FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  95 World Cup vs Current Squad comparison - News 24 Article

95 World Cup vs Current Squad comparison - News 24 Article

Started by Devil's Advocate20 REPLIES449 VIEWS· 24 Jun 2015, 14:35
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
24 Jun 2015, 14:35
#1
24 Jun 2015, 14:35#1
Interesting Read..... Boks of ’95 v now: Who’s better?      

Rob Houwing, Sport24 chief writer

Cape Town - It’s a difficult and pretty subjective exercise, so don’t hang me for it.

You aren’t always comparing apples with apples, and rugby has changed much more than some may think in 20 years.

 

But we thought it might be fun anyway, on the anniversary of the immortal Springbok World Cup success of 1995, to engineer a comparison between the possible Bok personnel to be employed on key occasions later this year and Francois Pienaar’s heroic starting XV at Ellis Park.

Here we go ...

15. Andre Joubert v Willie le Roux

Both men have that appealing “make things happen” factor from the last line of defence. But the ’95 fullback, who played the final with a broken hand, was a particularly composed, complete player and less error-prone than the risk-taking (though let’s not discourage that!) incumbent.

My choice: Joubert

 

14. James Small v JP Pietersen

I might have been swayed toward the long-striding Pietersen a few years ago. But he seems to have lost some of that defence-splitting X-factor on attack, and let’s never forget the tenacious job Small did of marking a certain Jonah Lomu at Ellis Park.

My choice: Small

 

13. Japie Mulder v Jean de Villiers

The former had a productive alliance with then-Transvaal team-mate Hennie le Roux, and possessed strong leg-drive at outside centre. But for his years of yeoman service and overall midfield nous, the 2015 (touch wood) Bok skipper is hard to overlook.

My choice: De Villiers

 

12. Hennie le Roux v Damian de Allende

De Allende has been a very rare shining light among SA backs in Super Rugby this year, and may well command inside centre for the Boks over the next few months. But he remains raw internationally, so the clever, multi-skilled Le Roux should crack the nod, yes?

My choice: Le Roux

 

11. Chester Williams v Bryan Habana

Two iconic wings, as well as distinguished poster figures for post-apartheid transformation. But you’d have to think Habana, at his rocket-like peak (when he would have been a World XV shoe-in), is the slightly superior pick.

My choice: Habana

 

10. Joel Stransky v Handre Pollard

The still-developing Pollard may well go on to become one of the Boks’ very best at flyhalf. But there are understandably still some rough edges, and partly on emotional grounds I suspect many would lean toward the dropped-goal darling of ’95!

My choice: Stransky

 

9. Joost van der Westhuizen v Fourie du Preez

Eish! We are talking two genuinely world-renowned scrumhalves here. They are slightly different beats in playing style, with Joost the combative - though also elusive - gladiator and ‘FDP’ renowned for his game-bossing and great awareness.

My choice: Dead heat

 

8. Mark Andrews v Duane Vermeulen

An unfair comparison, of course. Standout lock Andrews, to his credit, agreed to temporary deployment as eighthman for the crucial last two games of RWC ’95, and fared decently enough. But Vermeulen is a modern specialist, near-legend of the berth.

My choice: Vermeulen

 

7. Ruben Kruger v Schalk Burger

The sadly deceased Kruger was an unassuming battler of repute, but versatile Burger (capable of occupying all three loosie spots) is a former IRB World Player of the Year and just does not know how to switch off that engine ... 

My choice: Burger

 

6. Francois Pienaar v Francois Louw

Phew, tough one, actually. Bath-based “Flo” has become the Boks’ very efficient main fetcher in recent seasons. But heart could well over-rule head for a few pundits in this duel, and Pienaar’s revered leadership 20 years ago played a big, big role on that giddy day!

My choice: Pienaar

 

5. Hannes Strydom v Victor Matfield

Big Hannes was an ever-professional, no-fuss second rower for the Boks or Transvaal. But Matfield is also a World Cup winner (12 years onward from Strydom) and arguably the lineout king of all rugby history.

