Boks to be ready by 2015

MARK KEOHANE, in his weekly Business Day newspaper column, says Heyneke Meyer’s Boks aim to be ready by 2015 so don’t expect too much from them now. (Echoes of Beeno's astute diagnosis!)

The Pumas don’t win in South Africa – and they won’t win at Newlands on Saturday in their Rugby Championship debut.

I don’t understand the angst among so many. (Keo we have had them weeping buckets here as well!!)_

I also don’t understand the resistance of so many supporters to acknowledge the massive rebuilding going on within the Springbok squad, much of it forced on Heyneke Meyer through injury and unavailability. (Precisely so as I have tried valiantly to explain but all to no avail!)

The short-term gain is exposure to Test rugby for youngsters who ordinarily would have been in an extended squad and whose two months of international rugby at this time of the year would have been limited to holding tackle bags against legends of the game who have won everything at every level. The long-term gain is that depth becomes a given in South Africa’s challenge to win back the World Cup in 2015.

South Africa have lost the core of a pack considered the best in the world in the past five years. Victor Matfield, unrivalled as the finest lineout exponent in the professional era, is gone (Clap clap calp - Ou kan kan is about as good!! Hahahahahhaha). He won’t be replaced this year. His unique skills and authority in making the Springboks the most feared lineout may not be replaced for some time ( What a lot of baloney just go an count how many lineouts he stole etc. This is a complete myth). Bakkies Botha is playing in France and it is a good thing in the context of 2015 because Botha could be as pivotal to the Boks as Brad Thorn was to the All Blacks’ success in 2011.

Matfield and Botha were untouchable as a lock combination for a sustained period that stretched over two World Cups (With Bakkies a great lock doing the work of two!!!). The quality of the duo was a luxury few teams have had. Currently the lineout is no weaker than the opposition but it certainly is not any stronger. Matfield spooked opposition hookers and added to the insecurities of any opposing coach. The All Blacks, in particular, struggled for consistent quality ball against the Boks and, with no guarantee that their lineout ball was their own, they often lacked the rhythm that makes the New Zealanders so difficult to stop (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA).

Loose forwards Schalk Burger and Juan Smith are injured. Burger won’t play again this year and there are doubts whether Smith’s Achilles heel will ever accommodate the demands of Test rugby. The Boks have lost four players who ranked consistently in the top two in their respective positions for the past five years.

It is rare to have four players of such standing in one settled international team. To expect anything remotely as good in 2012 is to believe a bearded fat bloke in red enjoys a chimney entrance to every human being’s home on 25 December, even if there is no chimney.

There should be no expectation of the red-robed chimney miracle for a 20-year-old lock, a lock who spent his early provincial career as backup to Matfield and Botha, and a loose forward who made his Super Rugby debut only a year ago. This is a vastly different and massively inferior Bok team to the one that scared opponents whether playing in South Africa or abroad.(iF YOU LOOK AT POSSESSION AND TERRITORY HOW OFTEN DIDNT WE SEE bOKS AT WELL BELOW 50%  -OU KEO IS SMOKING SOME HEAVY DOPE)

That’s the reality of the Bok pack. The situation will improve, the youngsters will mature (No you are onto something Keo).

The Springboks of the past five years also had the best scrumhalf playing the game, in terms of decision-making and nurturing whoever played in the Bok No 10 jersey. Fourie du Preez is of the Dan Carter mould. You knew how good they were when they played, yet you are reminded just how good they were when they no longer play.

Francois Hougaard is a fantastic rugby player, but he is not Fourie du Preez, and Morne Steyn at No 10 is a potential liability. Steyn is not a bad player and did not become a bad player in the three-Test series against England. He simply did not have Du Preez’s soothing presence on his inside.

Fullback is another position in which an individual hopefully will emerge. Currently there are possibilities but no probabilities. That’s the reality of the Boks at the moment. It is a difficult period that every side is forced to front when losing the bulk of a great team.

I would suggest the word ‘anticipation’ is a more appropriate word for the Boks. Who will come to the fore? That’s the adventure.

Come on. Let’s get real. The questions around the Boks won’t be answered in the next two to three months and neither can anyone expect Meyer’s tenure to be defined in that period. (Hoor Hoor Hoor)

Don’t prepare for the worst, but prepare for the Test afternoons to be stressful.

