Bok bench is very good

 The only player I would not have included was Olivier. JJ Engelbrecht would have been a better selection.

But the rest will add plenty of value. Coenie is a perfect sub, can play both sides and loves to carry the ball. Strauss is in great form and will be a busy addition. Flip will provide physicality and Daniel will provide real clout with his own brand of forward play. If we can dominate, which we should, it will be good to include Daniel if the game opens up.

Pienaar has been in great form in Ireland and will add value. Lambie should have started at 15 and is a class act. I suspect he will replace Morne, with Olivier moving to 12 and Frans to 15

I guarantee you Lambie will only replace Morne at 10 if the game is won. Hopefully we don't see Olivier. Pienaar could be important.

I like Coenie and Strauss as a sub tandem....one of the few inspired picks. Daniel is good value for money. But Flip Flop has a history of losing tests via missed tackles (eg on Genia) and unnecessary penalties.

Overall the bench is about a neutral I'd say.

 Disagree, Moz, I really like our bench and come now you latch onto one or two incidents in a players career and then they are doomed for life. All players miss tackles, I dont recall a missed tackle by Flip all season and hell, he is a lock after all. Flip has been good all season and has that hard edge we need.

Olivier will be fine if he goes on and has been in just as good a form as Jean has been.  I would not have either in my side but so be it.

As for Lambie, you will find our coaches have a high regard for him as a 10, as I do......so who knows, if Morne blunders Lambie will come on or he will replace Kirchner

I think aking those changes would weaken the team and be counter-productive to building synergu ahead of the TNs. Lambie at 10, even when the Voks have been winning, has never worked. Frans at 15? Why go there? Olivier is the only one that makes sense, but I'd rather try Whitehead off the bench anyway.

Moz, Genia is a very nippy little player. One-on-one he should beat most forwards! Australia exploited our nonexistant defensive system in 2010 and 2011 (away leg) to create extreme one-on-ones like Genia v Smit on ruck fringes where they could really stretch us. Not so easy once Nienaber came in though. Flip was not the issue.
 

I think that the problem relates to the way in which the back line is going to function.   The key players in this case would be Morne and Hougaard.    If the high kicka nd charge game is not working out - it is likely that both would be replaced.   However, i think that the likely repalcements would be as follows:-

 Hougaard remains at scrumhalf, M Steyn to be repalced by Lambie, and Pienaar to replace Kirchner at full back.   That arrangement could depend entirely on players not getting injured.   However, the other scenario is that Pienaar could come in as Scrumhalf and Hougaard moved to replace Pietersen if the latter flops as happened in games where Pietersen played at center.   Then the replacements could be Pienaar as scrummie, Lambie at flyhalf and Hougaard on the wing.

Replacement usage not easy to predict as injuries could affect it - but Lambie would result in better utilization of the back line as an attacking option.

Lambie? And what does he bring to the table? Ball in hand Lambie is no nothing. He likes to run frantically, all to no avail and passing to anyone for no real purpose has always been a big issue. Morne with Frans, that alone will not fail to function ball in hand. Morne has been a chief cog in a very good attacking Bulls side for years. Lambie on the other hand has been a stifling presence in a very poor attacking side. Enough said.

I agree with sapster whose progress on matters pertaining to rugby, although slow, is meritrious.  Perhaps its the better  company he is keeping these days?

All these guys can add value even wee Daniels provided the poms have been softened up. That players can play in more than one position means all bases are well covered.

Beenkop what, what - meritrious?

@der Aristokrat

Dont mind if i refer to you as Tony Blair do you? I hate aristocrats!

Furthermore, I also disagree with your dumb opinion on Lambie.

Quite clearly you do not watch as much of the Sharks games as I do here in Kabul.

KTMO (Kabul Television for Muslims Only) shows a lot of rugby.

Though Lambie runs a flat line at 10, he manages to create a lof of space for the support runners who run off him. So i don't think the problem is his passing.

As for his running, the only problem i have with him is his eye is a lot quicker than his mind... ie: he sees the gap, but you'll notice that by the time he changes his running angle, the gap would have closed down.

His touch kicking is very good!

Pole kicking... needs a bit of work

So for now, my tribesmen and I are happy with him at 15. Let him get used to the highest level and when he is comfortable, lets try him in the flyhalf couldron. Stephen Lark-Ham comes to mind!

If Lambo can emulate Larkham, I'll be a very happy Muslim leader (and they don't come round very often)!

What complete and utter garbage. Please don't try and flatter yourself here; you know nothing about flyhalf play. Lambie will never, can never and has never even remotely resembled Larkha. To insinuate that he could be is deadly cocktail of insanity and idiocy - though it may be said that they are one and the same.

- Lambie is an average distributor
- Lambie is a shambolic decision maker - the key attribute of ANY good 10
- He is the second weakest defender at 10 we have
- He is too nervy and cowardly
- He has no understanding of the tactical demands of the game. Just running frantically is useless

All these things and more I have proven emphatically already. To date, not ONE critic has come forth with even the slightest piece of evidence to counter what I have produced. Many even venturing as far as lieing through their backsides.

 

Der Aristokrat

Which flyhalf is the weakest.   As far as I know it is Steyn    Hpowever, you are wildly out on Lambie    In any event I do not think we will ever agree on the Steyn-Lambie issue,    You think Steyn is wonderful - I think he is one-dimensional and mediocre,   The opposite in each case applies to Lambie.  Let the play on the field indicates who is right.

It is very hard to come forward with evidence on issues which is a figment of somebody's imagination with no foundation whatsoever.

