Did Ackermann just cock block himself from ever coaching the Boks?

The Boks will inevitably be desperate enough that they'd hire mickey mouse. Rassie will go down in flames irrespective of success and the next coach will follow just like those before him. It's only a matter of time before Ackers has he go on the Springbok merry-go-round. 

In other news, Michael Rhodes has been named in the 36 man England Squad for the incoming Autumn Tours.

Statement about Erasmus - why will he go down in flames?  Because you and Mozart as the self-proclaimed world rugby analysts wants it?   Please enlighten us poor plastic supporters on this issue.

No, because plastic fans like you move any way the wind blows. 

You're right Bluebok. Du Plessiss, Mallett, Viljoen, Straeuli, Jake, Peter, Meyer and Coetzee all went down in flames. Not even presidential support could save Jake. The media and the plastic fans - like Lügnerin - are the hammer and the stake driven through each one. 

Ackerman probably doesn't care about coaching the Boks, why would he when he's working for an owner who has an interest in rugby.

Why would anybody worry about his chances of becoming want to be the Bok coach.....?

It all has to do with the real situation and that is performance of teams coached by coaches.   In some cases the problem was that those coaches that was fired can be categorized as follows:-

White.  Nobody in the general public wants him out as Springbok coach - not even the Government.  There were two groups who combined to get rid of White,   There two groups was the Cheeky Watson supporting smaller unions and the Bulls and Cheetahs who wanted White out and Meyer as coach.

Meyer   Fact is that Meyer was a reasonable forward coach - with a real problem with whether there was in fact a game plan.  His own pronouncements was proof that if there was one it did allow for 10 man rugby.   Meyer was losing more and more matches because of his insistence on selecting has-beens and never-has-beens  play.  Looking at 2014-2015 - the performance record was atrocious. winning not  single Super Rugby game in 2015 and the nadir as in the Japan test.  Fact is in the EOYT in 2014 and Super Rugby in 2015 the Springboks won 2 games and lost 5 games.  All in all Meyer had self-destructed and the losing against Japan was the final nail in his coffin.

Du Plessis was totally another factor.  He was the only coach who insisted on playing comprehensive rugby and he reached in that process three landmarks in that -

*   the Springboks scored the highest number of points ever  in a away test against NZ even though the Springboks lost the game (This record was broken on Saturday);

*   his team set a record of the highest points ever scored against the British and Irish Lions and Australia ever and those two records still stands.

He was grossly undermined by Mallett using the media and when Mallett was ultimately appointed he did the easy and that was to retain the squad that Du Plessis assembled and the bottom fell out when Mallett fired Teichmann and had to start making selection changes.   

The other coaches had atrocious performance records.   White also fell flat when he became the Sharks coach and failed in many respects - leading to his firing.  There is no evidence that the public made demands in that regard.

However, your response about Eramus was side-tracked and the questions I asked remain.   There is nobody who does not know about the politicalquota selection issue and the public realizes that he is not responsible for that shambles.     

Du Plessis was a tactical fool. He could not analyse the opposition and see obvious weaknesses and he was subsequently fired. The Lion's fullback stated he was terrified that he might face aerial bombardment. He was very surprised that it never happened. Mallett was the better coach. I by no means am a Mallett fan, but let reality be what it is. 

It's ironic, Meyer is lambasted for 10 man rugby, yet it was the attacking game which brought about defeat to Japan. The Japanese had a significant height disadvantage and a lack of size. The Boks tried to beat Japan at their own game, a game the Japanese play at a much faster speed in their homeland, a game they are better conditioned to play. When the halfbacks were subbed, the Boks looked much better, but some of the team were looking tired and play became scrappy in the last 20 minutes. Had they kicked, and played Channel 1 ball, the Japanese would have been beaten.

Best you don't speak of gameplans Lügnerin, because you haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. It makes one wonder why you support Rassie, when the Meyer plan was clearly better. Not so deep down, you have a fondness for donkey ball.

It's inevitable that the fans will turn on Rassie. The media will raise a flavour of the day they'll bully him to select, one who will be useless. It happens every cycle. If you stand by your man this time, it'll be very amusing seeing the shoe on the other foot. 

