Do we need fetchers?

I think there is general consensus on the site regarding fetchers, and the need for one. We saw in the series against England that it is not enough just to have big forwards trying to run over opposition. The English saw our plan, which was effective at first, but they then countered it by tackling low on the legs. As the series grinded on the tactic employed by Meyer to simply use big forwards and brute force slowly became less and less effective. The problem was we had no plan B. If we had a player like Brussouw on the bench, and we were able to bring him on with 25 minutes left to play in a game, it would have completely thrown the English game plan. A player like Brussouw in conjunction with the big bruisers like Alberts or Potgieter would make it nearly impossible for the opposition to defend the breakdown. Also, Brussouw is no slouch in the tackling stats either. For me it is simple, there IS a difference between a 6 and a 7, and for good reason. I just feel we missed a trick by not playing a specialist fetcher on one side of the scrum and a big bruiser on the other. Answer me this, how would you defend against Alberts on one side, Brussouw on the other and a real warhorse like Schalk or Vermeulen at 8? Two big tacklers and when they are done with you, you still have Brussouw and Bismark trying to get at your ball. Not easy to defend against.

Completely agree.

in short yes we do..certain players balance other players roles...if you have a fecther the then in fact releases the other loosies to do that they do best and that is to run with the ball. its all about balance for me. the aussies and NZ seem to share that idea. the real matter of the story is rucks happen more often than line outs and scrums so if you lose the battle of the breakdown then 9/10 times you lose the game....stats will prove that too

That is exactly my thinking CM. Pocock still excels under the new rules, why should Brussouw not be able to? It seems we can all see it but, the coaching staff can't. It is all a bit of a mystery to me

i could not agree more bluebok....meyer is just using stats as a excuse of not picking him because he wants a bigger taller player for line outs and scrums...that is the real reason. this rubbish story of stats ext are all just smoke and mirrors. i watched him very closly and he still performs to what we are use to seeing from him....the cheetahs only issue is that they tend not to contend to much on a ruck so then attacking team just send 2 more cleaners to counter brussow but he still delays there cleanout for the defence to regroup on times....his value cant really be measured

EVERYBODY agrees we need a fetcha except our coach its seems. I understand that Brussouw has not been in great form, but then groom a Stander/Coetzee/Daniels to play that role because it is a necessity in modern rugby to win turnover ball and/or force turn-overs. On the other hand it is also a necessity to clear out the Pococks of this world or they will destroy your game(remember that WC game!!)-and that is where Spies and our young locks must either improve or move on-if you're not prepared to get stuck in, retire.

Two things Benj, you can't groom a fetcher, you are either a fetcher or you aren't. Daniels will NEVER be a fetcher...Coetzee, who already has the basics, is another story. On your point about players like Spies, get stuck in or get retired, I agree 100%.

The game has changed out of favour of fethers and even 5 years ago we did absoultely fine with schalk and Juan. In my opinion we can continue with Schalk and Marcel at 6 and 7 and Alberts at 8. Duanne Vermeulen will be an excellent player off the bench. We will be able to move Schalk Duane and Alberts around the back 3 without to much hassle. There is no place for Spies. Brussouw's effectiveness during the super 15 has been extremely limited. Pocock has certinly not excelled either all though he was more effective than Brussouw.

 Brussouw never played well at the World cup, he has also not had an excellant Super 15 season. Has the law changed like HM says or is  Brussouw not in good form anymore?

Apparently in the 3rd test with Alberts, Marcel took more of a carrying role due to no Alberts in the team. 

However with Richie Mccaw- the professional cheating fetcher, some referees will let him get away with murder. The next open side flank(7 for newzealand) is also a good fetcher, and allround player. 

Richie Mccaw is a good fetcher but also a great all round player- so is a dedicated fetcher needed or an allround player , or two loose forwards that are all rounders with one beast ball carrier like Alberts.

Schalk has allways been a strong all rounder with good fetching abilities as well as carrying. When he first started playing to some degree he was a specialist fetcher, with less carries.

