Fixing the Springboks

I dont think the Bok problems are very hard to fix. The weak links are obvious: the fullback, the centres & the loosies.

Kirchner is rubbish but we have Taute and F Steyn who can play fullback (& maybe even Lambie when Goosen returns).

Whichever one of Taute or F Steyn plays fullback, the other one can play at inside centre with Juan de Jong at outside centre (I know Mike and Saffex will have a heart attack now but they dreaming, de Jong is class!)

Finally the loosies, just get rid of the useless donkeys Louw and Vermuelen and pick loosies with real talent like Heinrich, Keegan or Marcel.

easy hey??

Jallopy you were doing quite well as far as fullback was concered but it could not last!.

Firstly please understand that Jordaan is the better back. He can actually pass the ball!!!. But it looks like de Jongh will pay against Sctoalnd and he needs to grab the chance. His occassional falshes of brilliance need to happen a lot more regularly.

Next can you imagine what would have happened against Ireland had wee Brussouw and Daniel been playing we would have been seriously munched. I will concede though that we could speed up the loose trio by trying Marcell at number 8. This is a possibility.

Another possibility is considering Alberts at lock. At 118 kfg he has the clout and has actually played well at lock before. However Flip and Etzebeth are my call re the locks.

Really???????????

So you say, lets get rid of of LOUW our best forward so far and replace him with Heinrich"I need to adjust to the new laws" Brussouw? Brussouw is a classy player, but barely stole any ball since the new laws came into play.

Replace Vermeulen with Keegan??? Keegan is hopeless at test level and has been man handled in every minute of every game of test rugby he has played.People miss the impact Vermeulen has ,as he has been grafting in every game.

Marcel is good, but i like our current loosies for now

Beeno1, Marcel has very good skills, never goes backwards,is fast, so you might have a point in him being a 8 in the future.

Also,Jordaan is definitely the future at 13.

How about 6. Louw  7. Coetzee  8. Alberts

With Deon Fourie on the bench

And as for the backline

15. Taute 14.pietersen 13.de villers 12, de jongh 11. Rhule 10. Lambie 9.Pienaar

Without injuries i would have  15. Lambie   14.Pietersen 13.de villiers 12.Steyn 11.Habana 10.Goosen 9.Pienaar

with Jordaan to take over from de villiers in a year or so

Jalap

A center that scores 3 tries in 18 games this year is definitely not class and the fluffing of an excellent opprotunity in the Pretoria test makes him even less so.   I used to be a believer in De Jongh - but lost all hope after seeing the rubbish he dished up this year.   Knock-ons, handovers, penalties and a deficient passing game - De Jongh showed it all this year.   In th 18 games he played in - he was poor in 16 of those.   What really showed up was that when he and De Villiers were not in the WP backline - the said backline functioned much better.   Be it as it may - he will get the opportunity yo show us what he can do - I do not expect anything - and if he does perform he will have to continue giving good eprfrormnances in 2013 Super Series.   Then it would be possible to make a real assessment.  Class - my ass.

Brussow is past tense.  Other than when he was injured during Supewr 15 - he was utterly under-performing.   Definitely bad news at this stage.   In any event Louw is class compared to him.   Where I do agree with you is about Coetzee.  Maybe Saffex is correct - maybe we should play Coetzee at 8.  He is much more mobile than the other loosies and can off-load balls excellently.  I like Daniel - but I really think his uppermost limit is Super 15.

To fix the Boks we do what? Go back to the loosies who were discredited against the Poms at home. Put Taute at fullback and de Jongh at centre? That's it? That fixes everything.....amazing.

Am with you Jal, except for the take on de Jongh. While I think he is a good little player, I just know he is far too small for test rugby and time will prove that. Besides we have many options coming through at 13, so there is no need to invest in a little guy that will fail at the highest level anyway.

While Kirchner is solid enough, we have better options in Lambie and Taute. I'd play Lambie at 15 as Goosen is the answer at 10, leaving Taute to fight it out for the 13 spot. Frans is a must at 12 to replace the past it Jean.

Agreed on our loosies, we have 3 of the same in Louw, Vermeulen and Alberts. Of these Alberts tends to blow hot and cold. I'd look to play a true fetcher in Brussouw, Kolisi or Daniel.........Kolisi being my first choice.

We also need to bring in better ball players like Coetzee, CJ Stander and Arno Botha......these guys are the future. Vermeulen and Louw deserve to stay in the mix. I'd also bring in the brutal Elstadt to add mongrel.

