Coenie proves....you can't win without a tighthead.

Cleancut You probably is right about Coenie - but what irks me is when people make assessments solely on the basis of illegal scrumming to prove a point. That happened on Saturday and people seize on that one to try and prove a point. Matter of fact is Du Plessis has been poor all year round as a tight head and that was not due to illegal scrumming methods - like happened on Saturday - he was just not performing. It may be the result of weak support by his locks - but nobody can be sure of that one. The really top tighthead coming through remains Malherbe and one can only hope that he is back sooner rather than later.

Disagree, the only time Coenie struggled was in the first scrum when the Brumbies got an early hit. After that there was nothing in it. If anything the Brumbies loosehead was scrumming in. Tighthead is Coenie's best spot as he is fully bound. When at loosehead he tends to push upwards and through his opposite number. The Cheetahs lost thanks to poor kicking, they were the better side scoring two tries. Coenie needs to start at 3 and not spend half a game there. He has plenty to work on but has the sheer power to make it work if Os knows what he is doing as a scrum coach, which I question given he has both his locks starting scrums on their knees

 

Indeed ... it also gets my goat when certain parts of play are overlooked and basically ignored.

 

It's as if they think we're stupid ... or blind ...

 

Your assesment of the "slow prop" cracked me up, Mike. Would you say that that too was perhaps using certain parts of his play in a manner merely to get your point across?

 

I guess we can all at times push the issue a tad. .

 

It usually happens when one reads a oneeyed comment like we see coming from Dave and that useless HouGat!!!

 

How many times have I read him saying that this useless piece of shit is the best scrummie in the country???

 

It's horse shit ... and we all know it ... but he says it anyway.

 

 

 

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

 

Speak of the devil!!!

 

I rest my case!!!!!

 

 

 You cant judge a prop by one game is a simple rule which will help here. The Cheetahs scrum has done well and hence all of Coenie Stauss, Trevor and Adriaanse have been in the Bok mix.

Mike is correct in saying that once legitimate scrumming was restored things were fine in the scrum for the Cheetahs.

However I still think Coenie is a better looseheard who may or may not make a tighthehad. 

There is no defence againat illegal scrumming. Witness Jannie at Twicks. Witness the Boks demolishing the Lions with lardy at tighthead. Once the illegal scrumming was sorted out the lions were on the front foot.

The Cheetahs were robbed of winning the match by a rubbish nz ref who penalised the wrong side. Nothing unusual or unexpected here - its par for the course.

While de Jager is no Etzebeth, he is a damn fine lock and would easily fit into the Bok equation as a bench lock. Far better than many you have been our bench locks over the years. He had a great game and as the commentators said, pretty impressive season for a 20 year old. I rate this kid big time, he will get better with age and will be a Bok sooner than later.......add him to the list of Etzebeth, Steph du Toit, Paul Willemse and Jacques du Plessis as a group of good young locks

Coenie is no more a tighthead than John Smit was a tighthead. you can be a very powerful man in certain directions and not have the knack for tighthead scrumming. If we persist with this nonsense, only bad things can happen. I quote Tank Lanning: - "Because both the Cheetahs and Bok coaches believe Coenie Oosthuizen to be good enough to play tighthead prop at the highest level. Hence both sets of coaches switching the bullocking loosehead – enjoying some of the greatest form of his life from the left hand side of the scrum – to tighthead for the last 20 minutes of the game. But it is patently obvious to me that this is a failed experiment. The Cheetahs go from having a dominant scrum to hacking to stay in the game every time the switch is made. And the Boks went from dominating the scrum against Italy to making like a chunk of turf being bulldozed at a building site in the second half. Most people put this down to the Italians bringing on an entire new front row that included tighthead legend Martin Castrogiovanni, but they are wrong … It was because of the continued experiment that sees Oosthuizen move to tighthead prop for the last 20 minutes. Yes he played tighthead at school, and yes the legend that is Os du Randt is the man behind the move, but does this make it right? As former Bok tighthead and current Saracens scrum technician Cobus Visagie said on Twitter: “Tighthead is not a place to experiment - the team pays the price” … I rest my case. I can understand the coach wanting to have players like Oosthuizen and Trevor Nyakane on the bench, as they are both excellent with ball in hand and have the ability to make an impact on the game. But not at the expense of a good scrum" - The man makes sense. To laugh off Saturday because the guy was "scrumming in" is a mistake. All looseheads, when they are dominant, tend to "scrum in".....that's where the physical forces take them. The question is whether they started scrumming in and that caused the instability in the tighthead.....or whether in straight pushing the tighthead started breaking and crumbling inwards, at which point the loosehead keeps shoving in that direction. On Saturday Coenie broke at the hit, or just after the hit.....Silo accentuated that. - And surprise Silo never scrummed in earlier in the game against Adriaanse. Why? Because Adriaanse took the hit and stayed straight. This guy Silo is a bog ordinary loosehead, who now supposedly is this serial scrumming offender. It makes no sense...Tank Lanning does.

