Are we seeing anything new at flyhalf....or for that matter anywhere else?

Personally I don't think so...maybe the metronomic boot of Boshoff. Goosen made some nice goal kicks and just missed a biggie....but his use of the drop was less satisfactory. Lambie is also goal kicking well. But none of these fly halves are creating anything for the players outside. Goosen is still being run over. And Lambie is still getting charged.

Frankly it's the same old, unimaginative flyhalf play. Our most  creative back by a mile is Willie. I'd have tried him at 10 way before now.

In the centres the only thing exciting is Jordaans instant gas, but his defence remains a question. The Bools pair is bog ordinary. Dave tells me Serfontein took an outside gap....to me he got the ball running laterally in broken play, Hendriks turned and Jan stepped off his right foot and ran round his back. It was another example of his only weapon...a right foot step. He isn't fast, has ordinary hands and can't stand up in the tackle. He is a mile behind a player like  Fofana. JJ is just a fast finisher, nothing more.

Frans is playing better and there are a few other options, Sadie for example looked much more alert than JJ....but it looks like Jean and Frans.

The only scrum half with a hand up is Faf de Klerk. Hougaard's reactions are like treacle. Schroeder is utterly hopeless. Van Zyl had a horrible stint on the park....Reinach after a decent first match, was eroor prone.

At fullback we are well covered with Willie and the one bright new light, SP Marais.

The locks are decent, but there is nothing to suggest a pecking order change. Lood is fine, Steph continues to work very hard, but does he have the raw power at this stage?

Coenie  is playing splendidly in the loose, with one great turnover.....but he was worked and popped by Greyling. By contrast the Sharks scrum declined when Jannie went off. The Stormers props, Kitshoff and Malherbe, were poor...I just can't see what the fuss is about.

Among the loosies Kankowski  is nicely improved. And Coetzee has added a valuable fetching dimension, which starts to make a case for him. Lappies has bulked up a lot, but lost some pace one fears. His ball instincts following up van der Walt's kick were pretty ordinary. Perhaps he also needs to work on fetching vs process tackling. In sum I see nothing new among the loosies with test match potential.

 Lets analyze the statements made by Mozart and see whether he has done anything but state his prejudices:-

Jordaan

"In the centres the only thing exciting is Jordaans instant gas, but his defence remains a question."

Jordaan made 11 tackles missing 1  -  that is a missed tackle ratio of  8,3%.   One question please -  What are you talking about when referring to defence? 

Francois Steyn

"Frans is playing better"

"but it looks like Jean and Frans"

Frans is playing better than last yea when he was POOR - but his better play should be seen in context of performances this year:-

*   He is basically interested in one basic thing - how can I bash up balls by running straight at the opposing defenders.   In doing that he handled the ball 35 times - kicked it 4 times and passed it 11 times.   The other 20 times  (57,1%) he held onto the ball like his life depends on it.  In twenty carries he made 41 meter gain in territory - ie just over 2 meters per carry.   In the process he  beats 5 defenders - but the only time he really made an impression he blindly passed the ball to Perenera and the move went the same way as all others - it died with him. 

*   He lost possession of the ball 5 times and gave away 3 penalties.  As a percentage of total times he touched the ball it represents 22,8% in other words in ball handling he made a mess of 22,8% of all balls handled.  Is that good enough?

*   He made 12 tackles and missed 3 - ie a missed tackle ratio of  20%.   You moaned about Jordaan's defence with a missed tackle ratio of 8,3% - what makes Steyn's 20%  acceptable and a sign of playing better.

Sure he is better than he was last year - his missed tackle ratio last year was 23% so the improvement seems to be marginal.   White made comment about players nor passing the ball and I think after Saturday's game Steyn got grilled about that.    He is better but there are still serious question marks as to his performances.  Like I said - Frans in the backline is like administering poison to that backline.

Try another one please.

Kitshoff and Malherbe

"The Stormers props, Kitshoff and Malherbe, were poor...I just can't see what the fuss is about."

Every time Kitshoff and Malherbe seems to be pushed back in the scrum - the opposition got penalised for illegal scrumming - they call it in refereeing terms "walkabout".  Did you not notice that?

Labuschagne     

"Lappies has bulked up a lot, but lost some pace one fears. His ball instincts following up van der Walt's kick were pretty ordinary. Perhaps he also needs to work on fetching vs process tackling. In sum I see nothing new among the loosies with test match potential."

