MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Oct 2015, 01:43#1
Kriel, Allende, Malherbe, Lomp? Lomp gave away a try and lost control of the lineouts. Kriel was invisible. Allende tried hard but never achieved a single meaningful line break, except against the USA. Malherbe couldn't move the Welsh scrum and while he was a bit better against the ABs, the power came from the Beast and his opponent was a very impotent replacement.
The Bok cause in the knockout games rested with du Preez, Etzebeth, Louw and Vermeulen...the old guard. Schalk and Habana were big against Wales. The old guard made meaningful contributions, just as McCaw, Nonu and Carter did for NZ....and Mitchell, Ashley Cooper and Giteau did for Oz.
In the end experience counts, the players who have done it before are your best bet for future performance. The newbies are a lottery. A few of theBargies looked good, our chaps just made up the numbers.
MOmoolooman
Rookie26 posts
26 Oct 2015, 01:47#2
It seems that much like NZ, SA has a conveyor belt of talent that doesn't give up.Unfortunately it seems that you have to deal with a whole bunch of extraneous stuff which NZ simply doesn't have.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 Oct 2015, 05:56#3
Mozart
What did experience count for in the case of for instance the Japanese test - where the Springboks had the most experienced side ever to play in a test?
There are serious counter-arguments to the experience syndrome. The moist improtant one is the issue of performance coupled to experience. the problem was encountered throughout Meyer's coaching career - he went for experience ahead of performance all along and in the end ended up with inexperienced younger players in the RWC> Some of whom you listed - but in fact played in tests n the relevant positions only from the RC this year.
The whole problem came to a glaring conclusion when the experienced players here the let-downs that cost us the match on Saturday by playing a brand or so-called rugby they played early in their professional careers and poorly executing that brand. Lets face facts the worst foul-ups that contributed most to the loss on Saturday was made by the self-same experienced players. The poor decision-making of Du Preez, the ball possession loss by Burger and the foul-ups of Matfield are the most glaring examples in that case.
It is clear that experience is a requirement - but then experience must always be aligned to performance and in the case of too many players experience was not in alignment with performance. Meyer's main problem was his constant flirting around with experience throughout his coaching of the Springboks. That had the end result of totally inexperienced players in his WC squad.
The issue unfortunately is that one thing was totally ignored in the present squad and that is the fact that age has an impact on performance. Players in the present squad were in their prime in 2007-2010. Nobody can convince me that players like Matfield and Burger - to name two examples - this year performed as well as they did in the period mentioned.
We should all realize by now that Meyer did not build up a squad that would be competitive in the WC this year. The signs became clear since the RC and EOYT last year - when the losses mounted.
My final question is what did players like Kirchner, Morne Steyn and Willem Alberts do in the WC squad? They were mostly unusable and played a minimum role in matches. When it was obvious that Pienaar failed in the Japan test, Du Preez was hailed as the great saviour - but did he - especially in the quarters and semi really lived up to that call? All that can be said he was v astly better than Pienaar - but was that all we needed?
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
26 Oct 2015, 06:58#4
The most experienced player wee mstfiled 105 kg and 38 years old cost us the game through his rank stupudity.
Good post Mike sums up the problem.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 Oct 2015, 07:34#5
Beeno
Mozart had an anti-Malherbe, De Allende, Kriel and De Jager campaign from the word go and do not mind to use false impressions to support his argument. The main reason gas been his constant support of Jannie du Plessis, Fransie, De Jongh and Matfield to eb selected of them.
He goes for the players he listed without ever giving the real reasons for deficiencies shown by his preferred players. He never ever mention how the players like Burger nd Matfied buggered up in matches - like happened again on Saturday. Not a waord about the line out where Whitelock out-jumped Matfield - and the penalty turn-around caused by Matfield he tried all teh excuses he could think of.
Mozart wrote a book about De Jager - but not a word about Burger losing possession on Saturday leading to scoring of the winning try by the AB's.
In the Aussie test in the RC Mozart blames Malherbe for the scrum collapses on the loosehead side, this time it was the loosehead who performed and the reason given is that Malherbe had a good game because he was up against a poor prop. Yet when Du Plessis replaced Malherbe he did squat in the scrums.
Under the circumstances and because Mozart's comments are normally based on personal prejudice I really do not take his comments on players seriously.
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
26 Oct 2015, 08:13#6
Dr Mozzzz has had a very poor campaign this year. His lack of form culiminated in his world best lock ever wee victor being droped and then loosing us the RWC!We wish the good Dr a speedy recovery and trust he will then assist Fox and cerundunce windpomp see the light. A formidable challenge!
My conscience is clear on this matter as I have tried to warn these three musketeers on many ocassions regarding the folly of their ways! All to little avail and the EGG has mounted. Hahahahahahahahahaha
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Oct 2015, 13:34#7
Not one newbie made a meaningful contribution to swaying the two knockout games. They were either equal to, or out competed by their opponents. Sure Lomp ran over the Scots. Did he run over the Welsh or the ABs? Sure he was great in the lineouts against the Eagles....over awed when facing Whitelock.