My choice: Matfield

 

4. Kobus Wiese v Eben Etzebeth

Hmm, two enforcers of the No 4 jersey, even if in significantly differing eras. Wiese had a scarily hefty build and must have been a scrummager of repute. The emerging Etzebeth, meanwhile, is not yet the finished article for SA but has fine athletic skills to accompany his grunt.

My choice: Dead heat

 

3. Balie Swart v Jannie du Plessis

Another conundrum: in truth, the Boks have probably boasted tightheads of deeper gravitas than either man. But they’ve been in right places at right times for respective RWC glory and hats off to them for that. Big Jannie has been overworked for a couple of years and his spot this year is under threat from someone like Frans Malherbe.

My choice: Swart

 

2. Chris Rossouw v Bismarck du Plessis

The first-named player deputised with aplomb at hooker in RWC 1995 after James Dalton’s tourney-ending disciplinary episode. But Du Plessis is a far more prolifically-capped man at Test level, and at times branded the planet’s finest in the No 2 shirt. Also a turnover-generator par excellence.   

My choice: Du Plessis

 

1. Os du Randt v Tendai Mtawarira

“Beast” has had some glorious moments at loosehead for the Boks, including that famous dismantling of Phil Vickery on the Lions’ 2009 tour, but Du Randt is a true legend, staggeringly mobile for a huge man, and only South African RWC dual winner!

My choice: Du Randt

 

Summary: My survey sees seven of the class of ’95 earning positional preference, compared to six from the current brigade ... with two dead heats. So the RWC heroes of 20 years ago steal the Sport24 spoils.

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
24 Jun 2015, 14:43
#2
24 Jun 2015, 14:43#2

Interesting piece. I would have given it to Eben....but then Joost would always get my vote. I would also have picked Pollard above Stransky, tilting the balance in 2015's favour.

 

Unfortunately I believe all our major competitors are much better. Perhaps one of our NZ friends will do the exercise with their current and 95 teams. I would be shocked if the current team doesn't win at least 10 spots.

OI
oimateyPro1,870 posts
24 Jun 2015, 16:46
#3
24 Jun 2015, 16:46#3
Yep, this article really highlights the core difference between us and the AB's
In 20 years, we really haven't come very far in terms of player talent.
But NZ has really been the team that has "transformed", and I agree that the current team, especially in the backline, would thump the AB '95 version man for man. The infusion of talent and athleticism and the resultant running rugby is partly due to a team with more PI and Maori blood and has vaulted them to their current position. 

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
24 Jun 2015, 17:24
#4
24 Jun 2015, 17:24#4
 The following is utter BS:-
"Big Hannes was an ever-professional, no-fuss second rower for the Boks or Transvaal. But Matfield is also a World Cup winner (12 years onward from Strydom) and arguably the lineout king of all rugby history.

My choice: Matfield"


This is a team for 2015 - not 2007.   If the comparison was for 2007 - the selection would have been Matfield.   The "lineout king of all rugby history'  is past tense - Matfield's line-out takes have become less and less and he has a tendency to call line-outs to other players.   Calling line-outs to himself he has in two crucial tests fumbled or lost line-outs.   This is based on past history.   In any event there is one thing that Strydom had and is totally absent in the case of Matfield and it is "grunt".    As an overall lock/tight 5 player Strydom was much better than Matfield ever was.  

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
24 Jun 2015, 23:06
#5
24 Jun 2015, 23:06#5

Man you are a pain Tokkie this is a nice comparison and you have to turn it into another Matfield tirade....boring.

DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
24 Jun 2015, 23:33
#6
24 Jun 2015, 23:33#6
 Moz, Mike has got his pet "hates", but he has a point re Matfield. IMO, Vic is a must for the squad, but there are some serious question marks in some areas of his game. As for some of the other comparisons? Balie over Jannie? 95 Os over Beast? Pienaar over Louw, Pienaar's captaincy aside?Eben walks it over Wiese, no contest and Small had few betters at 14 for the Boks since he stopped playing. JP would be a weak pick at 14 in any event. My pick would be Combrinck, but Hougat or Hendricks would probably get the nod.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
25 Jun 2015, 00:56
#7
25 Jun 2015, 00:56#7
 Mozart
This has nothing to do with me.   Prove to all of us that the line-out prowess of Matfield has been in evidenced over the past year and that Matfield has shown any grunt whatsoever in that period and we can then discuss from a rugby perspective.
I have some problems with other choices as well - same as Draad.   In the past two decades the game has changed drastically and became more competitive.  That realization makes comparisons between players of 20 years ago and those at present laughable.   This may not be realized in making silly comparisons - same as you never realize that the age of players impact on their effectiveness as players and still think that the 2007 players are the same performers in 2015 as they were in 2007.   
    
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
25 Jun 2015, 01:54
#8
25 Jun 2015, 01:54#8
If you have problems with the article....go away Tokkie . Nobody is forcing, even wanting you to participate.  
DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
25 Jun 2015, 08:18
#9
25 Jun 2015, 08:18#9

It was posted, merely for an interesting read for everyone

 

Whilst opinions are more than welcome, please don't turn this into another "Matfield bashing" thread 

 

We have had more than enough of them

 

 

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
25 Jun 2015, 09:09
#10
25 Jun 2015, 09:09#10
 DA
I have no problem with that kind of comparisons - but then the reasons given should be based on present performances - not past history.   The most atrocious example of that one was the reason given iro Matfield.   It was not intended as bashing Matfield - it was intended to point out that ridiculous statements should not be used as a norm to make comparisons with past players.
As I tried to point out in my comments - if the case study was iro the 2007 WC - I would not have had any problem with Matfield being rated higher than Strydom.  At present the exact opposite is true.
DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
25 Jun 2015, 10:01
#11
25 Jun 2015, 10:01#11

Mike

 

The author is obviously comparing the "newer" players over the career spans of the older players, not one specific era in which they played.

 

One cannot really compare someone who has played for a few years to one who has played for 10 - 15 years, as it is obvious their skills and performance will deteriorate and fluctuate. It's more of a general consensus regarding that players specific ability in the time he has played .

 

It's like comparing a golfer who has had one fantastic year, and wins all the majors, then nothing else ever again, against another player who has won 14 majors throughout his career.

 

It's a no brainer

DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
25 Jun 2015, 15:32
#12
25 Jun 2015, 15:32#12
Du Preez is the best and most complete 9 there has ever been. He excels in every facet of scrumhalf play and is to scrumhalves as Carter is to flyhalves. Joost was devastatingly effective, but was not the complete player. He couldn't run a game like Du Preez can, and Du Preez has been playing to that standard for over ten years. It has to be Du preez here, though I have immense respect for Joost. It was Joost who made me want to play rugby in the first place, but this selection will not be made for sentimental reasons.

DA is not a 12. At 13? Yes, he is better than the 95 opposite.

Jean is not a 13. At 12? Still not better. Le Roux was a far superior runner with a more extensive toolkit. Jean has the crash and the intercept, runs very plain lines. Creates very little and cannot defend like he did prior to Meyers tenure.

Stransky, I find him so irritating when he speaks, but as a player? He was very underrated. We really haven't had a player quite like him since. Far better than Lem in my opinion. Pollard has yet to really establish himself, so I have got to give this one to Stransky.

JP was good in the 2007 WC, had a very good 2008 EOYT. Was very quiet thereafter until the second England test where he had a few glimpses of his old self and has faded badly ever since. He never fulfilled his potential sadly. But then his best years were under Peter, and that was death to wings in particular!

Duane is now the premier test 8!

Relative to their peers, the 95 Bok front row is vastly superior to the current one. In terms of raw strength I would select Bismarck, in terms of being an all out good hooker? Hard to say. Strauss should get this one as he has been our go to #2 now for the last two years and has left Bismarck for dust.

