MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
15 Jul 2015, 04:37#1
Schalk Burger is back in the Springboks' starting line-up for Saturday's Rugby Championship opener against Australia at the Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane.
Burger's inclusion at No 8, after a great performance as replacement against the World XV last weekend in Cape Town, is one of five changes to the Springboks' match-23 for this match.
The other four changes are on the bench, where props Heinke van der Merwe and Frans Malherbe, as well as Lood de Jager (lock) and Lwazi Mvovo (wing) have been included.
Springbok coach Heyneke Meyer said the changes were all part of the plan to rotate players in the build-up to the Rugby World Cup.
“We're expecting a massive contest for the ball on the ground on Saturday and with Schalk there next to Francois Louw and Marcell Coetzee, as well as Bismarck du Plessis, we've got a lot of players who are very good at the breakdowns,” said Springbok coach Heyneke Meyer.
“Warren Whiteley played very well last weekend, but he knows exactly where he stands and will play again for the Boks this season. For this match though, we decided to go with this specific loose trio.
“I've said last week that we will make changes, but it's also important to keep some form of momentum. Saturday's match is going to be massive in the context of our season and we have to ensure we tick the right boxes.
“It will be good to see what Heinke, Frans, Lood and Lwazi can do from the bench, while we've also opted to keep continuity in the starting team. There will most likely be changes for every match this season as we keep one eye on the World Cup.
“Trevor Nyakane and Vincent Koch performed very well off the bench against the World XV last weekend, but as we have a lot of depth at prop, I've decided to give opportunities to Heinke and Frans to stake their claims, especially as both of them have been in excellent form thus far this season.
“Heinke was the in-form loosehead prop in the French Top 14, while Frans anchored a brilliant DHL Stormers scrum this season.
“Lood is back from injury and our plan has always been to bring him back in one of our first three internationals of the season, while we've decided to go for Lwazi as he was very good for the Cell C Sharks in Vodacom Super Rugby, is superb under the high ball and knows his way to the try-line.”
Meyer is under no illusions about the enormity of the task as hand in Brisbane on Saturday. The Springboks' recent record in Australia is not great. The Boks have only beaten the Wallabies once at Suncorp Stadium, two years ago when they won by 38-12, which is South Africa's biggest away victory ever the men in gold.
“If we're not at our best, it will be a long day at the office,” said Meyer.
“But we played some brilliant rugby last weekend against the World XV in Cape Town and the challenge this weekend is to build on that and improve in the areas we lacked.
“Our basics have to be spot on and it will also be a great test for our defensive systems against a Wallaby side that can rip any team to shreds with the ball in hand.”
The Springbok team to face Australia in Brisbane is:
15 Willie le Roux (Toyota Cheetahs), 25 Test caps, 35 Test points
14 JP Pietersen (Cell C Sharks), 59, 90
13 Jesse Kriel (Vodacom Bulls), uncapped
12 Damian de Allende (DHL Stormers), 3, 0
11 Bryan Habana (Toulon), 106, 285
10 Handré Pollard (Vodacom Bulls), 9, 65
9 Ruan Pienaar (vice-captain - Ulster), 80, 135
8 Schalk Burger (DHL Stormers), 75, 70
7 Marcell Coetzee (Cell C Sharks), 26, 30
6 Francois Louw (Bath), 34, 25
5 Victor Matfield (captain, Vodacom Bulls), 121, 35
4 Eben Etzebeth (DHL Stormers), 33, 0
3 Jannie du Plessis (Cell C Sharks) 62, 5
2 Bismarck du Plessis (Cell C Sharks), 70, 45
1 Tendai Mtawarira (Cell C Sharks), 64, 10
Replacements:
16 Adriaan Strauss (Vodacom Bulls), 44, 25
17 Heinke van der Merwe (Stade Francais), 4, 0
18 Frans Malherbe (DHL Stormers) 4, 0
19 Lood de Jager (Toyota Cheetahs), 9, 10
20 Oupa Mohoje (Toyota Cheetahs), 7, 0
21 Cobus Reinach (Cell C Sharks), 6, 10
22 Pat Lambie (Cell C Sharks), 40, 106
23 Lwazi Mvovo (Cell C Sharks), 10, 15
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
15 Jul 2015, 04:43#2
This is a very solid team. I'm glad HM hasn't juggled Pollard based on his kicking last weekend and the bench offers some decent options. And Lomp is back.....last I saw of him he was disappearing over the touchline after being over powered by Barrett. Hopefully he has been in the gym much of his time off.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Jul 2015, 05:04#3
This is going to be a disaster in Brisbane. Our Tight 5 was poor in the World 15 game last Saturday and will not provide the necessary dominance up front. The poor and slow service by Pienaar is still there and the Aussie loosies will have a field day on Saturday. Pietersen was a disaster because of lack of pace. The line-outs without Whiteley will also be a major problem.
