Boks for New School vs Old School Packs

New school....old school . Thomas vs Beast . Marx vs Bismarck . Coenie vs Wilco . Mostert vs Etzebeth . Stephanie vs Willemse . Kriel vs Rhodes . Cloete vs Louw . Whiteley vs Vermeulen . Two alternative packs, one of which can play the offloading game.....the other which can counter ruck and scrum. Which would the ABs fear?

 Mozart
Unfortunately you are mixing up some numbers here.   Willemse has always and at present are playing as a number 4 lock, never as number 5.   Mostert plays at 5 for the Lions - never as number 4.   So please compare apples with apples.
The loosies are also questionable since the fact is that with the exception of Vemeulen the other loosies and in particular Louw cannot counter-ruck and for protection of breakdown balls and recovery.   Louw is not a factor as open-side loosie - the AB's would not fear him - they w ould love to see him in that position. 
I would not mind to see Rhodes playing as a 7 - but am afraid he would never be selected since he left SA and is outside of the call-up group envisaged by SARU.   Meyer had years to select him when he was playing for the Stormers and never called him up.   At 29 he will be getting over the hill by the time of the next WC and to call him up now will be years too late.  
 

Willemse has regularly played 5 lock for Montpellier.....and if you like swap Stephanie and Mostert, Stephanie played 4 to Lomp's 5 on the YE tour.

Sorry - you are right about Willemse.   In checking the fact on ESPN he did play at 5 in his last match - he did not play on Saturday.   However, in his match he was very, very poor so why him? 
Where does Du Toit play normally?   One should not use exceptions to make the rule.
If Willemse wants to play for the Springboks he better return to SA and prove that he is selectable.    

 
Nice comparison ... however, what the hell is Coenie doing there? Rather use Redelinghuys or Dreier.

Willemse is predominantly a 4 lock ... an enforcer ... and I would select him there ... in other words ... Willemse vs Etzebeth.

You decided to go with Louw at 6 ... vs Cloete. I take it's playing the classical openside flank role that you had in mind ... and so that means you've selected Kriel as a blind side flank, right?

Interesting!!

Are we looking at a Vermeulen as he currently is or how he was a few years back? I suppose seeing as we're trying to put something together for the tests that lie ahead it would be as he currently is.

That goes for Bismarck too.

It's not really a fair comparison as the old school side are no longer what they were.

I think the younger side would walk it.

 CC
In all respect I have not watched any Toulon games over the last month and my opinion was always that he is under-performing.  Because I had no other resources to fall back on I took a look at the ESPN stats on the issue and was pleasantly surprised at what the stats showed as to his performances - statistically he was good in both defense and attacking play.  
I do not think he is at nearly 31 years of age and may with a stretch make the WC - but one has to give credit where credit is due.  

Good packs but what is your definition for both. Are you looking for a big power pack vs a smaller mobile and dynamic pack that is mobile. You do need a core tight five that can scrum and for that you have to have a solid tight head and extremely powerful 4 scrumager. Marx is to similar to Bismark and his throwing needs work. I don't think the New school pack will win any scrums

Kingcorn
How many scrums are there in any game?   It could he as many as perhaps 8 - in most cases less.   So the answer is what NZ practice try and get your own throw-ins from scrums and in the odd occasion where it does happen - maybe once in a game - getting a scrumming turnover or penalty.
If props can hold up on that situation that is as far as I am concerned what is required.   However, to then expect props to have a minor part or no part in other aspects of the game is really non-productive.   It is like saying that the only function of locks is to jump in line-outs and the rest of the game they have no role to play.  
I do not think that the present Bismarck can be compared with Marx.   If Bismarck was 6 years younger - yes, but at present no.     
    

"Good packs but what is your definition for both."

Looking at the names on those lists, I think the "New School" players are all the ones Moffie hates and the "Old School" players are all the ones he loves. I don't think it's any more scientific than that.

'You don't think'....damn right Urinal>142, another wee Wallie ruled by emotion and booze. In any case Corn, "new school" is selected to offload and win the mobility game...."old school" is selected to apply so much pressure at a point that it sucks in opposing players and grinds them up". Try to beat them at their game or play your own game and negate theirs. The question is, can "old school" still work......unclear because we haven't tried it in years. . One of the secrets of the Lions is that they manage to scrum very well and also maul very well when needed, surprising opponents.....just as the ABs frequently surprise the Boks in these facets.