Don’t panic either, because the struggle of 2011 is not a struggle of Bok rugby but a testament to just how spoilt we were with a generation of golden players whose qualities seldom come in waves of four, five and six.

Lot of twaddle here but some good points. I only hope folks can differentiate betwen the two. Brycy will need lots of help!! Hahahahahaha

Beeno

Why are you so orientated to believe what Keohane writes.   Some of it is real - but there is a lot of tripe thrown in as well.   Keo on the past mostly had everything wrong - going back to 1998 - when he was Mallett's special agent at the Sunday Times.   He always write things that he believes is acceptable to the readers - never anything original and controversial.   

I wrote substantially more about Meyer as a coach before I read this article.   However, in essence much of what he says is correct - but he is basing his assumptions on skyscrapers without foundation and contrary yo real facts on the ground.   The so-called fear of the opposition about the line-out skills of Mattfield is a myth - nobody kept count of how many line-out balls Mattfield got from opposition throw-ins - but a lot of those balls were not clean line out takes and often put the scrummie and other players under bad pressure.  Mattfield was useless in tight forward play.   That was the main difference between Mattfield and Bakkies Botha - Botha was very good in the tight phases.   However to say that they were the most feared lock combination in the World is a myth and really from a rugby study perepective is twaddle.

Now lets go back to another statement and that is the one dealing with Fourie du Preez - and his so-called calming importance.   Du Preez had two elements in his game play that is different from Hougaard.   Lets start off with the maul situation.   Yes he had a calming influence - He would stand waving his arms at forwards to form up to receive the ball almost as long as a specialist in that issue - Joost - is concerned.   That slowed down the flow of the game completely - the only impact of his "calming influence".   The only real advantage was that he would pass the ball accurately to where Steyn would stand to receive it.   His passes were long and accurate - but his game did not allow for running onto the ball.   Du Preez.s  main contribution to scrummie play was to slow down the ball considerably - which is NOT the sign of a good scrummie.   The other issue here is the counter-defence of Du Preez.- he was a good cover-defender - with one serious defiiciency - if the Springboks won the ball over in the maul situation there was nobody at the back to receive it.      Happened all too frequently.   I would never rate Du Preez on the same level as a scrummie as was Justin Marshall against whome he played regularly.   Marhall was ten times the scrummie Du Preez ever was. 

NEWS FLASH NEWS FLASH

mark keohane seen sniffing the white lane markers on the N1

mike i reckon you should really consider writing a blog. your posts are way more objective than the cokeranger or that clear as daylight wp fanboy tank lanning and co. i cant force myself to read there rubbish posts. its to exhausting to try and siff out the proper facts from the one eyed rubbish going around

 Pure hokum.  I'm not saying win at all costs is right for 2012. But we should show clear signs of progress in playing styles, new players and tactics. By next year we should be winning with a new approach. No organization of quality would ever wait 4 years for results. That's not patience, it's gullible naïveté.

 Rebuilding?- How can using players who are not 1st choices- and will not be in contention(at least on merit) for the 2015 world cup?

Playing a player like Lambie instead of Zane Kirchner is rebuilding- as Lambie may be 1st choice fullback by the next world cup, or flyhalf or at least in the squad.

Bring back Bakkies, Matfield, Fourie Dupreez- is not REbuilding-

This is Rebuilding-

1. The best players should be chosen in their positions- this is not happening- bulls are being favoured.

2. If a young player is being chosen that is not the best- this is also re-building.

How can using sub-standard players who will not be around in 2015 rebuilding?

It is fine to choose younger players on the basis of potential- but not the likes of Kircher, Werner Kruger, Missie kind, 

This article has no logic. 

 Mozart has summed up the concerns exactly. Fans would not mind losing this year- if it meant building new players and a more progressive game plan that could make the boks play to our potential (Like the Sharks towards the end of the Super15). 

The problem is too many substandard bulls players- who do not have the ability to beat teams like Australia and the All Blacks consistently.

moz and sharkbok spot on as always well done.

progess is only if you take your strong points and develop your weak points. fans wont mind losing only if they can see that there is a clear plan forward and that there is a buidling aspect to it. selecting players that are not the form players and are not the offer any form of experience to the younger players