FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Bools loosies dissed by SARugbymag

Bools loosies dissed by SARugbymag

Started by Mozart10 REPLIES852 VIEWS· 17 May 2015, 22:10
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
17 May 2015, 22:10
#1
17 May 2015, 22:10#1

On paper, the back row of Lappies Labuschagne, Arno Botha and Pierre Spies looks a well-balanced and potentially dangerous combination. However, as we witnessed at Eden Park recently, there's not enough mongrel in that trio. For the Bulls to win the set pieces so convincingly and then lose the tackle so badly ... well, clearly those players whose primary role is the security of possession aren't doing their jobs.

Spies is at his best when the game is loose, or when he is playing behind a dominant pack. Ideally, you’d want to see a man of his athletic gifts receiving the ball in space, not competing at the breakdown. He was drawn into the latter battle against the Blues, and was penalised on several occasions.

Labuschagne failed to provide the required impact, as did Botha. It’s clear that Labuschagne is nowhere near as influential as Deon Stegmann at the breakdown. The Bulls’ physical effort also seemed to lift when Jacques du Plessis was introduced at blindside flank in the second half.

BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
17 May 2015, 22:31
#2
17 May 2015, 22:31#2
 Moz spiesies is ashow boater and Arno has shown nothing thus far. Labbers may make an RWC squad but needs to up the ante.The loosies for the Boks right now are Marcell, Vermuelen and Burger. Kriel on the bench. A big bomus though would be somebody teaching Marcell how to offload. Surely that is not asking too much.
Some oaks lacking in rugby acumen wrote of the great Burger very prematurely and the egg has landed.here is what Keo wrote about the great man saying Burger was still world class.

Schalk Burger was monumental for the Stormers against the Brumbies, writes MARK KEOHANE inBusiness Day newspaper.

Experience, especially those players with a winning habit, a sense of occasion and a World Cup winner's medal, gives a team the edge at the World Cup.

Jake White was mocked when he lured Os du Randt out of retirement in 2004. The big guy’s knees were gone, he was out of shape, carrying the weight of a darts player and not a 1995 World Cup winner, and the general consensus was for White to get with the programme, leave the dinosaurs alone and invest in youth.

White had invested in youth. Half the starting lineup that won the U21 World Cup (with White as coach) were in White’s first Test squad to play Ireland in 2004. But White respected the unforgiving nature of Test rugby and he also realised that youth inspires energy but youth also needs guidance and mentoring. (Balance oaks but always remember a guy like matfield would be adisaster!! )

The Bok coach wanted Du Randt there for his experience, for his presence and, all going well, for his rugby. He managed the player’s workload in training, treated him as a special project and always believed the decision would be decisive in the Springboks’ hopes of World Cup glory.

White was correct. The younger players got comfort. They asked questions about how it felt to win a World Cup. They had something tangible among them – a player who was revered in world rugby, the best in his position and a World Cup winner.

It's why SA Rugby magazine, in picking the best 20 Springboks since 1995, nominated Du Randt as No 1.

Du Randt was colossal for the Boks between 2004 and 2007. He was especially brutal in everything he did defensively at the successful 2007 World Cup, and he inspired the younger brigade to have conviction and not just hope. White would often talk of the Os influence. He’d say to me he calmed the new caps, simply by being in the change room.

‘They’d look into the one corner and there sat a World Cup winner, a player respected and feared by opposition and a player who held not fears of the contest. It gave them the belief in how good they good be; in how revered the best Springboks have been in world rugby,’ White told me in discussing Du Randt for SA Rugby magazine's 20 best Boks, of which he and I were among the selectors.

Queue Schalk Burger. He’s a winner. He’s an inspiration. He’s a World Cup winner. He is a champion. He was and is among the best loose forwards to have played the game. He commands presence and he commands respect; from within his change room and most definitely among the opposition.

Burger, Richie McCaw (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH) and George Smith – they are the standard the very best of the current international loose forwards aspire.

Burger, at the weekend, was monumental for the Stormers against the Brumbies. The hair may be thinning from the blonde mop that terrorised the Irish in 2004, but the mongrel, control and impact is as menacing and bruising. His work-rate is that of two players and his skills are the equal of the most talented ball-players.

His comeback from a life-threatening illness won him the Laureus Comeback of the Year. In the world of sport, Burger’s story was deemed to have been the most inspiring and the most successful. But the comeback is yesterday’s news because Burger’s form is what's making today’s news.

If it’s a choice between Burger and the very best of the younger generation, Heyneke Meyer will pick Burger. Any international coach would pick Burger.

Meyer spoke last week of the brilliance of South Africa’s loose-forward player base, locally and abroad. He said South Africa had 20 world-class loose forwards, who were all good enough to play Test rugby. He said that in a squad of 31 the norm would be to pick five. His challenge would be to work seven into the squad, with a few of them doubling as utility forwards.

Willem Alberts is just one who, if needed, could play lock. Francois Louw, is the preferred openside specialist. The only other player in his class is Heinrich Brüssow, but Meyer has not been a disciple of Brüssow in the last three years.

Meyer favours big ball-carrying loose forwards and initially felt Burger was more a creative No 8 than blindside option. That opinion would have changed. He can carry and he can create.