A few observations here.  What is  the difference between tackling and process tackling  You apparently use the term "process tackling" to destroy the image of some players when you can find nothing else to criticise them for.

He did miss the pick up on the ball kicked by Van der Walt - but the p[playing conditions were extremely poor and most players would have missed pick up of that ball.   The ball handling in that game was not really up to standard.

I checked on other sites and in the two games he made four fetching balls.  He is a blindside flank and that reduce the number he can.   Allberts made none and was never anywhere near any breakdown point - so what are you moaning about here? In two games played Labuschagne made 32 tackles against the 8 made by Alberts,  Both missed two tackles.   Missed tackle ratio - Alberts 20% - Labuschagne 5,9%.

Labuschagne lost some speed - on what do you base that?  He is still the only 7 in SA that is good at ball proitection at breakdown points and arrives early enough at such points to protect the ball against turnovers - something Alberts never does.   That shows sufficient speed around the park

Last year Labuschagne was a weakling - this year he is slow in speed.  What next - what a joke!

 SUMMARY     

WHEN WILL YOU EVER STOP YOUR PREJUDICE AND START EVALUATING GAMES AND PLAYERS  REALLY OBJECTIVELY?  

Well I'm not going to bother with Mike's drivel. But here are a few incidents you might want to look at Dave:

Scrum minute 2.54 Greyling lifts Coenie

Scrum minute 9.24 Greyling has Coenie in reverse.

Scrum minute 31.40 Greyling pops Coenie right out of the scrum

Minute 30.20 Serfontein gets ball running across the field....Hendriks who is already past him turns back to tackle him and runs back and somewhat  laterally  towards him. Serfontein steps back on his right foot, towards his own goal line and runs round the back of Hendriks and is immediately nailed. That's not an outside gap, it's abit of aimless lateral running.

Minute 58.15 Sefontein drops the ball and is penalized for holding Venter.

Minute 74 Serfontein throws a silly forward pass.

I maintain there is nothing new out there....the Cheetahs are playing the same game, the Bulls are lost without Morne, the Stormers looked totally unready for combat, the Lions are relying on helter skelter rugby and Boshoff'ss boot....but at least Jantjies is out of the picture.

The one bright spot is the Sharks where Lambie, Fransie and Coetzee are already much improved under Jake and the team as a whole has raised it's intensity and competence.

 Mozart

If ever there was drivel written on this site - it is what you wrote in this thread.   It is fictional deductions made by you based on no facts at all.   It looks at some players you dislike and not at players you like.

You invent  deductions based on two games for four teams and one game of the fifth team.   The playing conditions in one game was very poor and that suddenly becomes one of the deciding factors ignored by you. 

When your fallacies and fictional deductions are pointed out and countered by facts - it is described by you as drivel - because it contains facts which you do not want to face up to and cannot deal with.

Saffex is right about comments he made.   It is way to early to suddenly start to make any deductions claiming anything - all I want to add that it your initial comments are s meaningless,  not based on facts  and  in fact countered by factual evidence.             

 Mozart's drivel ignores a few pertinent facts.  Much is made of the scrumming issue and the Sharks front row - but what is ignored is the factual situation namely -

 *   that the Sharks front row did NOT have the upper hand in scrumming against the Bulls until later in the game when Matfiield came on and weakened the Bulls scrumming considerably (the same happened in the Cheetahs game as well); and 

*   it ignores the fact that the Hurricanes has what can at best be described as a crinkle paper tight five that would not test the scrumming ability of any reasonably strong team.

Matter of fact the Stormers will also prove that fact this coming weekend.  

To base any logical deduction on what happened iro of scrumming during  the Sharks - Hurricanes game is really a joke in bad taste. 

This is just one problem with all the drivel Mozart wrote above.

Mozart

Please remember one basic element in your discussions of players and in particular Morne Steyn.  Stade Fracais found out what Morne really brings to the table in games and that contract with him is a major financial disaster for them.

He is a one-dimensional robot usable for goal  kicking and for nothing else.  His loss for the Bulls may have a short term impact on them - but in the longer term it will be beneficial for them to be without him.

There is a basic difference between Boshoff and Steyn and that is that Boshoff -

*  is a better ball distributor than Morne ever was and ever will be;

*  sometimes attacks the gain line himself - something Morne never did' and 

*  is a much better defender than Steyn  - taking into account Morne's technical flaw in tackling (he has the problem of going high in tackling - same as JJ).