Mozart's comparisons is highly debatable and as a matter of fact somewhat flawed and not even realistic - hence his comparison between Kriel (an opensider) with Rhodes (a blindsider), as well as to even consider two enforcers in the Tight 5 by going for Willemse at 5, 
In both cases of Rhodes and Willemse he has seen some games played for their clubs and now they are his choices.   He has been disliking Du Toit and De Jager for years since they wer e in competition with Matfield for lock selection so that is the reason fo te statement on Du Toit.
His loosie selections for old school is wrong too because instead of comparing Louw (a player who is a classical blindsider) with Rhodes as blindsiders  - he twisted those two positions as well.   Not really proper and very questionable.   However, Rhodes has been around for many years playing for the Stormers - but ignored by Meyer and Coetzee - so how come he is suddenly old school insofar as Springbok selection is concerned?

Ou Maaik, don't go confusing the doddering old fool. He doesn't know the difference between a loosehead and a tighthead prop let alone the difference between a blindside and an openside flanker.

Whatever pack it is, they need to be effective at the breakdown otherwise they are effectively useless.
Vermuelen and Bismaark were good at the rucks, so this helped the pre-Coetzee era boks. 

Mike when are you going to stop these attacks and stop lying....here is what I said about Willemse in 2014. Clean up your act....warning number 4. ... We are missing a Flip Flop/Willemse type August 29, 2014, 14:50:49 Having the tall, willowy Lomp behind the tighthead undoubtedly hurt our scrums. We did better last year on the YE tour with Eben and Flip......one of whom is powerful and rangy and the other a block of cement. Two rangy types didn't work. HM missed a trick here....Willemse was the man to lock the scrums with Etzebeth in Bargieland. South African scrums do better when we have a combination....Andrews and Otto being an example. Edit post 0 Likes

 I did not lie at all - I just said that Willemse and Eizebeth are actually no 4 locks and  I know you have been carrying on about Du Toit since he came on the scene initially - so I would not deal with that one again.    Willemse had no tests in SA and he is about as likely to receive a call-up as my late granny is of kicking a penalty conversion kick.  
Where I did differ from you is the issue of lock combinations - we always has had one enforcer as a lock - eg for years Matfield who was in fact not a lock other than his light weight allowed him to be lifted easily in line-outs - while  Bakkies was an enforcer.  
The fact is that would not make comparisons the way you did in this case.   It is the combination that is strived for Otto was the enforcer - Andrews never was one. 

Sorry to differ from you - but I was bemused by this posting - to me it seems as  somewhat disjointed to make comparisons on the basis you did.  

Undestand, so you want your pack to have ball skills over brute force barging down barn doors type approach. Agree with that, especially when you play of the 9, running in the 1st channel and trying to bash over the advantage line. That said, super rugby is not a yard stick for test and the lions can hide with a weaker pack. I do think that at least 3 or 4 players in the pack should have excellent off loading skills. Brodie Ratalick is one such players that has the mongrel to mix it up but also has fantastic distribution and off loading skills. So does Whitelock too. A few test seasons ago I watch in embarrassment how he used his height and numerical disadvantage to draw in players in setting up one of the faster back to run off him for a try. 
I don't have an answer If you ask me which players I would choose in my pack. 
My dream pack from my heart would be
Starter / Bench - Special Mention
1. Du Toit / Kitshoff - kitshoff is a bit more mobile, special mention to Ox Nche2. Marx / Bismark - Bongi hits his jumpers and gets around the park. Hard worker3. Coenie / Louw - Redetlinghuys, fantastic technique for a small guy4. Etsebeth / Botha (Playing out of his skin for the sharks)5. PSDT / Mostert  6. Brussouw (only 30) / Kriel 7. Vermeulen / Du Preez - Kolisi, good on spot tackles and great running lines8. Whitely (Vermeulen as back up 8)

 
Mike ... Looks to me as though Mozart fished out a previous post dated August 29, 2014 and that every word after the heading and date was what he posted way back then.

I don't see him mentioning anything about Flip being part of the 2016 EOYT. To me it looks more like him referring to the 2013 EOYT.

It would help if you bothered reading his posts first before jumping the gun.

You seem determined to discredit him no matter the content of his posts.  Don't come a crying if he responds in kind.

You are way over due for a few back hands if you ask me. 

 CC
Sorry if that is the impression gained.   However, this was a weird thread and made no sense to me.  
One cannot pick a list of players you dislike and then call them "new school" - and then add to the list of players you like and call them "old school" - irrespective of whether they ever played for the Springboks previously or not or would possibly never be selected for the Springboks .
What made it weirder was the selection of "new school" players out of positions where they never played as pointed out by you, eg Kriel.
I know the period up to June is rather devoid of news on the Springboks and what Coetzee would come up with - especially since only the Lions and to a lesser extent the Sharks play good rugby insofar as SA franchises in Super Rugby are concerned - but I think people should stick with rugby issues and not come up with threads like this.