A loose forward combination of Schalk at 8, Marcel at 6 and Alberts at 7 could be a balanced loose forward combination- No out and out fetching specialist, but enough fetching skill to compete on the ground. 

So is a balanced loose forward combination of allrounders vs a specialist fetcher required. Perhaps the 3rd test would have been better to have had brussouw in it, as the loose forward combination was not balanced enough.

Spies is not an allrounder, and his ball carrying is probably not strong enough to justify his selection. I do not think he has ever won the ball on the ground ever in a test.

The whole arguement centres around Brussouw and nothing else.   The contributors who wants him in he team are all basing their arguments on the role of a fetcher.  I for one think that if Brussouw was up to standard they may have an answer - but if he did fetch some balls this year in Super 15 - it was indeed a rarity.   He was poor in the WC and worse in Super 15.   Insofar as I am concerned - yes a fetcher could help - but then he needs to be effective.   

He must also be top on defence and capable of carrying the ball - otherwise to be a fetcher only would waste a team spot.   I am afraid his recent performances disqualify Brussouw from selection.

Bring back FLO!

Big forwards that weighed a few kg less than the Poms!

Big forwrds like Juandre at  110  kg as a lock or marcell at  106kg and spiesies at 108 and beast at 116kg.

sorry guys you did not have a big pack on the field.

Add oenie at 127 kg and a real driver up of the ball, or bekker at 120 kg, Alberts at 118 kg and vemulen at 116 kg and then you would ahve abig pack. Our pack at 907 kg is about just about average.

Reminds me how the ignorant still talk about the big bulle pack at 880kg. Hahahahhahaahhahahahahaha about the same weight as the under 21 BABY Bok pack.

No we didnt get physical dominance because physically our forwards were on a par size wise for one thing and had some very young palyers like Etzebeth who have yet to really ht their straps .

Secondl we dont need a fetcher iand especially wee brussouw in a pack taking the strain. Next we will have oaks wanting victor at 107kg back to strengthen the pack and dropping Bissie for chilli boy etc. Hahahahahhahahaha it just cracks me up!

The pack I would pick would be around 941 kg and there would be NO chance of the poms or anybody else holding them:

Coenie, Bissie Jannie 9(Alas)

Flip and Bekker

Schalk, Vermulen and Alberts.

Now that gentlemen is a Bok pack to reckon with.

Reserves Beast, Strauss ((who is a sound scrummager as we saw in the second test when he and Coenie came on) Etzebeth and Coetzee.

Elstadt would be very much in the picture as would a number of other young players like Kitshoff, Malherbe, Step Du Toit etc.

Sharkbok marcell at  with schalk and Alberts would be a pretty good loose trio.

Thankfully you and Mike take note about how ineffective tthe fetchers are these days which of course blows any idea of a fetcher being essential right out of the water. Brussouw simply gets knocked off the ball time and again even if he happens to get there.

I only would like to see Brussouw in a dominant pack before finalising on the matter. I would not want to see him in a Bok pack on the back foot or struggling for parity. We want a pack that blows the abs away. The Boks already have too many physically inadequate players as I noted above.

Draad dont ask windpomp - he thinks flo is not important.

Agreed Bluebok, Meyer got it wrong by excluding Brussouw. Hell look at the 2 top sides out there. The Kiwi's have Sam Cane making great strides as a fetcher and Oz have Pocock and Hooper - therein lies the answer on whether we need a fetcher or not

Did anyone hear Nick Mallett on Supersport after the draw on Saturday?

Very intresting hearing his opinions on fetchers.

His assesment was it depends largely on the rest of the loose forwards.

He said he personally wouldnt nescesserily pick a fetcher, but would groom the rest of the pack and indeed the backline and coach them on the art of fetching.

He says (and rightfully so) that fetchers do tend to give away penalties.

He used saturdays game as an example...

When the scrore was deadlocked with 1 minute to go, the Poms were holding on to posession.

Had we had a fetcher, he may have tried to go for the ball and given away a penalty which could have cost us the game.

Me personally... I feel that there is a role for a fetcher, but he needs to be street wise and also play more of a ball carrying role.