The only positive is that Morne is not anywhere near the team - he would have lost the game all on his own - like he did last year in Perth. What the hell is Mohoje doing in the team - he would produce zero - Nyakane would be a better option than Van der Merwe could ever be.
There are positives in the team - but I am afraid the negatives are just too many.
By the way your story about De Jager is not a full description of the whole story. It started with Matfield fluffing a line-out aimed at a rolling maul attempt and ended up with Hougaard passing the ball to a player virtually on the sideline instead of passing it in-field - even admitted by the Springbok coaching staff.Why not giving the full description in that case?
JEJeromeV
Club Pro492 posts
15 Jul 2015, 07:06#4
It's shocking to see that there is no Lions players in the match 23 team here considering the fact that the Lions did finish 2nd on the SA conference in SR with many talented players on form. Faf de Klerk, Jaco Kriel, Combrick and Mostert are Lions players who deserve a spot in the starting match 23.
A lot of experts do agree that Jannie is holding the team down with his lack of discipline, Jannie is definitely not the best scrummager at our disposal though he still remains in the starting XV setup. I'm disappointed about this.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Jul 2015, 08:01#5
Jerome
I agree with you about Jannie du Plessis - but I also have reservations about JP Pietersen and Ruan Pienaar. I think far better options would have been Combrinck, Mapoe and Faf
The other problem is the deficiency left in the line-outs. The removal of Whiteley means we have one line-out option less and with Matfield not competing in line-outs anymore - it is a problem. The latter will be argued against by the Matfield supporters - but has been in evidence more and more over the past 7 months. He simply refrain from calling line-outs to him and some fools say it is a strategy - but it is not if it is repetative, which it has become more and more.
My own feeling with that team is that the Tight 5 will not hold its own - that Pienaar will be ineffective and slow and that JP Pietersen will be too slow to be effective in defense and attacking play.
15 Jul 2015, 08:13#6
Agree 100% regarding Pietersen, Jannie and especially Pienaar. As far as Matfield is concerned, I am not a fan, but he is there to fill the role of captain, so It can be justified from that point of view.
What is even worse is that they have made Pienaar vice captain! Could they not have given that honor to Bizmarck or Burger, or even Habana? You know, players that have actually done something for SA rugby in the past!!
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
15 Jul 2015, 08:47#7
Ou Meyer blunders on. Some good things yes but outright blunders in wee matfiled. Also why carry on with Jannie. These young guns must get experience for the RWC!!!
Great to see Lood back and more crow on the menue for Dr Mozzzzz! Ditto the returnm of Malherbe! hahahahahahahha
JP must surely be on last chance mode. Where are guys like van wyk.
The man who should captain the side is the Mighty Burger. You cant pick a player who is not first division club standard to play for the Boks and as captain!!!! We have absolutely no need of the show pony!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The loose trio is worth a shot - mobile hard working and good on the deck. Loiuw will ned to up the ante. Eben is fine as is Bissie. Beast is not playing badly. I want to see Kitshoff given a shot when he comes back from injury.
Ou maaaikie all is not lost. Boks at 75% can beat Oz and Nz as well.Trouble is we are so often only at 50% which makes life difficult when also faced with very bent refs.