Worst to best

1.Jantjes
2.Lambie
3.Goosen
4.Butch
5.Morné
6.Grant

The field of play has always proven I am right. But no evidence provided has ever been accepted. I even put a video together on another forum last year and was ridiculed because they didn't like what they saw with their own two eyes. Lambie is worthless, case closed.
 

 Bambie with Frans Steyn on his outside could be very effective on attack. 

I would hardely say that he is the 2nd weakest defender- but then again no one in the bok squad is a weak defender except Morne Steyn who just falls off people, allmost a pretend tackle.

Lambie at least runs onto the ball flat on the advantange line. Morne usually stands miles back. 

Would be good to see Lambie get a run

Peter Grant cant kick for territory, his distribution has never been great either. Peter Grants Touch Finders are way to short and this is why he never made much of his chance when selected for the boks ages ago.

Morne Steyn is not held in much regard internationally. He is seen as a one dimensional player. 

Lambie won't take over from Morne for another 2 years since his kicking doesnt match Steyn's, thats what our gameplans are all about and we gain most of our points in matches through Steyns ability to consistantly rack up the points by penalties.

Morné is one the more rounded players in test rugby. He is held in much higher regard then you want to believe. Morné's real value is in his decision making. Unfortunately the Stupid South Africans, of which there are legions, exclusively brand a good flyhalf as one that runs everything. Well, the two 10s in South Africa that do this are statistically the two worst 10s in South Africa and some of the worst overall. Much is made of Goosen, but he plays much more in line with Morné's way; namely, a varied and balanced approach where neither kicking nor passing or running predominates. Even in their win over the Sharks, it was said that Morné kicked everything, when in fact he he kicked and passed in equal measure! What does this mean? His critics are stupid, thick, brainless, foolish, futile, puerile, witless, unthinking, deficient, dim, doltish, half-baked, dopey, moronic, inane sheeple. Simple as that? Any questions?

Once again I point out the complete lack of substance to these arguments against Morné. ost of which is based on the Bok's 2009 game plan, that being where most kicks came from Du Preez! Another gaff made by the critics. Morné scores 31 points against New Zealand, it gets buried away for convenience. He does many other great things which I even posted video reference of, that in direct comparison to Lambie which proved emphatically Lambie's flaws, but no, it gets ignored and stuffed away because Morné's idiotic knuckle-dragging critics will not listen to anything that doesn't agree with that clog between their ears. When put to the test and challenge, they offer nothing. I find it funny that people here even talk of the Bok's gameplans over the past four years when they don't even know what that is, who was taking part, what their roles were and the outcome. Utterly shambolic. And where are all those fools that simple new that Jantjies was going to be an all-time great Bok? Where are they now? Jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon hoping it comes right. From Lambie to Jantjies, to Jantjies, to Goosen, to Grant, to Goosen, back to Lambie. What an utter spectacle you all are. 
 

Der Aristokrat

Let us get this straight - you make mention of Steyn as a tactician  - ie his decision making.   Morne stands back too far to allow for any decisionmaking other than either hospital passes to the backline - causing inability to cross the advantage line - or to kick.

His kicking is normally ineffective.   It allows the opposition to gather the ball whilst not under pressure and for them to launch attacks.   Ball sense and tactician are two phrases you can accuse Steyn of.   One-dimensional player certainly.

One thing I always said that in some way Steyn reminds me of Naas Botha - both excellent at goal kicking - but Naas knew what the role of a fyhalf was as he knew how to pass the ball effectively as well - which cannot be said of Steyn.   I do acknowledge that Morne is a top class goal kicker and - despite his poor performance as a Junior in the WC in Argentina - he is acknowledged even by his critics as a superb goal kicker.     However, there are fly ha;lfs in SA with a better all round game - whilst at the same time being good goal kickers.

LET ME REPEAT for an all-round good flyhalf you cannot stand as far back as Morne does - END OF STORY.   That could in fact reflect cowardice - something you accuse Lambie of.

By the way the foreign team loves Steyn in position as flyhalf - they know they can attack along the channel - since he is very average in defence and can often be run over - and furthermore he cannot link up with the back line to attack effectively.   That is the reason for his popularity. 

The list of top flyhalfs in SA at present are not what you gave - they are as follows:-

    1       Goosen

    2       Lambie

    3       Grant

    4       Jantjies

    5       Steyn

According to some comment son the Board - if Pollard develop after leaving school . he would soon overtake Steyn and Jantjies - moving the latter further down the ratings.

wow is this guy something, or what?

Listen, I rate Morne as our no.1 10 at the moment, but to denigrate Lambie the way he does is nothing short of disgusting. Surely rugby is the last thing a coward would want to play?

I suppose if we all spent our whole lives taping rugby matches and analysing them, we could come up with the positive things he does on the field. Its easy to distort facts when everyone else actually has a life and dont spend their every waking hour in front of a TV screen building their "theories".

Its interesting that one of the Bok coaches was quoted during the week as saying Lambie is better suited to 10 as he has the "X factor" and is a good decision maker. Then again, maybe that coach is also a "stupid South African" as you so aptly describe anyone who disagreed with you.

No wonder you have been hounded off other sites..................you are a pompous, arrogant twit. I predict you'll slink off this site in due course as well.

Butch, Morne and Grant ahead of Goosen you say der - I have one thing to say - YOU ARE CLUELESS

The real order is:

1. Goosen (by some distance)

2. Jantjies

3. Lambie

4. Grant

5. Morne