Erasmus's remarks on Scotland test

The following from News24:-

"While he was obviously thrilled with the victory, Springbok coach Rassie Erasmus does not think there was anything separating the sides in Saturday's 26-20 win over Scotland at Murrayfield. 

READ: Rob Houwing's Springbok ratings

Speaking after the match, the Bok coach was full of praise for the Scots, saying that on another day things could have gone very differently. 

"Scotland were as good as us on the day ... we weren't better than Scotland," Erasmus said.

"If we played them tomorrow we wouldn't know who the winner would be. That's how good they were.

"We won the game with good defence and attack, but the maturity of this team is what shone through."

Looking ahead to Saturday's clash against Wales in Cardiff, which will bring the curtain down on South Africa's year, Erasmus was mindful that the Boks needed to improve in a number of areas.

"The things we got wrong? Discipline ... when you play like this and give stupid penalties away," Erasmus said.

"Maybe scrum time ... I really thought we would be dominant there and have the upper hand, but we didn't. We also never got the driving maul going ... they really stopped that well. "

Erasmus emphasize three unacceptable issues here, namely -

*    discipline deficiency resulting in giving away of penalties;

*    problems in scrums in not really getting supremacy as expected; and

*    inability to use driving mauls.

The second and third problems is a direct result of deficient lock selection - whose contribution to the Tight 5 is deficient.   Mozart and AO screams and shouted about the final diving maul in the French test and glorified Mostert endlessly - but study indicates that the driving maul was successful despite Mostert and die enti rely to the roles played by Du Toit and Vermeulen.

The deficiencies iro driving mauls is illustrated by the fact that SA teams -

*   do not make penalty corner kicks anymore and kicks at goal instead; and

*   defense against opposition driving mauls is generally poor and opposition teams far too frequently score tries from line-outs in the red zone. 

If the latter trend continues the Springboks will lose games they should have won - so I think Erasmus must fix the lock problems  asap.     

AO is too big a coward toc comment on this thread.

Oh yeah, as opposed to the losses to much weaker opposition with our "ideal" locks

Exactly talking BS again - this from the guy who always said that there is a step up from Super Rugby to test rugby and then turns around and start defend Mostert on the basis of SR performances -  where he rarely saw the SR matches of the Lions.

Lecture again on  an utterly useless and false basis.   The lock has to catch the ball and start forming the maul, whereafter he is fully responsible for ORGANIZING the maul,   What shows up on Saturday was that Mostert can catch the ball, but the other two aspects he is patently unable to do,   He tried against the French, but the maul went backwards and he went upwards off the ground.    Only Mozart will know how a player with both legs in the air can organize the functioning of the maul. Phsically too weak to do the  job.c;ear 

The rest of his comments is aimed at the props, while the issue deals with driving mauls;  But let us follow his lead and talk about the props obviously do not support adequately the props in the scrums.

But let me rather deal with what Erasmus really said in the interview.   He was dealing with the Scottish test and made straightforward remarks about what is wrong,   His main point was iro driving mauls.    Funny how I went straight - his empty response a desperate effort to mislead members.     

Too near the truth.

The players driving the maul converge upon the jumper as he lands. This is very simple stuff. Do I need to draw you a diagram. What kind of pushing power can a player standing backwards achieve, upright, achieve? This is very funny. You say you played rugby? I don't believe you.

Here's the thing. If we have Steph pushing in the maul? Is he a problem? You clearly identified there is a problem, and you inadvertently drew attention away from Mostert. Who is it thy lacks the grunt to drive the maul? If I have the time, I may review this. 

Balls - another bucket full of BS and I concentrated on the role of Mostert in that maul that caused a serious case of raving idiocy by AO and Mozart about how wonderful Mostert was in that maul,

 Mostert, other than jumping to catch the ball did squat to organize and direct the maul going forward -  he could not do anything of the sort since he was pushed upwards and ended up with both feet off the ground.

Please go and analyze what Erasmus said about the deficiency is usage of driving mauls and that remains the point.   The mauls did not work last Saturday and could not be used by the Springboks at all - evidenced by the decision to avoid making corner penalty kicks with an idea to set up mauls.

This kind of rank idiocy on site is just too much for most members to take.   There is a problem - but Mozart and AO refuse to even think there is a problem, because one of their favourite players is the main reason for that idiocy,          

I have a maul where Steph is hanging horizontally out of the maul. You never do your homework. 

Balls as mentioned again by AO.  He did not see what happened - tried to make out that Mostert organized the maul with his feet in the air and Du Toit and Vermeulen got the m aul going forward after an initial backwards movement.   

