20/07/2010
Yes, defense won the game for WP on Saturday against the Lions, but let's be honest...it's the Lions.
Not to be disrespectful, but looking at the past couple of seasons, it just doesn't look as if the Lions have got the players to do the job. Their discipline were poor, and their attack not much better.
So that's where the question lies. Is it better to have a strong attack and a good defense, or a Strong defense and good attack?
During the Super 14 campaign earlier this year, everybody (me included) believed that the Bulls will not again lift the trophy, because of their poor defense and the number of tries they gave away in their matches. The thing is, the Bulls had a superb attacking game, and an average defensive game...and that won them the competition at the end.
During their final against the Stormers, they just kept on attacking. The Stormers defense held, until Francois Hougaard broke through the Stormers backline to score behind the poles. The Stormers weren't in a good position, because they had an average attack, and they were now behind on the scoreboard. If you want to come back from behind, you have got to be able to penetrate the opposition's defense, and score tries, and the Stormers just weren't as good as the Bulls on attack. Never in the whole of last season did the Stormers pull off a great comeback to win the a game.
There's an old rugby saying: "If you keep on attacking, somewhere down the line you are bound to find a gap." And that's what the Bulls did against the Stormers in the final.
So, if you fall behind in a match, which is bound to happen somewhere in the competition, you will have to have a great attacking game, and thus be able to score tries. Having only a great defense is not going to be enough to win the Currie Cup.
WP should be building a complete game plan.