From a kicking at goal perspective Boshoff thus far has been much better than Steyn was last year  - especially taking into account the fact that he has an added ability which Morne lost in the last two years - namely dropped goal kicks.

The best thing that could ever have happened to SA Rugby is the departure of Morne from the local scene and hopefully  from the Springbok team as well.        

Mozart

My erstwhile pick - what are you talking about?  My pick has always been Malherbe and you are inventing things again.  

Mozart

Then your first pick is Boshoff??????

 Sharkbok

My father started to take my brother and myself to rugby tests in the 1950's and from the 1960's I went to most tests played in Pretoria, Johannesburg and Durban or watch virtually every test played on TV.

Prior to 1980 the Western Province provided the majority of backline players and skills level in ball handling and playing clever backline rugby was of high standard.  

Then in 1981  the scenario changed when Naas Botha came on the scene.  In 1981 NZ tour the Springbok backline was still a threat.   However in the succeeding years the 10 man game took over and the backline was there to defend and for the rest make up the numbers to fill the teamsheet.

By 1991 the 10 man rugby system was in place,  The thinking was that the bulkier the backline players were the better they should be on defence.   That settled the present norm.  Despite the 1995 WV win - the system was not successful at all.

In 1997 Carel du Plessis was made the coach and he changed the system so as  to play skilled backline players who could score tries.   Initially he had some problems in the relevant regard - but by September 1997  the revised system - involving backline players with ball skills and sense was in place.   They thumped the LBRI Lions by their biggest defeat ever in the Pretoria test and Australia suffered the same fate there as well.

Du Plessis's ideas were met by enmity from the rest - because it entails a change in thinking unwelcome to them.   He was consequently replaced by Mallett - who with minor exceptions used the same backline that Du Plessis developed and was eminently successful for 15 subsequent tests.   Mallett had no idea how to replace the backline players and buggered the replacements up badly. 

After his replacement - the system reverted back to the 10 man game - with no allowance for backline skills and expertise.   The bulkier and bigger the better - but it was also the bulkier and stupider - the better.  

White to his credit became influenced by Eddy Jones and tried to get expertise and skills back into the Springboks backline and showed some success with it.  But it was shortlived and when he was replaced the idea of skilled backline players became redundant again.

Since 1992 the basic idea of SA coaches - with the exception of Du Plessis,  White and the copycat Mallett (to a minor extent) - was to coach skills out of backline players. 

When Meyer was confronted about the ills of Morne and Hougaard in 2012 - he referred only to fixing their kicking skills as the only solution.   At this stage Meyer seems ambivalent about the issue and I think there are mild signs of wishing to change the strategy of ten man rugby - but he seems to have problkems selecting ball sense players ahead of dim players with bulk.

Lets for instance take the case of Francois Steyn - when he burst on the scene for the Sharks - he was like a breath of fresh air in a stagnant situation.  Good skills and an eye-opener in play.  However, what developed afterwards is the same - the skills were coached out of him.

His performances in the last two games for the Sharks was an eye-opener (on the negative side this time) as well.   He lost possession of balls or gave away penalties of 22% of the balls handled by him.   He hang onto the ball  57% of the time and ran straight at the first defender - whilst a decent center would aim at the small gap between two centers.  He missed 20% of all attempted tackles.            

Despite the dismal percentages indicated - he is lauded as being successful - and one wonders why.  In any other environment he would be in serious trouble with the coach and near to replacement.   However, his  only asset many on this site lauded,  is his size - not his  ability  to play thinking rugby - an essential element in successful backline performances.

We have a mindset of the coaches on levels above CC level  here that requires change  - but the question remains will it change?    Personally I think that both Meyer and White will move slowly towards changing the so-called "traditional SA way of backline play" - which in fact only became traditional in the 1980's.

The problem really starts with the flyhalf.   A while ago there was a debate on this site as to flyhalf play.   Mozart in particular favoured Morne - who always stand still when receiving a ball from the scrummie and said that is the SA way of playing.   If you look at other coutnries that just does not happen - by the time flyhalfs receive the ball they are on the move already.  This is also according to some a distinct "traditional SA way of play" .  It is obviously also bullshit - let me be blunt about it.

The players are out there - but the coaches generally do not regard them as selectable and prefer the dead backline concept above everything else.

 Sun Tzu

A lot of words - but really meaningless.  We do not create anything insofar as backline play is concerned.   the concept of having a kicking flyhalf without any other skills is deep-rooted and is a major problem. 