By the way another question - the story about the possession turnovers by Louw is never mentioned in the ESPM match summary.   Was there any?  I saw one case where a French player knocked on the ball and Louw fell on the ball and SA won the resultant maul.   That in reality does not represent a turnover in the normal sense of the word.  The only other breakdown turnover after Louw came on was made by Vermeulen.   

So did we get another BS story exposed to try and credit Louw for somethin he did not do.  Mostert and Louw combined are the cause of more falsified reports on what happened than any other player imaginable.   So as the rolling maul in that game got exposed for being a falsified description - the other story about the Louw turnovers is seemingly also falling apart.             

Balls a smentioned again by AO.  He did not see what happened - tried to make out that Mostert organized the maul wiot his feet in the air and Du Toit and Vermeulen got the m,aul going forward after an initial backwards movement.   

By the way another question - the story about the possession turnovers by Louw is never mentioned in the ESPM match summary.   Was there any?  I saw one case where a French player knocked on the ball and Louw fell on the ball and SA won the resultant maul.   That in reality does not represent a turnover in the normal sense of the word.  The only other breakdown turnover after Louw came on was made by Vermeulen.   

So did we get another BS story exposed to try and credit Louw for somethin he did not do.  Mostert and Louw combined are the cause of more falsified reports on what happened than any other player imaginable.   So as the rolling maul in that game got exposed for being a falsified description - the other story about the Louw turnovers is seemingly also falling apart.             

the other story about the Louw turnovers is seemingly also falling apart

What story would this be? And I'm stil l waiting for the source of your turnover numbers.

The more crucial turnover is in the 80th minute when France is trying to run down the clock close to our line.

It is standard practice the world over to play one's best players in their respective positions.

Rassie seems to be a little confused regarding this as one can see by his insistence on selecting the useless headbutting quota at 6 ... and using a specialist lock at 7 ... not to mention a full back at 13.  

The man's an idiot.

Pieter Steff Du Toit is undoubtedly our best lock and should be given the 5 jersey without a second thought. I'm not sure really who should be slotted in at 4 as we have some quality players challenging for the jersey. I suppose Eben should get the nod ahead of Schickerling and Snyman.

Lood's form earlier this year impressed us all and so should be a serious contender for the bench at least.

Having said that, Mostert has proven himself as our best jumper. One can't dismiss his skills at the set piece and as we ll know that dominating this area of the game has a lot of advantages.

He can easily be compared to Matfield ... a lightweight ... but with a difference. He has a very high work rate and tackles everything that moves ... far outshining any other lock in the game. I would not discard him. 

He's definitely not as poor a player as Mike's trying to make out ... nor is he a better option at 5 than Du Toit ... as the clueless, ignorant Poepol and Mozart keep harping on about.

I's a toughie. We have some awesome stocks at lock.

My biggest concern is our midfield and back row.

Mozart

I saw the incident and your description is as false as your description was in the case of the maul.  The ball was dropped by the French player and it would in fact has been a scrum for a Springbok throw-in,   But the fact is that  Louw did not make a turnover at all by getting to a dropped ball falling on it and a maul resulted.   I checked the ESPN report and there was no penalty awarded at minute 76.

However, Pakie can help you by posting a clip and we can them see whether you can verify your description,   He should include the minute 80 incident and see whether your description is not another disinformation  effort.   Nobody can ever trust your description of what happened in games - so proof your stateme nts,  

BB

Du Toit was never complimented by Mozart, AO and co ever - matter of fact he was constantly denigrated on site.  I said that Mostert is like Matfield in many respects - but in Tight 5 plays like rolling mauls he fails badly.  

Something drastic has to be done iro getting rolling mauls and corner penalty kicks back on track as an attacking mechanism - we became very weak in that component of the game and I think it may be the result of lock inadequacy - especially on the part of Mostert I am afraid.

It happened in the Pretoria AB test  as well as the Scotland test - we never took a corner penalty kick and the question remains why did it happen.   We cannot continue with that strategy - it will cost us losing of matches if we cannot utilize the rolling maul as an attacking mechanism.     I think that was leading to the remark by Erasmus on the issue of rolling maul usage .   

Blue

I raised the exact same point. 

Also went further and asked how different the maul technique at SR and Test level is since Mostert's Lions are the most successful mauling side in SR...for like three years running.

Never got a straight answer.

Plum,

If there is a maul technique problem why has this not been solved as yet - especially with the involvement of the Lions coach assisting Erasmus?

I cannot accept that is the technique that is bothersome.    It probably have to do with player usage in mauls.   I do not know what role Mostert plays in the Lions SR mauls.  One will have to study that carefully.  

