Beeno there are some interseting points raised by Mitchell

which was also touched on by Ole Cruz insofar as the game last week is concerned on which I think you should comment as well. It relates to breakdown ball recovery - a bugbear of your hero Meyer. I asked Mozart for comments too and to my horror discovered that he does not know what the difference is between rucks and quick and effective breakdown ball recovery. Since it really is a major course for concern I wonder whether you will not care to comment on that one. Unfortunately I think Meyer is trying unsuccessfully to rectify the issue through coaching and appointment of a consultant and then cannot understand that his selected players have physical problems that makes their breakdown support play impossible. To get you started - does Meyer actually know and understand the problem at all? Please look at the issue posted by Sharkbok as to the comments of Mitchell on breakdown play - as well as my own comments based on the evaluation of Mitchell's comments in direct relation to the present back row of Meyer - Jaysa made a particularly important comment on the issue as well ands so did ole cruz.

 ou maaikie I may be wrong but I thought the Wc was in 2015. Hence if taht is so and we pump the abs and Wobblies next year as my time tavble si suggesting the phycological damge would be greater. So mitchell must think more strategically.

As for the break down commit more players possibly and props and Locks to clean out better - you have to realsie that there is more to the breakdown than Louw!!!! Such ignorance on the matter.

 In my considered opinion ou maaikie I would have fielded Deon Fourie at 6, Vermuelen and Louw at 7 nad have two loosies who can play to the ball. Deon also adds a very useful attacking option and dricves the ball up extremely well As you know I have always talked about tweaking the pack. Best was are to make changes at hooker and loosie. For this match I would go with Straus and the looses I have mentioned. I would also start with Coenie and Flip. Give more clout to the tight five and speed up the loose trio.

Now Hooper may have dominated wee mcaaaaw as was noted but that does not mean much. It doesnt mean much to the kiwi bird brains also as they live in denial as the voice of REASON so aptly said. Hahhahahaahhaha I trust the Cloudster will not be after me again.

However ou maaaike just remember the Bok coach and his breakdown expert have forgotten more about the break down you have will ever know so lets hope they get it right. You are hoping this eh oo maaaike even if it means the egg will flow. Bwahahahahahahahaha

 

 

Common beeno ... use your head man.

 

Fourie at 6?? The man's a penalty machine. He pumps them out like there's no tomorrow. He'll be more off the field with yellow cards than on. Just not worth it. We cannot afford to keep playing with 14 men ... uh-duh!!!!.

 

Why commit all our resources to the breakdown when all you need is a specialist at 6 with a little support?

 

Wake up man ... try to think a bit before posting this shit of your!!!.

 

"Best was are to make changes at hooker and loosie" - WTF does that mean ... try to speak english will ya. Told you before ... I do not speak moron.

 

Come to think about it ... perhaps it's best you just shutup altogether.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

Cleancut: I have found that in communicating with Brother Beeno it is best to use emoticons (moving pictures). You are right, it is hard to communicate in "moron" so communicating in emoticons is the closest we can probably get.

I would go easy on Beeno, he is a simple man but I believe he is a good guy. He provides an opportunity for us to show compassion (& humour, lol).

Beeno The problem is not what you are saying - Mirtchell says clearly that we need four players in close proximity when breakdowns occur. You are bargaining on 1 - Fourie - who looks good in ball carrying - but very limited in ball recovery at breakdoiwns and a very low tackle count.- where are the others to come from? As Mitchell says by the time they arrive at the breakdown point the opposition is already involved in the next breakdown. The problem is the players you rely on the props and locks are not at breakdown points in time and their contribution is near to zero. So are the two loosies you suggest. Then remember what Tomas says about the problems we have had last week - that is after the Consultant has been at it. His efforts were a dead loss. Sorry Beeno - like Mozart you also think we need a tight 7 game plan and all will be well. It will not be well at all - it is previous century stuff - whilst the game has moved on. Meyer has identified the problem - but what next? He got a Consulatant in - and the very next match we failed in the process. Why? Is it not because as was pointed out by both Mitchell and Tomas - that the players who Meyer selects to fulfil the function are physically unable to do so. Is it clear that they are too slow, too big to do effective ball recovery - too clumsy in the process and in essence unable to get the right results - speedy and efficient recovery. We still find that the system the Consultant dealt with does not work - because the players reach the breakdown points to late and even if they do - as Tomas said they become physically unbalanced and cannot bring about quick and effective ball recovery. . Sorry - but you are missing the boat here. You are much like Mozart talk about rucks here - rucks that happen far less than breakdowns do - and have far less of an impact on point scoring than breakdown recovery does. As long as Meyer and his supporters support that totally unbalanced and fruitless scenario - we will not make any advances in rugby performance. That is the long and the short of the matter. It is not 2004 anymore, it is not even 2007 - it is 2013 and since the laws were changed - we have made no real progress - whilst other teams have. That is why we can perform well against weak teams - like at Spweto two weeks ago - when the Pumas lost their way as a result of yellow cards and strategic injuries. A week later they recovered their senses - looked at the issue and what happens - they outscored us by two tries to one. If the Pumas can do that - what will the much better AB's and Wallabies do? The amount of psychological damage is on our side not the AB's or the Wallabies. Our players themselves do not believe they can win the next two tests and they won't - and that is just it.