Beast does a lot of the hard yards in a way that Os never did. He is a very secure ball carrier in a generation of props who cannot scrum and carry the ball securely. His value is extreme now more than ever. I would select Beast just for that alone. Beast also has to scrum against better opposition, Os was not exactly the greatest scrummager on his return under Jake. This is not going to be a popular call, but I make it for those reasons because they are most important to me personally.
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
26 Jun 2015, 01:08
#13
26 Jun 2015, 01:08#13
 Fox, agree on almost everything but the centers...I'm not disagreeing,  just not convinced with DDA at 13 yet. I would first like to see him playing there for a proper run of games at SR orr at least CC before playing him there for the Boks. In the meantime they can put 12 on his back and play him in a 13 position for a few moves in tests, just to try him out a bit.
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
26 Jun 2015, 01:50
#14
26 Jun 2015, 01:50#14
 Maybe DA won't succeed at 13. But he sure as heck isn't a 12. If he can't do it for the Stormers I don't believe he can do it for the Boks. If he can play a genuine quality test against NZ at 12 then I'll reconsider it. And by quality I don't mean bgeing run over all day but with the odd break that amounts to nothing. The stuff the media does when promoting mediocrity. If he can do that it will be an enormous step forward, but it will still be reckless of Meyer to gamble so. I certainly wouldn't want to see Willie doing the typical cover up work like he did for Jean. That little ploy pettered out last year. 
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 Jun 2015, 02:19
#15
26 Jun 2015, 02:19#15
 Desert Disaster
If De Allende is not a 12 in your view - is everybody else is wrong and you correct?   Amazing how idiocy shows whenever that type of thing happens.   Then the craziness continues with you nominating Fransie - who has done squat at 12 for three years - being regarded as a center by you.   Even Plumtree said he is no center - yet you think otherwise.
Frankly your assessment of players is a joke and extremely funny.  
AG
AgPleezDeddyClub Pro900 posts
26 Jun 2015, 03:39
#16
26 Jun 2015, 03:39#16
 I agree with most of that Desert, I disagree about DA though, i think he's a fine 12 and possible 13. He's still fairly inexperienced but he's got all the tools to make and hopefully will.

I'd like to particularly highlight your point on Du Preez, I completely agree, the guy is a genius of player, and perhaps the most intelligent player to play the game, we often take for granted just what a talent the guy was. Even still, a fit Du Preez is a huge asset to the Boks, and could be the difference between a good and great WC campaign. Plus it gives the younger scrum halves that will go (faf, reinach) a chance to learn a few things too.
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
26 Jun 2015, 15:23
#17
26 Jun 2015, 15:23#17
You are correct Deddy, he is very intelligent. And the speed of thought has always impressed me. He makes the right decisions instantaneously. That link play with Fourie against Wales in 2013 really highlighted the creative genius of both players. That's what Michael doesn't understand with many of the selections I back, you can't just replace intelligence with fast legs. We saw that on the EOYT last year and England/Wales/Italy ruthlessly exploited it. Fourie and Victor are not in their prime, but to have them at hand can be very useful. Look at that home win over NZ in 2011. He completely stuffed three guaranteed try scoring opportunities in the first 20 minutes alone by reading the game and positioning himself perfectly. I have never seen even one instance of that ability in any other 13 in SA. Scarcely any of our centres, period! Du Preez though, he is still in very good physical condition. In fact he is looking leaner and fitter since going to Japan, and looked psychologically re-freshened on his return to the Boks in 2013. His injury last year was a significant blow that we never really recovered from.