Thee has always in 2014 and 2015 about rolling mauls by the Springboks when Matfield was in fact a real problem in that regard - but it must be admitted in his own book Matfield gave his weight as 107 kgs - but there is question marks as to why in the Japan tests no driving mauls were used.   This wa I fact blamed on Matfield.

There is no real clarity as to why at present penalty corner kicks are not used and  why the rolling mauls near the tryline are out.  The one claimed by Mozart to credit Mostert for - was in fact a  success despite him.  He ended up being with both feet in the air which in a way was what happened in the case of Mafield in the two years mentioned  with the difference that Mostert was pushed out of the mauls altogether and landed on the grass beside mauls.  The maul would not have succeeded if Du Toit and Vermeulen did no take control of the maul and got the maul moving forward.

I have written a number of threads on the issue and Erasmus also made reference to it - so there must be a real problem - and one will have to see how the problem is being solved.           

Mike

Two major components of the Lions maul work like clockwork, has beenf or years and years...IE Marx's throwing and Mostert's catching & set. Those two are also constants in the maul, in that Mostert has to jump where has to jump and will land where he must and Marx has to throw where he has to throw for Mostert to take the catch.

Nothing changes here between SR and Test technique. Nothing can change. Mostert cant jump higher or land somewhere else. Marx cant throw faster or with more spin. Everything stays the same.

The call is the only variable there.

It then stands to obvious reason that as Blue said...it's about team technique. Who binds where, how quickly and safely the ball is shuffled backwards to Marx, how the other forwards adapt to changes in direction and pressure from the oppositon, how efficiently they break away and re-attach in repsonse...and more.

The most obvious place to search is therefore not in a proven working combination IE that of Marx and Mostert, but rather at the other players.

You don't like or rate Mostert, i get it. What you can't do is place all the blame entirely on his shoulders for something that requires the entire forward pack.

I wrote what happened in the case of the two turnovers of Louw,  and the two attempted driving mauls preceeding the scoring of the try in a new thread on the issue.

I found the game on U-Tube and replayed the parts dealing with the four issues a number of times and wrote what really happened,   

Basically what Mozart wrote was somewhat misleading.   In one case he wrote that Louw made the tackle and jumped up to make a turnover,   He was not involved in the preceding tackles and was nearest to the tackled players and tried to make turnovers.   In both cases there were no turnovers per se.   The French tackled players hung onto the ball and penalties resulted because of the latter contravention.   Both instances were deep in the Springboks 22,  

As to the last rolling maul leading to the Springbok try Mozart completely falsified as is confirmed in the U-Tube film on the game.   The description I gave repeatedly was 100% correct.  

Basically what Mozart wrote was somewhat misleading.   In one case he wrote that Louw made the tackle and jumped up to make a turnover

Here's what Mozart said:

At exactly minute 76 the ball comes out to the French number 6, 10 metres from our line. Louw smacks him down and gets right over the ball in a dominating position.

Here's what happened:

Louw can clearly be seen making the tackle over the top.

Before getting over the ball with a French player immediately present trying to remove him.

Mozart's description is spot on. Yours of there being no French players present to compete or that Louw was not involved in tackling the player is bullshit.

Here's the second one:

Again, two French players immediately in attendance on either side of him.

In both cases there were no turnovers per se.   The French tackled players hung onto the ball and penalties resulted because of the latter contravention.

Wow. Uhm, that's how turnover penalties are won, genius. By the player holding on to the ball. They either hold on or lose the ball. They hold on hoping that their support can remove the fetcher before a penalty is awarded.

This must be one of your weakest efforts yet, and that's saying something .

Here's the video for anyone who wants to see what really happened

First turnover at 1:37:10 video time

Second turnover at 1:41:35 video time

I watched the actual video  on U-Tube repeatedly and looked at that actually happened and I looked at each case repeatedly and the fact is that in the case where Mozart wrote Louw made the tackle there was no evidence it did happen.   Louw made an earlier tackle and then got up after the tackle was made by Vermeulen and moved in to try and turn the ball over.  He did not make the tackle and got up to recover the ball after making the tackle.   He moved in to attack the ball after the tackles were completed.

I said what happened under the thread I posted and described in detail what happened and admitted I was wrong about the issue of the take-overs.  So go to what I wrote in that thread I opened specifically to deal with the issues.

Nah, I sommer dealt with that nonsense here. No need for me to utter another word on this issue. The footage speaks for itself. Toodles.