Selection of more youngsters was never our solution. Tactics and match coaching were. We weren't ready for rugby when we played Japan. And against the ABs we needed a line kicker who could provide distance. Pollard and Lambie couldn't. Frans would have made a vast difference, giving the AB rush two players to cover and the effect of his massive boot. Instead we opted for a lot of pointless tractoring and boy at 13.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Oct 2015, 13:50#9
No Matfield didn't lose the match. The Aboob penalty was a travesty....nothing like the NZ neck role. It happened without penalty at least 6 times in the other semi. Matfield missed a lineout, not good. But he did take down SBW in space twice....imagine Lomp trying to do that. The score differential was the same as when he came on the field.
Lomp lost it by missing the tackle and orchestrating a very poor lineout. And we were going to get to the finals anyway....after that Lomp did diddly, dominated by Whitelock.
Kriel was invisible....best thing Allende did was fetch, he was about as dangerous as a carrier pigeon. Malherbe with strong power from the Beast, got the better of a very poor NZ loosehead.....but if he plays on Friday we may get a different read.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Oct 2015, 14:34#11
Wrong Matfield's penalty was at 18 minutes to go....after which Lambie kicked a penalty. And it wasn't a penalty....it was a political Aboob call.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Oct 2015, 14:56#13
Lomp missed the tackle giving them 7 points....and Victor never infringed.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 Oct 2015, 15:11#14
So the penalty reversal never took place? That is near the biggest load of BS I have heard for a long time. Matfield came on and in his first minute on the field he cst us the match by rank idiocy. Aside from that -
* he was as per normal out-jumped by Whitelock in a crucial line-out; and* he spilled the ball in the last ball carry in the match.
That was real champion destruction stuff.
To be quite fair to Mozart - he would have found a similar excuse for that penalty reversal if De Jager was involved - or would he? Would not lay a bet on that one.
PAPakie
Captain17,321 posts
26 Oct 2015, 15:34#15
"3 points straight in front of the poles......game over"
With 18 minutes to go...against the All Blacks? Wow. The score at the time was 20-15. The penalty would still have left us 2 points short, the whole game would have changed because there would have been a kick-off from halfway, so we can cancel out the Lambie penalty as it may never have occured.
"he was as per normal out-jumped by Whitelock in a crucial line-out;"
And the three lineouts in a row we lost before Matfield came on weren't crucial? And no one gets called out for that?
"he spilled the ball in the last ball carry in the match."
Really? This? And what were we expecting the Boks to do from 100m out when they could barely play themselves into the All Black half all game, outside from kicking themselves there, which was out of the question with no time on the clock? The Boks had no idea how to get out of their 22, just sending isolated runners into a wall of defenders while making no ground. Someone losing it or getting turned over or penalized was a matter of a few more carries.
But let's excuse the powerpuff Lood tackle by blaming it on Habana shooting out of the line. Let's forget about Habana's stupid conversion charge, or his even more stupid yellow card. No, Victor lost us the semi. Such a classical witch-hunt while numerous other failures get papered over.
26 Oct 2015, 15:55#16
Good post Pakie our line out was nothing short of a total abortion in the second half before Victor came on. I was sitting there with my head in my hands every time we were awarded a Lineout as we only had 50% chance of retaining our own ball. Ultimately it was the team as a group that fell short in the second half.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 Oct 2015, 16:08#18
Pakie
There were a list of failures in the game on Saturday. Nobody papered anything over - but then an attack was launched by Mozart on a few players - laving out completely the real other problem cases. Some of the accusations by Mozart was utterly baseless and I think that the reaction was to correct the one-sided attack on individual players by Mozart.
There is no excuse for the missed tackle by De Jager - but similarly there is no excuse for the mistakes made by Matfield, Burger et al.
The one thing I said is that insofar as De Allende and Kriel is concerned - they had at the start of the WC campaign a total of three matches playing together as a center pairing. Before the semi - they had another 3 matches as a center pairing. Under those circumstances and taking into account the minimal number of balls passed to them and the quality of the balls they received, they did better than expected in the games played. The constant harping on those two players are sickening.
26 Oct 2015, 16:11#19
"There is no excuse for the missed tackle by De Jager - but similarly there is no excuse for the mistakes made by Matfield, Burger et al. "
Points difference at the end of the game - 2 pointsLood's mistake - 7 pointsMatfield's mistake - 3 points.
Yep. Matfield cost us the game.
26 Oct 2015, 16:25#20
Are you serious Cera? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we lost by 2 points...Matfield's 3 still cost us the game! Lood stuffed up! Straight forward tackle! I am not making excuses for him! Jp, also cost us a try....why don't you mention that?
Such a stupid argument!
26 Oct 2015, 16:27#21
We lost because numerous players "dropped the ball". If our tactical kicking had not been so shart, we would not have been in the poor field possession that led to both tries. The team failed, by a ball hair, you can't just blame one or two players!
