Bok Barometer April 30.....scrambled eggs

This week, after a period of relative stability there are quite a few changes. The Lions were badly beaten and the Bools prevailed albeit against the Force. Combrink played well in a lost cause, but the other Lions faded badly. At flyhallf Jantjies was Captain confusion along with Faf....Whiteley and Kriel were dominated. Smith was under pressure in the scrums.
Players who came on apart from Combrink included Serfontein, du Plessis, Nyakane, Strauss, Snyman, Carr, Liebenburg and Schalk. 

One might say that Jantjies should keep his spot based on prior weeks, but this week under pressure he crumbled. I prefer du Plessis who had the mental strength to recover from missed kicks, and looked almost like Biggar chasing the high ball. Jordan gets the nod among a poor set of 13s for good defense. The final barometer after comment is:
WillieSergial PetersonJordaan(Mapoe)SerfonteinCombrink (Jumbo Ulengo)
JL du Plessis (Jantjies)Groom ( Faf de Klerk)
MalherbeStrauss(Marx)Nyakane (Marais, Smith)Snyman (Etzebeth)du ToitCarr(Kriel, Coetzee)KirstenSchalk (Whiteley)

 




 The Barometer reflects S15 form, with a modest amount of emphasis on recent games. Make your suggested changes and they will be incorporated in the first posting on the string if they appear to reflect a majority view. A new Barometer will be posted under a separate string each week. 

The fact is that in respect of the games since he returned to play at 6 for the Bulls - Labuschagne was by some distance better than the other 6's you listed.  If your emphasis is on the later matches you have missed out badly on that one and the suggestion is that you have a look at both his defensive and attacking stats on ESPN and compare it with the others.
Schalk was one of the headaches yesterday - even though he did score a try.  An 8 who concedes 1 turnover and makes 4 tackles and missed 1 is not an 8 at all.   The problem yesterday was that the Stormers loosies were all way below expectations in defense.  Most of the defensive work was done by players like Du Toit and Malherbe - the loosies were nowhere and was just not in the game defensively.
There is one aspect of Jantjies play that always bothers me.  To my mind he is actually a poor reader of the game and play what I would call a manufactured game according to "the handbook" for flyhalfs.  He would make passes and kicks which is the opposite to what flyhalfs reading the game properly would do.   I have said this about him in the past and expressed reservations as to what will happen when there is real pressure on him.  What happened yesterday is a clear indication that he can never be a reliable test flyhalf.          

  

 That's true Mike,  Labuschagne does have strong stats in defence. But I can't remember one crucial tackle in open field....a lot of phase tackling. These duties  vary by team. For the Sharks Lewies also made many more tackles than the du Preez twins. 
Labuschagne is much like Whiteley....a very fine p layer at S15 level, who will be dominated in tests by the better loosies/teams.

 Any proof op that statement or is it just prejudice?   I will rather have a good ball pro tector and recover in the team than a one-dimentional player who cannot do the latter and there is none better than Labuschagne in that component of the game.  

 Labuschagne is 27 years old, we have seen him over many years. The idea that Liggies is going to compete with PocL ock and Hooper, in a test when they are really committed, is nonsense.

 Alberts was 29 when he was first elected to start in the Springbok team.  We have seen him for years and he was never competitive with anybody - leave alone Poc ock and Hooper or for that matter with any of the other recognized loosies in world rugby - yet in your opinion he was good enough to be selected as a Springbok.  Am afraid that your argument is as shallow as they come - it is your personal opinion and not really in line with performance standards required from a loosie.   

 Er Alberts was 26 when he came off the bench and 27 when he started. I guess that takes care of that silly diversion.  Let's not drag this out....you think Liggies is an international flank, I don't. You are entitled to your opinion, so am I.

 Alberts may have startyed in a test in 2011 during the WC - but his real start as a test player was only in 2012 on a regular basis.  The reason why it happened you previously said was Juan Smith.
However, he never ever was a test level loosies and that remains a fact.    

Well at least he was picked. More than one can say for Liggies.

 Meyer often enough picked rubbish and you were dumb enough to support the picks.  The list is long and so is the failures in results.  Just think of the "most experienced Springbok team" ever losing against Japan and that because of selection of has-beens and never has-beens to play in that test.      

 Actually no....they lost the Japanese test because Coenie stupidly got himself carded at minute 78 putting the team under pressure. And then Kriel missed his opposite number in a simple one on one situation. The new boys lost the test when we were 5 points ahead.

 So you got it all wrong again. Bismarck's four penalties and Burger's four knock-ons just happens - it did not count for anything.   The fact that Matfield ignored the game plan was equally a non-factor.   The fact that Pienaar went off-side at a scrum and was a dud during the game counted for nothing.   The fact that two of the Bok tries was scored by Strauss and according to you despicable De Jager who kept the Springboks in the game were non-factors as well.   But another case of a one-incident junk thinker who thinks that one or two players buggered up the game because of single incidents causing the loss - while the gross poor performances by most players are ignored.
            .

 If Kriel makes his tackle we win....it came down to that. The accumulation of all the alleged errors you cite came down to that....one of your new chaps lost the game when it was won. Case closed.

 Mozart you must be dilly - the team should have been far ahead - but got buggered up by the useless and the clueless "oldies" who played on reputation and not performance. Another try by the Japanese should never have caused the loss.   Are you delusional or what? 
Maybe it was a good thing it happened - they got rd of most of the duds - who had very little game time later in the tournament.      

 But it did matter. The only players blooded since the prior WC in 2011 who helped our effort at the WC were Etzebeth, Lomp but only in the pool games he was hopeless in the knockouts and Pollard. Allende and Kriel lost matches with their defence, Coenie lost matches, Step wasn't given much of a chance, but would have flopped as well, Nyakane was solid but not as good as the Beast.
Key moments that ended our WC....Lomp missing Kaino, Allende allowing Nonu to run 20 metres to set up the winning AB try. Perpetrators ....young pop guns.

 Balls - what about the rest.  Burger losing ball possession - for which he had the decency to apologize.   Matfield having a easy kicking penalty reversed by his stupidity.   However - you mentioned the Allende case and then posted a video proving that you are a liar.  What about Pietersen not guarding a pass to Barrett?   Mozart if you want to discuss facts please give the whole story - not the BS stories you specialize in.        

 JP had to come inside because he couldn't be sure Nonu wasn't going to score directly...that because Allende did not close the space. The fact is if we left Allende, Kriel, Lambie, Stepfontein, Lomp and Stephanie at home......we wouldn't have hurt our chances, because they did nothing of value in the knockouts. And that is not contestable, nothing is unequivocally nothing.

 Balls - there was nothing wrong with the defense bar your apparent attempt to voer for JP.   
How do a backline player do anything with the sh!t game plan accounting for the ball to be passed to the forwards and not to the backline players and they virtually never saw the ball - you are really disfunctional upstairs.  

Oh so Allende shut down Nonu and Kaino didn't use Lomp for a doormat...thanks for that er....disinformation.  What a plank, but then you don't have to be smart to be a provincial bureaucrat. No degree needed.

 Back to the Barometer, any suggested changes in the team as posted. Mike wants Labuschagne for Carr, I'm happy to make that change if posters prefer the Bool.

 The one issue here is I recognise when a player makes a mess of things - you only deal with denigrating players you do not like and keep quiet or try to cover up for your favourite players.   That is what ever ybody recognize as coming from a rugby illiterate.   

 So no support for Liggies over Carr....the team stands then.