" New Zealanders are brought up with these things until they are as natural as breathing."

This is true of SA school boys as well.  I doubt whether you ever saw a school match in your life.   The moment they leave school the professional coaches get at them and try to  coach all creativity and ball skills out of them.  If they do show tendencies like that they are ignored - because the size element becomes over-bearing and natural talent means nothing.   

"The Sharks have played some great rugby because of the movement off the ball, how they confront and manipulate the defence."

That NOW came into the g ame as a result of one player - Francois Steyn.  You praised him endlessly - yet he is the main destroyer of backline play by the Sharks.  He has seriously deficient ball skills and no passing game and ball sense - play like a robot and bugger up virtually 50% of everything he does.  Even White referred to the deficient passing game in an interview after the Saturday game.   You can be sure the main target of his comments were the witless Francois Steyn.  

"These are not naturally found in South African teams because we select a 10 and hope he does stuff that will magically."

There are naturally gifted players at flyhalf - but for the past four years we have virtually persisted with a flyhalf with no ball sense, no idea about decisionmaking , virtually  no skills other than kicking and the most one-dimensional flyhalf in world rugby - and then make the claim there is nobody else that can do better.  There are - but people like you have one main aim - namely to discredit alternatives and think they are making solid debating points. Morne as flyhalf destroy backline play - and that is a fact.  Stade Francais did not take long to realize that and now they sit with him.  It will take time to get over the Morne Steyn fiasco - but we will get over it and be a better team  with a functional backline afterwards. 

"They know our weakness, but we do not and that will be exploited until we wise up once and for all. "

Most local rugby enthusiasts knows our weaknesses as well - and many express opinion on it in the media and elsewhere - but the ideal of a dead backline is so ingrained in thinking of coaches that very little is done to eliminate it.  The only SA coach that really learnt about it and adapt the team game  it is Naka Drotsky.  I admire him for doing just  that.

 Sun Tzu

No need to get personal on this issue.   That famous decoy line running of Steyn was normal - he went forward like any decent backline player would and Sefontein lined up to defend should Steyn get the ball.   It was a planned move with Lambie passing to Mvovo thus creating a gap in defence.  Steyn's contribution was zero to that try other than to move forward like any center would have done.

Jordaan had enough ball sense to run in an assisting line to get the ball from Mvovo, 

You do not beat any defenders ever by running straight at them - any decent player would realise that.  You aim at the gap between the two centers - something Steyn never does.   By doing that it often enough means that the 13 would shift in slightly to defend.  if the ball is then past to the 13 on the point immediately before the 12 is tackled or in the process of being tackled - there is space into which the 13 and wings and full back can run into.   There is only one inside center at present in SA who does that and that is De Allende.  Comprehende.   Incidentally this was discussed recently before a 6 Nations match and raised specifically by one of the experts.

A flyhalf who stands dead still when he receives the ball - who never attacks the gain line - who is too slow in getting the ball moving to the centers - who is one-dimensional and utterly predicatable -  are all definitions of a player who destroy backline play.  Morne routinely stands too deep in the pocket to contribute anything to back line play - bar hospital passes to his inside center.   In 2013 Meyer said publicly that he told Morne to stand flatter - it helped a bit - but the difference in attacking play was not made by Morne - but by Willie le Roux.  Morne is one-dimensional and from a backline attacking perspective a serious liability.   His only real value is kicking at goal - end of story.   These are not lies - but facts recognised by experts throughout the world and freely expressed by them.   The most useless flyhalf SA ever had. He made Braam van Straaten look like a miracle in attacking player.         

Let's take it this way, generally in rugby today there is a wall of defenders straight across the park. When you have that situation the sooner you take contact, the less likely it is you will lose the ball. Pass it a few times laterally, as most fans want, and you have wings and centres trying to prevent a turnover. So players like Fransie instinctively take it into contact.

Attacking rugby, the glorious passing of the ball,  can only happen when this wall is compromised. That happens on kick returns (not a flyhalf issue), turnovers (not a flyhalf issue), and scrums where the backline has space. 

The nature of these opportunities calls for creativity and vision, not a programmed response. Essentially you go off script. But recognizing patterns is important....identifying space and speed. The ABs hurt us so often on kick returns...one of their back three solves the non linear equations and sees the opportunity, the other players are quick to see what's happening and lend support....they are alert to the opportunity. We on the other hand are lining up for the next up and under.