As per DA. He has a lot of useful attributes, I'm certainly not going to write him off, but there are a lot of frailties there at 12. He does not handle front of pressure very well, and likes to waltz out of alignment casually whilst ball watching. He is inexperienced, but these issues seldom get corrected. Not everyone is a Monty, with a quest for perfection that sees them remodel their game. Especially when a player is hyped in the media, it becomes a habit to praise them irrespective of performance; just look at Lambie! Bismarck has been playing test rugby since 2007, and the past couple of months or so is the first time I have ever seen him play as if he has something to lose. That's what early praise does to these players and they hardly ever fulfill their potential. DA is treading down that line. And if we do play him at 12, who do we have to complement that move? Love him or hate him, de Jongh has worked tirelessly to give DA that platform to thrive all year. But now we are told Serfontein must partner him. I don't see where the dynamic works personally. If you lose power at 12 then where is the directness coming from? now you start to get the big picture, and see why the Stormers have been playing very laterally and despite notching up alot of meters gained, haven't really been getting that forward incision. Remember, there are defensive systems that are designed to be passive out wide, to allow you ground but with the assurance that you are not going the breach their line. It all needs to be put in proper context. And that's before we bring up defence. I saw DA run over quite a few times. Despite Michael's bleatings, he struggled to impose himself in contact against Frans. What of Nonu? What of Kuridrani? Roberts? Rougerie? Our test rivals have some serious beef to throw our way, and the fans want a 10-12 axis of Lambie-Damian to boot!! We need to be very careful here. All I'm saying is that DA wants space, he wants an opportunity to beat his opponent on the outside and run. He has a fresh confidence about him in that capacity. Lets just throw 13 on his back and give him that chance. Put Frans inside him and you have a very solid seam backing DA. I hate it when fans go all gooey eyed and see things that aren't there, they end up destroying players and we gain nothing. DA could be our solution at 13, but to go the other way is almost certainly going to end in tears.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 Jun 2015, 15:45
#18
26 Jun 2015, 15:45#18
 Desert Disaster
" That link play with Fourie against Wales in 2013 really highlighted the creative genius of both players."
Sure Fourie was brilliant - he managed to be off-side in that play and the fact that the ref did not call for a review was a mistake on the part of the ref.   If he had a video review chances are that the Springboks would lose that match.  Refereeing mistakes do happen - but one cannot bargain on that to call a player a creative genius.   
My problem with Du Preez has nothing to do with the issue of genius - it is much easier to identify since it relates to match fitness.   Let me explain in plain English.   In 2013 RC Du Preez played matches against the Aussies and the next week the All Blacks.   In the Aussies game he was very good - in the game the next week against the AB's he was bog ordinary.   In the EOYT  he was very good against the Welsh and bog-ordinary against the Scots the next week.   In June last year he clearly was not match-fit after not playing any rugby from March to June and that was a major reason for his injury.  You apparently do not realize that in Japan the players play club rugby fortnightly and they are not on the fitness level required locally.  The lay-off of nearly four months when a player like Du Preez plays no rugby at all is at his age a kiss-of-death to match fitness.
The next paragraph of yours is absolute drivel as per normal and represent your standard BS.  It is really funny - De Jongh creating space for De Allende - it really cracks me up.   How do you manage to show that level of stupidity and persist with it?
           
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
26 Jun 2015, 15:57
#19
26 Jun 2015, 15:57#19
He was marginally offside, but being so intellectually deficient you cannot understand the point of the argument: the way the two combined has exceeded EVERYTHING any of our other 9s or 13s have done in the new crop in their entire lives. At this rate none of them will ever do anything remotely so genius. That whole movement was absolute perfection and highlighted everything the newbies lack.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 Jun 2015, 16:45
#20
26 Jun 2015, 16:45#20
 Marginally off-side or off-side is exactly the same.  He would not have been near the ball if he was not off-side.  You cannot use that to justify a player performance-wise.  That play was illegitimate and would be so in all other cases.  A player is off-sde - because of that he gets to the ball and flip-pass it to another player -  that shows genius.   Your idiocy reigns supreme.     
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
27 Jun 2015, 02:29
#21
27 Jun 2015, 02:29#21
 Actually, he would have been in exactly the same position if he was that one or two inches back. But Michael whips out a new trick from his Communist studies - Revisionist history - and we must all bow in utter submission! LMAO. And you still un-cleverly failed to grasp the point: Du Preez and Fourie exhibited creativity and puzzle solving genius to recognise exactly what was in front of them, execute that quickly envisioned plan and be on the same page throughout that attacking movement. That is the take home message. Stop looking like an utterly incompetent old, worn out fool and be honest and cognant during these exchanges of words.
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news