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Oct 2015, 16:30#22
Irony Bloo....you missed the irony.
PAPakie
Captain17,321 posts
26 Oct 2015, 17:05#24
Dave, the moment we get that penalty the entire rest of the game as we know it now becomes void, because an completely different sequence of events will follow. If it was the last play of the game and we have a penalty reversed, sure. With 18 minutes left? You can't make that call.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 Oct 2015, 18:01#25
Possibly - but who knows what would have happened. The 3 extra points would most likely have changed the outcome - same as the ball spilling of Burger may not have occurred. Fact is the turn-around of the penalty made a huge difference. In getting three points is better than to have a line-out in our 22 with the AB's throwing in the ball.
If the kick-in of the ball by the AB's occurred chances are that we would have been in a better position than to face an opposition line-out within our 22.
To try and rationalize that occurrence involving Matfield out of existence is crazy - it did have a serious negative impact on the Springboks.
PAPakie
Captain17,321 posts
26 Oct 2015, 18:08#27
These games are built out of a series of small events which all contribute to the outcome. The reversed penalty certainly did. But so did Lood's missed tackle. So did Habana's yellow card. So did our inability to score any points against 14 All Blacks while conceding 3. So did the four lost lineouts. So did phase upon phase of safety first going nowhere in our own 22 at the death when we needed to be brave and take a chance of getting the ball wide and scoring at the other end. There was nothing left but to be brave, but still we could only bash, bash, bash. All these things matter.
PAPakie
Captain17,321 posts
26 Oct 2015, 18:09#28
No Dave, you can't. Unless that infantile little mathematical argument is enough for you. For any thinking person it won't be.
26 Oct 2015, 18:14#29
Reminds me of Dave blaming Dale Steyn for our loss in the CWC. Nothing to do with the pathetic target that we set, due to our opening bat, and all to do with Dale Steyn's last over.
CAcarpetmuncher
Pro1,667 posts
CAcarpetmuncherPro1,667 posts
26 Oct 2015, 18:35#31
meyer needs to go thats the end of it
26 Oct 2015, 19:29#33
The Goats were fortunate to be within 2 points of the All Blacks as they were completely outplayed and kept in their own half most of the match.
When an opportunity like that presents it's self it should be pounced on.
The elderly lock probably also suffers from the early stages of a decomposing brain ... I mean why else would you want to tackle a man that way knowing full well that a penalty would be the end result.
The mere fact that it's and All Blacks, Wallabies final makes for a better spectacle.
27 Oct 2015, 17:45#34
Well if it is only the last play that counts I guess we have to conclude Lood lost us the Wellington Test when he was bullied into touch by a #10 given that he had options to either pass or step inside?
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
27 Oct 2015, 18:46#35
BokBF
I have never condoned De Jager for that mistake - but even van Graan admitted passing the ball under those circumstances to a player two to three meters from the touchline was utter BS by Hougaard. I think that pass - which should have gone infield - has had a negative impact on Hougaard's career as a scrummie. He was played in two subsequent tests - but then left out of the WC squad based on flawed decision-making and also poor execution.
De Jager should have at least tried to fall inwards or pass inwards - despite the rubbish ball he got in the first place. .
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
27 Oct 2015, 21:03#36
That take on Lood is a load of rubbish.
What Matfield did was plain stupidity which can never be excused. One can excuse failure to execute as that is part of rugby.....but there is no excuse for being stupid enough to try clear a player out when you know you have a penalty advantage
CAcarpetmuncher
Pro1,667 posts
CAcarpetmuncherPro1,667 posts
27 Oct 2015, 21:04#37
agreed mike but can you blame hougaard when his first instincts is always more speculative than anything else.
sa rugby apart from the lions breeds this enviroment where our players are brainless idiots
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
27 Oct 2015, 23:28#38
Its really quite funny watching the same guys who denied: Taute cost us the home AB test in 2012 with a badly missed touch and missed tackle on Cruden
JJ's pathetic half time ball cough up and missed tackle on Barrett cost us the home AB test in 2013
Hougaard's goal line fumbling of the ball twice cost us the Irish test in 2014
Lomp's complete swallowing of the Giteau dummy contributed to that Oz loss this year.
Allende's miss of Kuridrani definitely cost us the Oz match this year
Kriel's miss of the Japanese player cost us the embarrassing pool loss
Lomp's miss of Keino cost the AB semi.
Most of these mistakes occurred late in the game, and all of them resulted in 7 points lost or gained. But they never cost us these matches. Only the reversed Matfield penalty can do that. You have to laugh.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
28 Oct 2015, 00:00#39
Funny that nothing is said of Jean and Morne missing Barrett....it was only JJ...what a joke.
Difference being that Morne and JJ missed tackles.....idiot Matfield had a penalty reversed knowing full well the penalty was ours
Huge difference....work it out
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
28 Oct 2015, 01:42#40
Yep big difference the JJ missed tackle led to 7 points not 3.