Very little of this stuff has to do with the flyhalf initiating things. Which is why swopping Lambie or Goosen for Morne will change nothing. Mostly the flyhalf recognizes the need for a quick/ skipped pass....go back to our tries against NZ at Ellis Park, you will see Morne has that vision. The flyhalf makes big breaks so rarely in tests these days, you can effectively forget that eventuality.

So what do we do if we want to play attacking rugby. Well you have to pick attacking players with vision....Willie, Aplon, Jean, Habana.....those are the best we have. Hell Habana's pace in 2005 to 2007 was enough to make the Boks a long strike team. And you have to have a fetcher, because turnover ball is the best source of space. Then you have to turn kick returns into a running opportunity by coaching the players to aggressively back up the runnner. 

After that all the various attacking skills have to be honed and a few set moves have to be planned for scrums and lineouts. The most surprising thing the Boks could ever do is use the backline from close, rather than the maul!

But having said all that, and the transformation is a massive undertaking.....if you compromise your defence and kicking in search of playing the beautiful game....we will win less tests.

Mozart

Well put.  I agree with you about players should have attacking instinct and not be dolt players.  I also agree with you about attacks  as well.

However, there are a few things to remember.  Those are in the main that -

*   a flyhalf or for that matter any other player - should not make aimless kicks that can be optimised by the opposition.

*   a flyhalf and inside center should not play robotic rugby;

*   players should not run straight at defenders - they should aim for gaps drawing in more than one defender;

*   the impression given that attacking rugby inevitable leads to worse defence is a fallacy not supported by fact.  It can only happen when the attacking team makes handling errors and that is rather rare.  

The problem is a bit more complex than you have stated as well.  The question is what is the role of loose forwards in attacking play.   Burger and Smith in their heyday showed us one additional requirement - and that is to link with the backline players in attacking moves.   This nowadays is a rarity - but it did happen at Ellis Park with both tries of Habana.   Problem is that as a rule our back row players are never really complementing the backline players in attacking moves.   The only SA team which does that effectively is the Cheetahs.   Now lets look at the present back row players.   Alberts never passes balls and he never gets near enough to play to do anything relating to cover defence and ball protection - his ball handling skills is virtually non-existent - so he is a non-participant who would never be able to adapt.   Vermeulen and Louw should get more practice in what is to be done insofar as linking play with backline players is concerned and they should be encourage to do it and see opportunities where it is possible to happen - often enough from breakdown situations where quick ball recovery happened,  There are other loosies in SA who can do what is required with relative ease and have been effective in that regard.

The key players to be involved are really the scrummies and especially the flyhalf.   Du Preez is very good and he should be used to get the younger scrummies awate of what is really required.   Dense scrummies are an abomination.

The real issue is the need for a pivot who can read games and adjust strategies instantly if circumstances so warrant.   That is not the forte of a player like Morne Steyn - he plays according to instruction only.   If he did not the fiasco of Messam's second try at Ellis Park would not have happened.  Unfortunately Morne is not a player that has the necessary instincts to implement attacking rugby - he is too robotic for that.   He has to be told in advance what to do and it sometimes work - as referred to by you in respect of the Ellis Park test - but that does not mean he can read games and improvise accordingly - he cannot and that has been proven over the years.

You are correct about the players listed and I agree with you about Jean - have always said he has the ability to read games and do the right things.  You referred to Francois Steyn and I had a specific look at what happened in the last Sharks game.  I gave a description elsewhere of what he did and what I saw on close inspection was shockingly poor.  It was repetitive and totally non or counter-productive. It was even extremely dangerous in some respects where he handed the ball to the opposition.   Am afraid he is not the answer at 12.  

Now lets look a bit further - we have no 13 that can complement Jean in playing effective backline rugby and that remain a real problem.  We have ample players on the wing that can. 

Saffex will have a fit - but the real deal to support Jean and ultimately take over from him - and is learning massively from him - is De Allende, Even playing out of position on Saturday - he was by far the best Stormers backline player.  I for one am going to see how he develops this year.         

Moxart

I saw De Allende doing what is required in a number of games - but he has been under- utilized by the Stormers and it would be interesting to see what happens this year.   His former coach Dixon said he is a very clever player that reads games instinctively and I believe he does.  

With Willie, Habana  and Jean still there we have enough spark I think. We certainly scored some fine tries last year. The issue arises when we lose the latter two. I see none of the younger players with the same vision.