We also need to find a longterm partner for Etzebeth. Jeandre Kruger is not physical enough and Bekker keeps getting injured. My choice is Steph du Toit, but the likes of Bresler, JA Marais, Willemse and Roux will push.

We also need to nurture Hougaard back to the quality 9 he was a year ago.

Number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine.

Hell Swami the Beatles could have been thinking about your views on Hougaard as the number nine, when they simulated that broken record. Hahahahaha!!!!!

Moffie I am not stupid enough to conclude that a player who has been a revelation at 9 for a few seasons, all of  a sudden cant play there - only a complete idiot would be that short sighted - but then again you do fit that bill.

Kankowski - good one, lets add Schalk and Big Joe!!!

Why not BJ at 3, Marius Joubert at 13 and Johan Muller at lock

 The main problem is the inside backs. Next year the Sharks will have 

10. Lambie

12. Frans Steyn

13. Paul Jordaan

This should be the preferred springbok bacline, with

9. Pienaar

11. Habana

14. Pieterson

15. Taute

Goosen could interchange with Lambie, at least 2 quality flyhalfs are required to cover injuries. Goosen needs to be put on a serious creatine diet to bulk up- the same diet that Percy Montgomery went on as they both entered the international game not strong enough

 Goosen has to still prove he can stay healthy before he can be considered the incumbent and the latest type of injury can prove difficult to come back from or the player takes a while to round into form - just ask Schalk. Better off game-planning around someone who will be consistently available - Lambie works for me.

Frans Steyn has not done well at 12 - stagnant and slow, an easy target to tackle. As a runner DeVilliers is better but Steyn does have a better offload game and the threat of the long range penalty is worth having him in the squad when healthy - would prefer him at fullback though instead of 12 where he will be able to kick more. Kirchner has not been rubbish, but has also added nothing special to that position in the way of attack or positional gain

De Jongh deserves an extended shot at 13 given his time with the Boks and the potential he has flashed - agree he has to be more consistent. To say the WP backline in the Currie Cup was better without Devilliers and De Jongh is like comparing apples and oranges. Those two would have torn up the same type of opposition if they weren't somewhere else trying to break the best defensive lines in the world. Jordaan holds promise but has also disappeared in games. 

I also think moving Alberts to lock is worth a shot as it would allow some more athletic options at flanker like Coetzee but I see Meyer holding that spot open for Bekker and not wanting to make that positional switch with Alberts. 

Vermuelen has done well enough, love the grunt he brings. I think Kankowski would have made a great impact player off the bench and could have possibly won the no.8 spot if he hadn't headed overseas. Was in great form prior to that.

Will be very surprised if Mvovo or Rheule are not on the wing vs Scotland.

Pienaar has solidified his spot as the scrumhalf. Read a comment earlier that the 5 second rule has actually helped his play and would agree with that - he is a better player when he plays instinctively

Oh two can play that game fat man. How about Greyling and Werner Kruger as our props, Daniels and Potgieter as our flanks, Wynand and Murray as our centres, Kirchner as our fullback. And that's just scratching the surface.....not even mentioning your exclusion of great players like Os, Schalk, Jean, Monty you would have canned long before they contributed to our RWC win. And recent blunders like calling for Pienaar's head and telling us Heinke was going to be a disaster, when he won the game with a penalty.

I say with absolute sincerity and great confidence.....nobody has got more wrong , more of the time than you.....congratulations, you win the prize.

Saffex

There wa a serious probllem with Hougaard this year,   For sone reason or another his performances deteriorated on a major scale.    Meyer - who seems to have patronized Bull players apparently lost faith in him and instead of dropping him from the team moved him to the wing.   He was a major disappointment in that position as well.

When the deficiencies of Hougaard and Morne Steyn - both went sour this year - were mentioned by the media representatives in an interview - Meyer said that the management is aware of the problems - but they would be fixed by coaching.   As the season went on it became apparent that the problems in fact intensifized  and Meyer ultimately had to replace both the two players mentioned.

That was proven again in the semi-final ofthe CC - when Hougaard came off the bench as scrummie for the Blue Bulls.   He was shockingly poor.   The best example was where two kicks made by him ws charged down - virually from the same spot - the second leading to the Sharks try in that game.   Basiclly the charge down kicks was a continuation of similar problems in the tests he played at scrummie - so no improvement in evidence.   The other poblems Hougaard had was his passing game and reading of the game.

Hougaard was shockingly poor on the wing and produced nothing of substance - taking into account that  giving away of penalties and questionable defence can count as  negatives.

