Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

Why the Blues' triple playmaker experiment wasn't successful despite victory over Bulls

(Photo by Lee Warren/Gallo Images)

The Blues will be counting down the days, and probably the minutes, until the coming of Beauden Barrett.

ADVERTISEMENT

Despite some media claiming the ‘experiment’ of fielding three playmakers against the Bulls in Pretoria was a success, a close review of the tape showed that not to be the case.

Individually, Stephen Perofeta at fullback and Otere Black played well, the latter slotting the late winning goal. But Harry Plummer’s impact at second five was negligible. Not that he played poorly, but he is just not suited to the No 12 jersey, even if he can tackle well enough and pass well.

Continue reading below…

Video Spacer

Black was unavailable due to injury for the Blues’ opening three games. His forte is his goalkicking, and he came up trumps in the clutch at Loftus on a return of three from five off the tee. However, his kicking for touch, like Plummer’s, is iffy. That was the case at Loftus, but why this should be so is as mysterious as why the Blues have made the playoffs just twice in the last 16 seasons.

That said, Black did several good things against the Bulls. His crosskick for Matt Duffie, superbly taken by the wing, led to Stephen Perofeta’s try, and his thrust and pass ignited the Blues on their final play before he stepped up and silenced the Loftus faithful.

But let’s be clear: Otere Black is not going to fire this Blues backline, which has speed merchants such as Joe Marchant and Mark Telea champing at the bit for space. Black has never passed fluently, but his kicking off the tee means he will have to wear the No 10 jersey until Barrett’s return in around six weeks.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B84wegLgHh7/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Plummer was used as a sub in the first three games before slotting into the No 12 jersey. In theory, the move made sense as the rain fell in Pretoria, but we saw no wipers kicking from Plummer and just the one high ball/bomb. He did, however, save a try with his commitment on the tackle.

ADVERTISEMENT

His all-round play has not kicked on since he played a mature role in Auckland’s 2018 Mitre 10 Cup triumph. His goalkicking, once such a strength of his game, tailed away in 2019, and he has three from five in 2020, as first Perofeta, and now Black, have been given the primary responsibility ahead of him.

Perofeta was this scribe’s pick as the man at No 10 to see the Blues through until the advent of Barrett, but there were always question marks around his game management and tactical and goal kicking. Despite some nice patches in most outings – his first three were at first five – Perofeta’s kicking and generalship is again under the blowtorch. He did well, though, at fullback against the Bulls, away from the burden of too much decision-making, and this is where he must continue.

The two (or even three) playmaker option seems to be in vogue. The Highlanders have used it with Mitch Hunt and Josh Ioane, but it is doing Ioane’s game no good, even though, again, the idea seems sound in theory.

ADVERTISEMENT

It works better for England with George Ford and Owen Farrell because the latter is a robust defender, when he is tackling legally, kicks accurately out of hand and off the tee.

It worked well for Auckland and the All Blacks in 1993 with Grant Fox and Lee Stensness, because the latter had an effective short kicking game and could step off either foot and break the line.

The 2020 Blues would be better off reinstating the rugged TJ Faiane, who is strong over the ball and direct in his lines, at second five, rather than persevering with the so-called two playmakers.

Even with Perofeta at fullback, it is a stretch to call him a playmaker just because he can slot in at first five. Stick with Black, let him kick the goals, and get the team to work the blind and attack from the set-piece, if stable.

The Blues must just suck it up until Barrett suits up. But Loftus was a mirage if they think they have unlocked the key to their backline fluency.

In other news:

Video Spacer
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

J
JW 6 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

146 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian? Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian?
Search