will be a good idea. I'd rather have a team finishing 5th in their domestic league.

fl's idea, if I can speak for him to speed things up, was for it to be semifinalists first, Champions Cup (any that somehow didn't make a league semi), then Challenge's semi finalists (which would most certainly have been outside their league semi's you'd think), then perhaps the quarter finalists of each in the same manner. I don't think he was suggesting whoever next performed best in Europe but didn't make those knockouts (like those round of 16 losers), I doubt that would ever happen.


The problem I mainly saw with his idea (much the same as you see, that league finish is a better indicator) is that you could have one of the best candidates lose in the quarters to the eventual champions, and so miss out for someone who got an easier ride, and also finished lower in the league, perhaps in their own league, and who you beat everytime.

54 Go to comments
J
JW 1 hour ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

Well I was mainly referring to my thinking about the split, which was essentially each /3 rounded up, but reliant on WCs to add buffer.


You may have been going for just a 16 team league ranking cup?


But yes, those were just ideas for how to select WCs, all very arbitrary but I think more interesting in ways than just going down a list (say like fl's) of who is next in line. Indeed in my reply to you I hinted at say the 'URC' WC spot actually being given to the Ireland pool and taken away from the Welsh pool.


It's easy to think that is excluding, and making it even harder on, a poor performing country, but this is all in context of a 18 or 20 team comp where URC (at least to those teams in the URC) got 6 places, which Wales has one side lingering around, and you'd expect should make. Imagine the spice in that 6N game with Italy, or any other of the URC members though! Everyone talks about SA joining the 6N, so not sure it will be a problem, but it would be a fairly minor one imo.


But that's a structure of the leagues were instead of thinking how to get in at the top, I started from the bottom and thought that it best those teams doing qualify for anything. Then I thought the two comps should be identical in structure. So that's were an even split comes in with creating numbers, and the 'UEFA' model you suggest using in some manner, I thought could be used for the WC's (5 in my 20 team comp) instead of those ideas of mine you pointed out.


I see Jones has waded in like his normal self when it comes to SH teams. One thing I really like about his idea is the name change to the two competitions, to Cup and Shield. Oh, and home and away matches.

54 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Top 100: Why do the best players come from the best teams? Top 100: Why do the best players come from the best teams?
Search