I still think Schalk was our best opensider since re-admission!

Jake played him there with so much success!

If Meyer knew what was good for him, he would move Schalk back there and switch Willem to 8 and Coetzee to blindside!

Beeno

You are right about the issue of weight - but that should be coupled to atheltic ability.   I think a combination that includes more than 1 player under 110 kgs could work out.    Anything more reducces the playing ability of players.   However, the under 110 kg category should include players of 6'3"  otr taller- allowing for some escalation in weight through gym work and correct diets - to increase to circa 115 kgs.

That is where I see the value of players like Marcel Coetzee - who is a fine athlete as well.   Spies is tall - but at his age unlikely to benefit from a strict regime that would take him above the 110kg category.   Ligheter players simply get knocked over like happened in Brussouw recently.   Spies has a tendency to go to ground before he gets tackled and that indicates his problem could be the knock-over affect in playing situations.

My ideal loosies at this stage would be Vermeulen (118), Burger (118) - if he gets over his injury problem - Elstadt (116 kgs), Du Toit (118) - with one lighter one Coetzee (106) 

The three combined would come in at 342 kgs.

Locks should preferably not be lighter than 120 kgs - Etzebeth is 124 - combined 240 kgs

Props - Preferably 120 plus  - but th youngsters are all heavier than that - total 254 kgs

Hooker - 116 kgs.

The above pack would ome in at 954 kgs.   That is indeed a heavy pack.   Give and take a few kilos - the weight could be reduced to about 940 kgs.   That is 940 kgs of muscles - not fat. - coupled to athletic ability.  Anything below 900kgs seems to be a light weight pack - which will not wash in the present era.

If you have a combination of players of more than one coming in at below 115 kgs - you are in for a shock and no domination.  The Junior Boks combined came in at a weight slightly lighter than the present Springbok team and that is just not good enough.  That is also why they dominate forward play against a team like New Zealand.

If you go for weight as a factor - players like Oosthuizen and Malherbe at prop (127 kgs each),  Etzebeth and Willemse (124 and 127 respectively), and loosies like Vermeulen, Du Toit and Elsatdt (average 117) are to be the real deals.   Du Toit and Elstadt is very young and could add a few kgs in muscle still.   That could push up the average weight to over 120 kgs) and allow for Bismarck and Coetzee to come in at an average weight of 112 kgs.   Coetzee could also add some muscle and take up his weight to equal that of Mattfield.

That leaves no space for lightwieghts and small players like Brussouw in the set up.

Mike I am in general agreement with your thought but wonder where you get you r weights stats from. I use the offical home website of the union and of the Boks.

Just some corrections I think need to be made:

Burger is 111 kg, Elstadt is 118 kg, Vermuelen is 116kg, Malherbe is 120 kg, Marcelll Coetzee 106kg. Matfield has been between 107 and 108 kg when playing but dropped to 102 kg now.

I agree it could be benefical to play one smaller player with special talents IF you have got the size and power factor covered. It is clear we an pick a 940 kg of ahletes. Nobody is looking for a fat boy for sure.

Beeno

I got the weightsw from Wkipedia - so it may be a few kilos out - but I do not think much.  Malherbe was at 127 kgs when I spoke to his father recently.   Burger is given as 116 kilos - but that could be a bit on the high side. 

In ane event I think the present Bok side is too light to be regarded as a heavy pack.

 Why do you rate Flip higher than Etzebeth as a lock????   I think he is one of the real flops and should not be considered at all.

Mike Wkiedia would not be more reliable than the home unions website in my view. I do note the changes in weight of vermuelen and Burger on the website in recent years so they clealtly keep the Stormers site p to date. malherbe at 127kg is a curious one.

For the moment Etzebeth is overplayed and really needs a break. For the rest of the year just bring him on off the bench or at least rotate his? But of course I rate him as a better propspect than Flip.

Will be interesting now to See Meyers next squad selection and who goes on tour at year end. We could see the likes of Step Du Toit , Serfontein, Goosen and a number of others selected.