Plum

I did not look at the Lions mauls - only at the few mauls where Mostert was involved on test levels.   Fact is that I wrote af number of times that -

*    the fact is that mauls dried up as an attacking mechanism when it came to tests and that the Springboks did not make corner penalty kicks;

*    whenever Du Toit played at 5 there were a number successful  mauls gaining substantial territory while there were no successful mauls when Mostert was involved.

Mozart tried to prove that Mostert was successful to organize the maul leading to the try against the French and I looked at that maul repeatedly and found that Mostert in fact caught the ball and tried to organize the maul - but in the process he was pushed upwards with feet off the round while the maul was going backwards.   That is why Du Toit and Vermeulen had to take over and ensure the maul moved forward.

I never said  that Mostert was not good in catching balls in line-out.   Whether he in fact jumps higher than other locks and players could be tested - but I am not sure it is factually correct and may be an assumption made to explain away why Marx's throw-ins  were  too high for other players to catch.    I wish there were real evidence that deals with that issue.  If somebody can provide factual proof of that it could be further discussed.    

However, what is interesting is the remarks made by Erasmus where he mentioned the deficiency in organizing successful mauls in the Scottish test.   There were no successful mauls and no corner kicks to try and use driving mauls and the question remains why?    

Swys is with the team  and if there was a problem why did he not correct it?   I am afraid that it may be the fact that mauls may be successful on SR level - but not on test level and the question remains why?  One cannot have locks on test level that can catch line-out balls - but cannot organize and co-ordinate mauls.   I believe that it is a major problem at present - whether members may like it or not especially since defense against opposition mauls is also weak.

We will have to see how Erasmus deals with the issue in future.                 

I give up

No Plum giving up will not solve the problem to which Erasmus referred.   There needs to be a solution and rolling mauls and corner penalty kicks come back into the attacking Springbok game.    If that does not happen it would be a backward step that will not be recoverable and lead to many close matches being  lost.

Why  is it that Mozart  and AO ignore the fact that the corner penalty kick and rolling mauls is virtually absent from the Springbok attacking game?

Rolling mails in all facets of play has been out of the Springbok team and defense against opposition rolling mauls is deficient as well.

Mostert takes lots of line-out ball - but he virtually never start Mauls and when he did - like against the French - it was not working until Du Toit and Vermeulen took over the co-ordination and cause the forward movement - something Mostert failed to do.  Why?

To ignore an obvious problem is wrong and to ignore what Erasmus said about the issue is wrong too.   

Why does Van keeps on banging his head against the wall? ...It feels good when he stops.

Ceradyne

Lets face facts - how many conversions of penalties occurred during the following games by following the number of converted and even missed penalty kicks as well as the total number o f penalties awarded:-

Super Rugby

Australia   -   home test    =    3  out of  7 penalties

All Blacks -   home test    =    3  out of  7 penalties

France                               =     5 out of   9 penalties

Scotland                            =     5 out of  9 penalties

We know that in the French test two of the penalties not kicked at goal was in the Springboks 22.  There were two corner kicks at the last few minutes of the French test since the Springboks needed a try to win the game. 

In the case of the Scotland test Pollard missed two penalty kicks at goal and one penalty kick did not find touch - so none of the penalties awarded was successful corner kicks.   There has been a test where Pollard's goal kicking has gone sour and he missed a lot of kicks at goal.   I cannot remember which of the RC tests or the English test on 3 November 2018 it happened. 

Fact is the other two RC tests listed also indicated that none of the 4 remaining penalties in each test resulted involved corner kicks.

On the other hand - 3 of the 4 tries scored by the AB's in Pretoria stemmed  from penalty corner kicks - indicating that the defense against opposition mauls are poor as well. 

That  is why it is evident that the usage of penalty corner kicks have in fact gone out of the window.  That is a very disturbing issue  and I believe that is what bothered Erasmus as well leading to his response as to rolling mauls.       

Hell - but I clearly indicated the total number of penalties and the total number of kicks converted - together as to what happened to most of the remaining penalties in the case of some tests.   What do you NOT understand about what was written?

There is no goal posts being moved - the information is factual and correct.   So what goal posts are you talking about?

I still want to know why corner kicks and rolling mauls have gone out of the window.  Any other response remains the changing of goal posts. 

By the way you attack about the rankings  I admitted that I was wrong about saying the difference in rankings was more than 5 points,   It was not in 2012 and 2013 - but it was right about 2014 and 2015.       So why making a big  show and dance about that.

It will help if AO and Mozart also admit they were wrong at times other than to carry on making BS contributions and try to change their contributions after the fact and deny wat they wrot e.   

.