Since you are clueless about anything other than 10 man rugby and that was proven when you came with the theory that Morne was capable of a good attacking flyhalf - a real joke.   You wrote off Du Plessis despite rove that he made a major change to the way the Springboks played rugby and the result was records I mentioned.  It was in the Lions and Aussie games not only the highest scores - bit also the biggest winning margins ever.   The two records  were  achieved within four months after he started.   

Your comments on Du Plessis was as totally absent of fact as you normally are - total self-opinionated  ignorance,   How do you explain the records I mentioned - records still standing.  Don't try further BS.   The media hype and keo campaign against Du Plessis - coupled to a rebellion by some unions against the playing style adopted by Du Plessis caused the termination.  He was not fired because of coaching deficiency and I may tell you that Dr Luyt told me that personally.      

As to Mallett my history of what happened is 100% correct.   Mallett with minor changes used Du Plessis squad for the next two years.   Mallett's relationship with Teichmann broke down  and he was forced out because his selection of replacement players was a disaster.  Mallett was playing comprehensive rugby until the end of 1998 and the last test he did so was after 15 straight wins - the other two was by Du Plessis.  Thereafter the bottom fell out.

Your comment about the Japan test was an abortion of reality.   There was none of that in evidence.   The loss was due because the 2004 Bulls rugby plan failed badly.  There was major failures by the Meyer geriatrics - especially amongst the forwards.  De Jager did very well - the rest and especially Burger, Bismarck and Matfield were failures.   If their comprehesive rugby played - why was not a single try scored by a backline player.   Learn to recognize the factual situation for the problems. 

Like any other case I recognize the absence of game plans and do not try nd dream up missing ones.   I also look at performance.  There is no need to criticize Erasmus at present - he did better than Meyer did in his first few months - eg Meyer in his full career did not have a team once who beat the AB's away.   

I have criticized Erasmuis for selecting a second rate team for the third English test and also for the same reason iro the away tests against Argentina.   Any team selection with Jantjies at 10 and Esterhuizen a 12 will inevitably fail.   However, I will watch and see how he develops as a coach.   At this stage I am happier about the coaching - a huge advancement on what happened in the case of Meyer in 2012.   If he goes off the rails - like Meyer did - I will certainly criticize him.       

Carol the myth. He lost two Lions tests with his running game, then reverted to a pragmatic game with De Beer and won. Face it, he stuffed up the Lions series. The Aussie test was good win, no doubt, but a very strange game. The Aussies weren't blown away as they were competing well, the Boks merely finished off everything. You pick a coach who has a win percentage of 37% and try and pass that off as the great visionary of Bok rugby. He got fired because his teams were losing. In comes Mallett and our fortunes change. You always back the horse that labour's to finish dead last. 

State where and when Esterhuizen has "failed" the team. Careful with all that hot air, you're liable to take off! 

Balls AgainBSter

In the second test in Durban the Springboks scored three tri es - the Lions NONE.   The problem was that Honiball missed all three try conversions as well as two penalties.   That was very unlike him,

That was an accidental win and not a deserved one,   

What happened in respect of the test games Esterhuizen played in - one win and how many losses?  His defense was always problematic and he is really pace -deficient.   Know why he is your hero - not because of rugby reasons but from your point of view an alternative as a replacement for your pet hate De Allende.      

Lügnerin, I have logged every ruck in every test this year. Citing every pass, every tackle and every movement along with every attacking and defensive shape. I know exactly where and when Esterhuizen was present and the nature of his contributions. You have yet to provide any evidence against him. Give me a reference and I'll bring the clip here. Why do you struggle for details? You know I am wrong, surely you must know why, nyet? 

The most admirable fan on site who logged everything and then claims that all other members are plastic spectators at work.   Problem is his logging has no impact on results achieved.   Wonderful record of Esterhuizen - stared in four tests - lost 3 of those.

Either the logging is misinterpreted like your world top rugby analyst  ability normally results in , or you do not see things you do not want to see.   The latter is very likely since you come up with such weird interpretations.    

When any coach will follow your suggestions he is doomed.   So I hope Erasmus stays as far as possible from the selection suggestions you and Mozart support.