Mohoje is pure racist quota selection stuff. Proves Meyer cant select on merit.
15 Jul 2015, 10:40#9
Saff, while I agree with you regarding most of the players you have listed, you can't leave all of them out. A side still needs some experienced players to lead it. The side you would have played, would lose!
That said, if Meyer had started blooding the players earlier, we would not be in this position. But that is not the case, and a balance is still needed.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Jul 2015, 11:14#12
If Reinach did what Pienaar did on Saturday - especially insofar as the two breaks past him are concerned - Mozart would have written pages of condemnation on the issue. Because Pienaar failed in that case - he kept dead silence about it. That sums up his attitude about players.
However, I would not have changed all the experienced players like Dave suggested. I also accept that Meyer has painted himself into a corner insofar as Matfield is concerned - despite the fact that Matfield is physically totally ineffective. The joke on Saturday was where he failed miserably when he tried to protect breakdown ball and the opposing loosie just stood firm with Matfield unable to do anything. That led to two penalties to the World 15. His line-out performance was zero and his tackles were weak as per normal. On the Selectors Programme on TV Matfield is not suggested as a Springbok lock - since he has no grunt. But Meyer made the mistake and unfortunately we have to live with it. A repeat of the performance of last Saturday and he should be gone.
The experienced players on Dave's list to be retained are -
Habana, Louw (with a great question mark) and Burger
the others are bloody useless - but what I said about Matfield should be borne in mind.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Jul 2015, 11:33#13
Beeno
I would be happy if the Springbok team is functional to the tune of 75% - but with the following in the team we are going to be -
* saddled with a Tight 4 as against a Tight 5 - with two joke selections;* the poor discipline and sub-standard scrumming of Jannie du Plessis; * a malfunctioning line-out situation with Matfield ducking and diving to avoid balls being thrown to him;* a slow and defense-deficient scrummie - the Aussie loosies will have a field day with him; and* a wing that is too slow to be of any value in the team.
That I am afraid is reducing the team to about 50% of what it should be. A hopeless situation at best - the only saving grace is that the useless Morne Steyn is not anywhere near the team.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
16 Jul 2015, 14:44#15
Bok BF tape makes one want to cry. Vermeulen uses massive power to get the ball to the 2 metre line. Hougaard is looking anywhere but at the ball ....when it pops out it gets behind him.......Lomp is is his safest option.....and then instead of boring infield Lomp laughably does the one thing that blows the chance, he runs towards touch with a high body position.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
16 Jul 2015, 14:57#16
Mozart
Still NO word about Matfield fluffing a line out intended to set up a driving maul five meters out that happened just before the incident you are carrying on about endlessly.
Another one you should actually comment on is the following:-
"If Reinach did what Pienaar did on Saturday - especially insofar as the two breaks past him are concerned - Mozart would have written pages of condemnation on the issue. "
Why no comment on the two incidences involving the Burden issue - or is it just an inconvenient issue, best not raised on this site?
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
16 Jul 2015, 16:12#18
Any excuse will do for Mozart to justify a Matfield bugger-up - a real Matfield poor play must be forgiven at all costs. The same bugger-up as he made in the Ellis Park test when he could not take a ball on own throw-in and was out-jumped and the AB's taking the line-out leading to an AB try. Then it was a bad throw-in by the hooker.
Excuses - excuses - excuses - all to cover up Matfield deficiencies in games. It would be better if you are honest and recognize the shortcomings of a physically-deficient player. That kind of honesty would run counter to your hero-worshipping of Matfield. Matfield is costing us dearly in Tight 5 play - end of story.
PAPakie
Captain17,321 posts
16 Jul 2015, 16:29#19
I posted pics and a video of the lineout incident in question last year. Matfield was clearly pulled down.