2014 SA Player of the Year Duane Vermeulen (as a No 8), Burger and Louw have to be the first three loose forwards assured of World Cup selection, and if it comes down to Burger, Nizaam Carr, Siya Kolisi or Warren Whitely, it should not even be a discussion.

Carr, Kolisi and Whitely are all tremendously talented and all have potential for longevity as Springboks, but they are pups to international rugby, whereas Burger is an old and feared dog.(KOLISI AND CARR ARE NOWHERE NEAR TEST STANDARD!!!!!)

Carr and Whitely (WHITELY YES HE IS THE LEADER RE TACKLING STATS IN THE SUPER 15) are among the best in the country, but Burger is among the best in the world.

The Stormers won against the Brumbies, but the biggest victory belonged to Burger.


I DO HOPE OU MAAAIKIE AND SNAPSTER will admit they got it completley wrong re Schalk and vow next time to listen to Beeno - the one  who knows!

SH
ShezzaPro2,471 posts
17 May 2015, 22:42
#3
17 May 2015, 22:42#3
 Stegmann isn't influential at the breakdown whatsoever, but Labuschagne is a 7 and not a 6 and is more for ball protection rather than creating turnovers. What the Bulls need to do is blood Roelof Smit or somehow recruit Brussow, they need someone who can get turnover ball and one can see Spies trying but he just isn't good enough. 
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
17 May 2015, 22:52
#4
17 May 2015, 22:52#4
Coetzee continues to be a puzzle. He has bulked up enormously, and seems much stronger than two years ago. But his runs rarely amount to much, basically because his passing game is non existent. Likewise he gets over a lot of balls on the deck, but just can't seem to secure the ball. So his main contribution remains his high tackle count.

Which is fine, except without a competent fetcher we are at the mercy of Pocluck and Hooper. Hence the need for Lowe.  
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 May 2015, 23:15
#5
17 May 2015, 23:15#5
 Mozart
The problem is that the loosies has to make up the Tight 5 deficiency caused by Matfield and Flip van der Merwe.   Everything was fine in the first 30 minutes of the game and the forwards functioned well.   After that the Tight 5 disintegrated and lost the plot.   The main culprits were  Matfield and Flippie - who vanished from the scene totally after 30 minutes.
The result of that was that the loosies had to assist the Tight 5 to retain a semblance of performance and they failed to do their loosie work.   It was necessary since Matfield was  moonlighting in the backline and the loosies were forced to play tighter.
The issue here is that the problem was not only the loosies - the fact is that the Tight 5 lasted only 30 minutes and thereafter was poor.
 


AG
AgPleezDeddyClub Pro900 posts
17 May 2015, 23:15
#6
17 May 2015, 23:15#6
I think Louw is a no-brainer, good at the breakdown and has been playing in English conditions for a while now
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 May 2015, 23:49
#7
17 May 2015, 23:49#7
 APD
To be quite frank - I also think that Louw is a no-brainer.  I have always selected him as my no 1 player at 6.  For me the main back-up at 6 is Jaco Kriel.
I have problems with 7 though.  I am not sure whether Burger will last the distance and Alberts is not up to standard.  The rest are average and not really convincing  if their latest performances are borne in mind.  
However, one should not base one's arguments on one game only - especially not if the Tight 5 lasted 30 minutes and the loosies have to try and make up the deficiency.     
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
18 May 2015, 01:46
#8
18 May 2015, 01:46#8
So Mike if I read you correctly, the shortfall by the Bools flankers is the result of weakness by the Bools tight forwards. I scanned the match stats to find evidence that supported your notion. I couldn't, but perhaps you can point me to the issues. The only thing that pops is the tackle missed stat.But frustratingly only 2 of the 20 missed tackles were by Flip Flop and Matfield....the culprits were Pollard, Step, Hougaard and Adams. 
Over to you.


OI
oimateyPro1,870 posts
18 May 2015, 02:48
#9
18 May 2015, 02:48#9
Spies could have easily been SA's "big" winger. 
Banging around with the forwards has sapped his explosiveness.

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
18 May 2015, 05:23
#10
18 May 2015, 05:23#10
 Mozart
Why did the Bulls have over 80% possession in the first 30 minutes and that vanished totally later in the match and for the rest of the match that dwindled to below 50%.  Possession is attained by the forwards - not by the backs and it was Spies and Matfield who basically donated 9 points to the Blues by giving away converted  penalties, that ended up in the loss. 
You glanced through the stats - but missed the issue of penalties given away and by whom the converted penalties were given away.  2 was by Spies and one was by Matfield - 9 points on a platter to the Blues.    
It is this reading of the match stats that makes the backs look bad, but the real problem was really the Tight 5.   How many driving mauls were there early in the game and how many was successful?   Who was at fault in that case in any event?   Watch the Bulls trying to start driving mauls and see what happens to the mauls.  First player popping out on the side or falling down and be walked over is Matfield and then see why it happens next.  He joins up from the back with less power than the scrummies would add.  Most of the mauls functions with 7 forwards against 8 - so they cannot really be successful.             
HA
hakwaPro4,146 posts
18 May 2015, 09:35
#11
18 May 2015, 09:35#11
 Which is why we have already worked Meyer out -->when the Boks are picked, the Bulls players are incharge of scrumming/Line-outs and rolling mauls, the Stormers players are in charge of defense and hitting the rucks, the Cheetahs players are in charging of running the backline .
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news