Mozart Is there a law requiring props inter alia to scrum straight - because based on your statement that All looseheads, when they are dominant, tend to "scrum in".....that's where the physical forces take them" - there is no such a requirement So the law is not on the books - is it? And if it is Mozart says it is not applicable at all then? I think that there is something amiss here in your argument or the laws should be brought in line with your thinking on the issue. Both are just comical to say the least.

Going to drop my 2 cents here.

 

There is a general perception in which loosehead prop and tighthead prop are similar positions. Big mistake. It's like comparing a lock forward to a scrum half. From a strictly technical standpoint, both positions are immensely different. The techniques, angles, procedures, biomechanics.... everything is different. VERY few props can play both positions (watch Juan Figallo, he is one of those exceptions).

 

It's much easier for a tighthead to switch to the other side. But very few looseheads perform well wearing #3. The technical abysm is just too much to overcome. Tightheads have to scrum with a mechanic disadvantage.

 

As for Coenie, I am going to be blunt here. I don't think he has a *great* scrummaging technique, regardless of which side of the scrum you he packs on. He is more about putting in a massive hit and using his herculean upper body strength to outscrum his opposite. He has shown some improvement in the last season though, and he's a very young fella, so it's no big deal. With the new scrum laws about to take effect in the upcoming Rugby Championship, the "hit" per se will lose some relevance, and the scrum will (hopefully) regain some of its true essence. It will be interesting to see how Coenie and the Boks perform in such a situation.

 

If making a career switch from loosehead to tighthead is hard, it's even harder to do so every single game. It's just a bridge too far for a youngster like Coenrad. I'm afraid this will also increase the risk of suffering serious neck and back injuries.

 

I started out as a prop when I was 4 and I recall a couple games where I was switched from #1 to #3 at half time. Had to be helped off the pitch every game as my neck was killing me.

 Well if you read Tank on Keo regularly you would know he does not know his arse from his elbow, evidenced by the complete shit he has written here. Its a fact that the Cheetahs scrum has been strong all S15 and that includes Coenie moving to 3 in the second half.

 

Against the Brumbies, Coenie had a bad first scrum at 3, thanks to the early hit by the Brumbies. After that he had the Brumbies loosehead scrumming inwards at every scrum. Its simply not true that Coenie failed in the rest of the scrums and I have the game on tape to prove it.

 

Coenie needs to spend the CC at tighthead and only tighthead, with the impressive Nkanyane at 1

Coenie was smashed...no amount of moaning about early hits or scrumming in is going to change that.

Disagree apart from the first scrum, Coenie did not get smashed at all and its a fact that the Brumbies loosehead was scrumming inwards, something Crockett gets pinged for every game

 

I like your analysis, Mozart.

 

Actually it's rather logical!!

 

Why blame the loosehead for illegal scrumming when by rights the tighthead is at fault due to him not having the necessary skills or strength to stand his man … thus ending up crumbling at the pressure put on him and collapsing inward.

 

Could not have said it better.

 

Game, set and match.