I tink Hougaard has developed a complex - making it very hard to amend his deficiencies through coaching.    I believe it is in the mind and not physical.   Be it s it may - I believe most of us wants to see Hougaard back at scrummie - but NOT if he does not improve his game drastically.   At present he is more of a liability than an asset .    I hope he can recover his form in Super 15 next year - if he does he would be a certainty at scrummie - if he does not he will have to accept that his days as a test player is gone.

.  

Difference old fart is that none of those names you mention as mine have ever made my starting side, they have only ever made my squads. I have also conceded that Kruger ended up being poor, Greyling too stupid etc.

Thing is you are too much of a weed to concede these very facts......you will bang on about Wynand, Murray and co when these guys would NEVER have made my starting side ahead of Jean and Fourie - FACT

I have your number as always for you just bullshit to make a point. I know the truth and the truth is you had BJ as a starter ahead of CJ, Jacobs ahead of Fourie, an old Joe ahead of Spies.......you dont know your rugby and thats a fact.

As for me getting them wrong, bullshit.......they are only wrong when they have played test rugby and failed. If I call for Steph du Toit as a starter to partner Etzebeth and he fails then fair enough - thing is I just know he is too good to fail.

Much like Taute at 13, he wont fail, nor will Goosen at 10 and nor would Hougaard at 9, if the clueless coach had more faith in him.

Stick to the facts old man, if I make a call on a player to start and he fails then fair enough, dont equate my calls with squad players like Murray and co and lie about my calls on these players as starters. You always bloody lie when it comes to me

Mike, bullshit there has been no problem with Hougaard at all bar the odd charge down. His service has not changed and has always been as good as the next 9 out there. His attacking and defensive skills at 9 are second to none.

A coach with substance would have shown more faith in this class act instead of relegating him to the wing and wasting his talents. Meyers treatment of Hougaard goes hand in hand with his poor results to date. His player management is piss poor. He discarded players like Jantjies, JJ and Daniel without giving them a chance, he showed blind faith in a useless player like Morne and then crowned it with pathetic washed up selections like CJ and Steenkamp, sending a negative message to talented young props like Kitshoff, Marcel and Malherbe

Okay Fat Man lets suppose you never had Murray in any test team, which is a lie, you had him ahead of Adi when Fury was out ....for starters. But lets just accept you lie all the time and get to your latest BS.

BJ saved our scrumming up North in 2009, a fact every smart rugger man accepted. Some pundits chose Jacobs ahead of Smith as TN 13 of the year in 2008.....he had the best centre stats and never let us down. And Joe was 10 times the rugby player that the loser Spies was....even before Spies' dubious blood problem, which was probably something else.

I stand by those selections and in fact I stand by all the calls I made.

Whereas you winge out of your Kirchner, Spies, Olivier, Steenkamp, CJ picks......pretending you were not over the top about all these guys.

You are a mess and your prognostications on Heinke and Pienaar failing in the Irish test are just the latest example. A fat wind bag who can't even admit his mistakes, although, heaven knows, that would be a full time occupation.

C'mon de Fattie, give us another list ........wehe!

Saffex

You must be the only person that did not see or wanted to see  that Hougaard was not up to standard this year.   I am not going to argue with you on that one - I don't think he will play another game this year and I hope he improves his peformances next year  - we do need a quality scrummie.

Yes you idiot I had Murray ahead of the useless Jacobs when Fourie was injured, only a clown would select Jacobs in Fourie's absence. So does that now equate to me selecting Murray ahead of Fourie as a starter - are you that stupid.

Difference between us is that it did not take an injury to Fourie to have you select the useless Adi ahead of Fourie, that was your pathetic choice from the start. You stupidly always had Adi ahead of Fourie and the fact that you were the only idiot who ever made this call, never quite dawned on you.

So kindly point out where I have been lying old fart. Kindly point out where I have ever selected Greyling ahead of Beast and so on.

As for BJ he never saved anything, has always been an average prop who should never have played for the Boks.

As for lies, please point out where I said Pienaar failed in the Irish test you pathetic man. The only thing I said about Heinke was that he did play for long enough to make a real call. I said Pienaar was good - FACT.

The only bloody liar here is you - look no further than Pienaars game against Ireland 

Wrong Mike, you will find a number on here who like me would have retained Hougaard at 9. All my Pom mates cant believe how stupid we are wasting Hougaard on the wing.