16 Jul 2015, 18:37#20
That one is not going to fly, Pakie. Ou Tokkie does not live in the past and your pics and video were done last year, which is in the past. If it was Tokkie's argument, though, it would have been perfectly legitimate and valid.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
16 Jul 2015, 18:42#21
Another Excuse - another excuse. Now Matfield is exonerated because he was interfered with and the interference was not penalized despite the fact it was so blatant. I do not believe that type of tripe - especially coming from the Matfield desperados.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
17 Jul 2015, 01:35#22
There is a simple solution to this disagreement. The link to the match is posted. The incident occurs at minute 76 in the match. Go to the incident Tokkie and tell us Matfield's right arm is not being pulled down.....it's a challenge go ahead.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Jul 2015, 02:24#23
Mozart
Before the penalty concerned there was another one. The throw-in was aimed at De Jager - he took the ball cleanly and a maul ensued - not successful because the AB's brought down the maul. Another penalty and the ball went to Matfield - he made no effort at all to catch the ball with both hands - zero. Somebody touched his right arm - but his left arm was nowhere to catch the ball - he was not held down by anybody as alleged. No effort by Matfield to set up a driving maul - the objective of the kick - only a slap back of the ball to the scrummie.
Every bugger-up Matfield makes in games are covered by a mountain of excuses or simply ignored. The excuses are so laughable because they are invented and not reality. This is the kind of BS excuse that is sickening and constantly used to excuse the deficiencies of Matfield. What a farce - but then that is nothing new.
Incidentally I opened the link at about minute 68 and there was a penalty converted by Barrett. Pollard kicked in and Read took the ball. he was tackled and Matfield went on top of him. Penalty against Matfield. Then I watched the series of play that followed.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
17 Jul 2015, 02:32#24
Typical Tokkie. Was Matfield's right arm held or not....a simple yes or no will do.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Jul 2015, 02:50#25
The arm was not held - an opposition jumper touched it - but it was not held. If he really aimed to catch the ball - where was his left hand - or does players in line-outs catch balls with one hand only? His left hand was nowhere and Matfield never aimed at catching the ball at all. The excuses are flowing like a stream of BS as per normal.
It reminds me of what happened at Ellis Park last year - where on Springbok throw-in Matfield was out-jumped and the AB's took the line-out and scored a try as a result. O yes - the excuse then was to blame the hooker - but it does not wash.
Both incidents happened towards the end of the game - when Matfield was clearly totally exhausted - another sign he is not fit to even play in the game. That after he did the minimum during the game as well - calling line-outs to all but him - ducking and diving to do the absolute minimum in games and making zero contribution to Tight 5 play.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
17 Jul 2015, 03:17#26
Dumbass the fastest way for a ball to get into the hands of the player who is the designated carrier....is a tap. Matfield often catches the ball with one hand or uses the tap. If you look again you will see Coetzee was the player fumbling with the ball...the whole rhythm was off because of the interference with Matfield.
Your take on the tap is as outdated as your stupid take on de Allende marking Kuridrani. There is nothing wrong with the tap or the one handed take.....the object is to set the maul as quickly as possible.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Jul 2015, 03:24#27
Balls - not in line-outs aimed at rolling mauls - there the player catches the ball and brings it down safely. That is another excuse. How many more to follow? Now Coetzee is to blame - what else can one expect from this Matfield admirer? Try again.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Jul 2015, 06:43#29
Mozart
This is incredible junk you are posting - rolling mauls are not started from tapped balls - they are started from caught balls. The intention with that corner kick - same as the one in minute 74 was for the ball to be caught - not tapped.
This whole story of yours is utter balls. If you look at that lineout you can see that Matfield's left hand was not interfered with and he tapped the ball with his right hand. His left hand was way below the contact point with the ball and that is a fact. I still cannot understand why Matfield called the ball to himself if he intended to tap and not catch it. There was no indication in the line-out that Matfield was going to try and catch the ball at all - probably because he is physically not strong enough to catch the ball and bring it down like is the case with starting of rolling mauls.
