Bok Headache: Loose Trio

Everyone is talking about the Bok midfield, but in my mind it's the loose trio that is the biggest headache. The midfield selections are obvious, the loose trio less so. There is also considerable emotional attachment to some of its biggest problem areas. Kolisi was named captain, and once recovered from injury, will captain the Boks at the World Cup. There was a outcry last year when Rassie substituted him, such is the political investment in the black Bok captain. Needless to say, he has never earned his place, either as player or captain. 

Steph is another polarizing figure. He is heavily backed by the media and large sections of the fan base, but presents his own problems. Is he a blindsider? Is he a lock? He can't quite pin either position down. In this year's Super rugby he was the 17th highest ranked flanker. Can the Boks continue this experiment? 

Louw has excelled all across the back-row, but has only appeared at 8 in his past six tests. His performances, particularly at the breakdown, have been excellent. Can we find a place for him? 

Duane is the premier Bok 8, but there was stiff competition from Dan du Preez throughout super rugby. There is also the matter of Whiteley, who went under the radar last year as one of the best Boks. Duane, Louw, Whiteley or Dan? Kwagga was also ranked quite highly at 8 this year. Could we see him emerge as the incumbent come World Cup time? 

It doesn't seem to me that Rassie knows what he wants, and has painted himself into a corner with the election of Kolisi as Bok captain. Where do we go from here?

What planet are you on? Desperate Dan Deysel is not even in the extended squad of 40+, so he is nowhere on Rassie's radar.  

The Deysel twins are ball carriers and tacklers. They can hit rucks backwards like Alberts, but they are not going to influence the breakdown without at least one loosie competing on the ground. 

Vermeulen is an allrounder that can vary his game based on the situation. He can fetch, carry and link with the backs depending on the situation. 

The man is deluded as per normal. The loosie trio on Saturday is already determined  and would  be  6  Kwagga Smith, 7 Du Toit and 8 Vermeulen.   AO has inherited the Du Toit hatred from Mozart and what they write about him is incredibly stupid and totally inaccurate.  

He and Mozart s punting Louw as a loosie - but is that really the answer.   Louw is frankly not the player he was three years ago - and was very average last year and nothing better on Saturday.      

My apologies Lügnerin, I didn't intend for you to pop a fuse over this. It was all rather simple: Who is and who should be part of the Bok loose trio? Does Rassie know his best combination? Is he right?

As per Louw, he was the best Bok loosie for the entire duration of the game. It wasn't even remotely close. 

Hatred would involve personal attacks and lies to smear a player. You've been caught out dozens of times with Louw alone. Even worse, every so often you retell the same lies vertabim. Every word I have ever said about Steph has been backed up. No emotional bleatings, just raw information. Your love of the kid is what blinds you, and is why you become irate when you don't hear what you like. 

@HerrHaifisch: There are a lot of people in the game and fans who believe Dan was the best 8 in Super rugby this year. I don't believe he is better than Duane, but the output was so close that it bears consideration. Would Elstadt be more deserving than Dan at 7? Is he better? Is Steph a better fit at 7? All part of the question marks hanging over the Bok loose trio. 

Ag foeitog - Louw was NOT the best loosie and what you said was based entirely based on one possession turnover.   I am really not interested n what BS you write since I prefer to stick with reality.   

Louw is not competitive anymore and the sooner you accept that the better loosie was Du Toit,   Idiocy would not help you either.    

Louw was a continual nuisance at the breakdown all game long. He was excellent all around the field. His defence was the best of the loose forwards. You always back the losing horse. 

Louw made a wonderful line break and made a kick collected by Jantjies preceding the De Jager try - not so?

Louw didn't get beaten cleanly, allowing Kerevi to advance into acres of space where the Aussies dotted down. He didn't get hit in the face by a perfectly thrown pass. He was the more accurate of the loose forwards, made the most frequently telling contributions and was the hardest working forward overall. It's that simple. 

Most frequently telling contributions - LMAO.

never saw Du Toit protecting ball on the ground or making turnovers - BS as per normal.  What a load of KAK again because they do not want to see what really happened on the field of play and then make wild statements .   Players who think is unacceptable to some members and their past history of support for low work rate loosies is to be remembered.   No players must have ball sense - and the story is repetitive.

Look at what the AB forwards get involved in and see the difference in what you are taklking about.      

Was Steph thinking when he impeded Andre, tripping himself up? When he was, again, beaten cleanly, or when Nz repeatedly drew and passed inside exposing his channel in Wellington? These players of yours aren't helping your case! 

So Steph has "ball sense" when he hardly passes the ball? 

I have a great idea, why don't you do something you have never done before. why don't you go through the game and tell us exactly what Steph was doing. 

BS - he was not impeding Esterhuizen - he has more pace than Esterhuizen.  You are too stupid to even make your latest remarks.

I know what he was doing - I know the ball carries - I know the tackles he made - I saw him being within three meters from Kerevi when he made that line break - near enough for you anlot to have made the tackle - but in fact practically not near enough.  Enough foir the idiots on site to find a way of demeaning his performance.

I think Steph had the Skop 'N Pop drilled into him by J-Raz!  

Yes he was and that is a fact - stupid.   That is why you are such a shallow rugby thinker.

Shallow would be insisting on something because of... "I dunno" and ridiculing anyone who has conducted some kind of investigation into a matter. You went so far as to call Pakie's character into question rather than concede that you don't have the answers. Instead you expect us to merely fall in line for absolutely no reason whatsoever. 

To make a negative deduction like Mozart made above is shallow thinking on his part and led to the incident be ignored and so was the try scored by De Jager that followed.   That is what oncve calls shallow thinking. .

The problem is that if any of Mozart's favourites made that kick - we would hear about it for the next ten years.