FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Five experts tell Hougaard to stay on the wing

Five experts tell Hougaard to stay on the wing

Started by Mozart9 REPLIES318 VIEWS· 22 Apr 2015, 16:43
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
22 Apr 2015, 16:43
#1
22 Apr 2015, 16:43#1

Five former Springboks on Francois Hougaard's best position and whether he should stay on the wing for the Vodacom Bulls in the absence of Rudy Paige.

Gaffie du Toit (former Bok flyhalf)

'I’d keep him on the wing. He's an explosive player like [former England and Lions wing] Jason Robinson. Hougaard isn't specialised enough to play scrumhalf, like Fourie du Preez, whose boots he'd have to fill at Test level. His strengths are explosive speed, good feet, and an eye for a gap. He doesn’t get the same opportunity to exploit those strengths at scrumhalf. With Rudy Paige injured, I would definitely start Piet van Zyl at scrumhalf and keep Hougaard on the wing. Van Zyl is a specialised scrumhalf and I thought his move from the Cheetahs to the Bulls would give him the opportunity to develop to his full potential. Hougaard can maximise his strengths on the wing.'

Corné Krige (former Bok flank)

'His best position is wing. He's prone to making the wrong decisions at scrumhalf. I think he gets caught up in the heat of the moment and tries to do too much. For example, against the All Blacks he chose to play Pieter-Steph du Toit on the blind side, which he shouldn't have done, and Du Toit was tackled out at a crucial point in the game. Fourie du Preez would never had done that. Hougaard just seems to lack the decision-making required of a scrumhalf. Rudy Paige is injured, but I’d keep Hougaard on the wing. I like Piet van Zyl at scrumhalf.'

Werner Greeff (former Bok fullback)

'Francois plays better on the wing. He is afforded much more space and he is attacking that space very well at the moment. When he plays scrumhalf, he tends to make the odd mistake and mistakes may cost a team the game. However, because of his international experience at scrumhalf, he will be the better choice for Saturday's match. But this solely depends on the Bulls' approach against the Stormers.'

Adrian Jacobs (former Bok centre)

'His best position is wing. He is dangerous in broken play, attacks the space very well and gives his opposition headaches. He should stay on the wing for Saturday's match. He has been in good form playing there and quite frankly, it should be a straight swop between Piet van Zyl and Rudy Paige.'

Chester Williams (former Bok wing)

'Hougaard's at his best on the wing. He is good in the air and utilises the space on the outside to good effect, but more importantly he seems to be enjoying rugby again. With Hougaard, it all depends on which team he plays for. His natural position is scrumhalf, but at the Bulls he struggles in that position and that effects his confidence. Piet van Zyl should stand in for Rudy Paige and Hougaard should continue playing wing.'

Braam van Straaten (former Bok flyhalf)

'He's the form wing in South Africa at the moment, there's no need to disrupt him now. He has so many options out wide and he carries better. With so much riding on the match against the Stormers, I'd rather the Bulls make just one change with Piet van Zyl coming in at scrumhalf, instead of shifting Hougaard and having to pick someone else on the wing. Continuity is key. Van Zyl needs confidence and it'll do him good to play in a winning team. Hougaard is more of a threat out wide because he is such a dangerous open-field runner.'

Ryan Vrede: Hougaard must wing it

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
22 Apr 2015, 16:48
#2
22 Apr 2015, 16:48#2
 Unfortunately Corne got his facts wrong....it was Lomp who got the ball on the blind side and wandered into touch. Still it's a good example of panic in the Hougaard decision making process. I have rarely seen such a difference in a player when he moves between two positions.
BL
BlikkiesPro1,526 posts
22 Apr 2015, 17:03
#3
22 Apr 2015, 17:03#3

Most will agree with Hougaard on the wing, except politics.

 

SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
22 Apr 2015, 17:08
#4
22 Apr 2015, 17:08#4

No-one is denying how good he is on the wing, but my call is that we don't need him there and he is better at 9 as long as we don't expect him to play the kicking game......none of our younger 9's are good with the boot.......we don't want a kicking 9.


Play him at 9, he is our best 9 for the simple reason, that with ball in hand he is dangerous.


All we need Hougaard to do is provide a crisp service and attack when the opportunity presents itself......play to his strengths......cut out the pointless box kicks.  

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
22 Apr 2015, 17:10
#5
22 Apr 2015, 17:10#5
One expert says keep Hougaard at scrumhalf  
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,285 posts
22 Apr 2015, 17:11
#6
22 Apr 2015, 17:11#6
Anyone with more than one brain cell would agree Hougaard is better on the wing. 
In the right conditions like a hard fast pitch & high tempo rugby, he is good at scrummie. 
However on a slower pitch the ball is not cleared from rucks so quickly,then he becomes a poor excuse of a juggling clown. A calamity waiting to happen. 
He cant pick the ball off the floor or pass properly when he is put under pressure. The Northern Hemishphere teams target him. Reinach although similar to Hougaard in many ways, is much better at clearing the ball from rucks to get quick passes away. Reiniach also offers a kicking game as well.

SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
22 Apr 2015, 17:20
#7
22 Apr 2015, 17:20#7
Sharktwat......bit of a joke you bringing up brain cells  
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,285 posts
22 Apr 2015, 17:55
#8
22 Apr 2015, 17:55#8
 Saffex you may have more than one brain cell, but I doubt their is more than one that is objective. Once you become a one eyed fan boy, the player can do no wrong.
Meyer must have told Hougaard at the start of the season that if he wants to be a Springbok, he is going to have to specialize on the wing.He was diabolical on the EOYT and it could even be said he is the sole reason the Boks lost to Ireland. (or the primary reason).
If the Bulls are only choosing him only on the Wing, you can be sure that the Boks will too. His career as a scrummie is finished, and he will do a better job on the wing.
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
22 Apr 2015, 18:08
#9
22 Apr 2015, 18:08#9

One counter for you dumb Shark - JJ


How was Hougaard diabolical on the EOYT - that is just a blatant lie.


He threw 3 poor passes in awful conditions against Ireland having made 50 good ones.


Its pathetic fools like you who see the 3 poor passes and define a player accordingly......its the kind of pathetic thinking our Bok coach follows, for he dropped Pollard after that game as well after a solid performance.


Um the Bulls are choosing him on the wing as they have no wings and 3 scrumhalves in Hougaard, Paige and v/Zyl...wake up man.  

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Apr 2015, 18:54
#10
22 Apr 2015, 18:54#10
 Let me give an objective assessment here.   Hougaard was a wing in his early years with the Bulls.   When Fourie du Preez was injured he was moved to scrummie.   Now where is he better - at scrummie or on the wing?   It is no doubt that he is better on the wing than at scrummie.
His initial games at scrummie was very good - but there is a problem that is getting worse the longer he plays at scrummie.  In that position the player gets worked out by the opposition and if there are weaknesses - the opposing players target those weaknesses - and that is indeed the case with Hougaard.  
The weaknesses in Hougaard's play center about his service on the one hand - but more especially about the fact that in recent tests he got swamped by the opposition forwards.   This happened at the EOYT in 2014.  He was slow in getting to and collecting the ball and he was too often caught in possession or uinable to deal with balls.
It was clear that in those two tests some of the problems of Hougaard in Super 15 over the last two years were back with a vengeance.   
The choice in fact it whether Hougaard should be played on the wing - where he is outstanding - or at scrummie, where he is way below the standard he is on the wing.  Why waste an outstanding wing - when you get in return a much less effective scrummie?          
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news