There were two rolling mauls within Minutes from each other where the ball went to Whitley and the maul was formed and the ball slipped back to Coetzee AFTER the maul was formed. Coetzee stood behind the line-out so as to get the ball once the maul was formed. If it was past to him by Whiteley and the maul formed in front of him - the whole Springbok forward pack would have been guilty of obstruction and the All Blacks given a penalty if Coetzee rejoined the maul after receipt of the ball. So it did not happen as you described at all.
Irrespective of what excuse you try for that one - inclusive of bringing Coetzee in as the culprit in that case - you are talking crap. Matfield never ended up even attempting to catch the ball - nullifying the intended maul. So eat crow.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Jul 2015, 07:25#31
Mozart
Because an All Black player touched his arm in the process of jumping for the ball - it happens all the time in line-outs - does not represent "interfered with" at all. If he was intending to tap it only it would not have bounced over the head of Coetzee. Matfield made a mess of the intended action to be taken - namely a rolling maul - and irrespective of what crap you write he made a mess of it. I looked at all facts relating to the matter and came to a logical conclusion - Your attempt to absolve Matfield in total is what you say about me being biased - is even worse bias on your part.
This is nothing new on your part. It is always there - when Matfield buggers up badly - which happened often enough in games he played in - excuses flow like lava from the Matfield supporters club. When he did something positive - the praise-singing is endless. A typical example was last Saturday when he was moonlighting in the backline and a pass went astray. He merely picked up the loose ball and passed it to De Allende who had to beat three defenders to score a try. Huge praise-singing by you and your crazy cronies of Matfield - and factually incorrect description of what De Allende had to do to score. Bias extra-ordinary in evidence once again.
The problem is that you see nothing of the real deficiencies in the Tight 5 play of Matfield - ignore it and accuse people who see it and comment on it of jealousy, bias and prejudice. Maybe you should accept that they are not and base their observation on facts - not garbled and unproven fiction you spread on the site.
Your main [problem is that in your dreams you see Matfield as being the same level player he was in 2007, He is not and his performances are not anywhere near what it was 8 years ago. That realism may sink in this RC - but will definitely sink in in the WC. He should not be anywhere near the team at present - he is sabotaging our Tight 5 completely .
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Jul 2015, 07:51#33
Mozart
Lets be fair and objective. It is not a real SA supporter that looks at games slavishly and be a sucker when it comes to player deficiencies by SA players. That type of support for deficient players are for dummies - not rugby lovers. The so-called interference was so minimal it caused no side-effects - there was nothing that prevented Matfield to catch the ball and bring it down to precede the formation of a driving maul - period.
We are not discussing other line-outs - but a specific one. In that specific one the throw-in was 100% correct - the play of Matfield 100% deficient. That is the long and the short of the matter. By the way was their any foul play involved - definitely not. Do you realize what foul play actually involves? Foul play is what Jannie did insofar as Bakkies Botha is concerned.
Now put on your dunce cap and go and sit in the corner.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Jul 2015, 14:13#35
Mozart
There was no "hold, push or obstruct" in this case - the only "hold, push or obstruct" is the fact that the opposition jumper touched the physical-deficient Matfield's arm in jumping for the ball and instead of trying to catch the ball - Matfield slapped it back wildly. He was not trying to catch it - that is the fact clearly seen in the match video.
If there was any evidence of "hold, push or obstruct" the referee would have penalized the AB's - he did not because what you imagined to be obstruction was nothing of the kind.
This kind of thing happens in every line-out where there is competition for the ball. Matfield is too weak physically to counter competition for the ball - that is the fact that you do not want to accept - so you bleated about the issue to protect your own image of Matfield. The vat majority of rugby lovers think exactly opposite to what you think about Matfield.
Living in the past and thinking that the 8 years since 2007 made no difference to the performance of Matfield is a joke. He contributes nothing to Tight 5 play and his line-out takes haver become a rarity, because he cannot take competition for the ball. That is why he calls line-out throw-ins to any other forward bar himself and he ducks and dives and hope to get away from opponents by shifting his line-out position. Moving to the front of the line-out is one method Matfield use and that is the rare case where he got opposition ball in line-outs.