Its a disgrace that he has been reduced to the status he finds himself in. This guy is our best attacking player who in the eyes of some, including yourself, has suddenly aged 24 lost the ability to play 9 having played there all his life - what complete bullshit.

Hougaard at 9, JP, Bismark and Etzebeth are the first names on my Bok teamsheet, no questions asked

Swami let me add to your vocabulary of grunts and four letter words. I said:

"...your prognostications on Heinke and Pienaar failing in the Irish test are just the latest example", refers to something you predicted before the test......"point out where I said Pienaar failed in the Irish test you pathetic man." was not at issue. Even you had to reluctantly admit he played well. Look up prognostication dumbass.

As for Murray, once again I quote my comment :  "you had him ahead of Adi when Fury was out ....for starters."  I never said you chose him ahead of Fury. But you did choose him for the Bok team which makes you a liar. But we all knew that!

No dimwit, I have never said Pienaar would fail prior to the Irish test you liar. I have always rated Pienaar, my call all along has been that Hougaard is better and I stand by that.

As for Murray dumbo, its obvious someone has to play when your first choice is injured you idiot. Does that then make him my first choice outside centre, huh? My assertion was that I had NEVER selected Murray ahead of Fourie.......but you typically and stupidly declare that I have selected Murray to start, but decline to state the circumstances - Fourie being unavailable!!

How stupid are you? Murray plays if Fourie is unavailable - spot the difference brainbox?

If Fourie was my first choice then how on earth do you assert that my call on Murray was a failure. Why not just concede how stupid you are.

Liar my arse, that will be you and your take on my call on Pienaar

 Even last week you were calling for Pienaar to be dropped....now all of sudden you always rated him. Lies. The truth is you said Meyer was a fool to select Pienaar. Didn'tcha?

And I see you are still trying to lawyer your way out of your Murray embarrassment.  That's so typical of your M.O.  You make these definitive statements, insult anybody who disagrees.....and then when your view implodes you pretend you never were there in the first place. Let me sum up the Murray thing:

I say "you chose Wynand and Murray as our centres"

.....you say I never chose them ahead of Fury and Jean

......to which I say, that's not the point, you had Murray down for a while as your Bok 13 and Olivier down often as your Bok 12, actually complaining that he wasn't given enough starts to settle in the position. Proving you had Murray and Olivier down as your centres.

.....to which I say QED.

Moffie what this does prove is that you are both stupid and a liar. I have never said Meyer was wrong in picking Pienaar as a squad player, my call is that Hougaard should have started - is this that difficult to comprehend. So the only lying taking place here is your assertion of what I said.

As for Murray and Olivier, yes they were selected by me when Fourie and Jean/Frans were not available - get it dumb arse? That does not mean I prefered these two over the incumbents - get it dumb arse? So therefore I never had them as my first choices which is what you are trying to imply......only circumstances had me select them, not merit - get it dumb arse?

An old, stupid liar is a hell of a combo

Gentlemen please this is not a nz website. Hahahahahahahahaha - even brycy is better behaved!!!!!!

So relax, players have their ups and downs. At the moment Hogaard is not at his best. Pienaar plays sensibly but lacks the x factor these days. One always feels Hougaard is a potential super star. Man he has to come right next year. He will have his chance in the Super 15. The bulle must persevere with Hougaard at scrummie and see if they can get him right. He and Reinach are probably our best best among the younger scrummies. Quite like Groom.

@beeno first off daniel is not brussouw bottom line...brussouw stood his own against the lions that has a much bigger pack so saying they would have been much just proves that are still caught in the twilight zone of 3 fatty  donkey style runner like GHD potgieter and co.

daniel is a running stype loose forward and does not have the fetching skills of brussouw.

Carpetmuncher

Question - Why is the fetcher role assigned specifically to the no6 player?????

As I undestand the latest law change - balls cn only be taken from a tackled player if a maul has not been formed.  Once a maul is formed no more fetching and if it is attampted a certain penalty. The situation is in fact that forming of the maul happens virtually immediately after he tackle occurred - so any fetching is very, very difficult.   This was shown up in the case of McCaw - who is penalized more and more and turnovers by him is becoming less and less.

The practical situation is that the player nearest to the tackled player becomes the fetcher.   It could be the tackler himself if he can jump up - show day light and then attempt a takeover.   The moral of the story is that every player on the field should be regarded as a fetcher.   If the number 6 is less than two meters from the tackle  takeovers is potentially possible - otherwise virtually impossible.   If that happens to be the number 6 loosie - he will be the fetcher.   However, the same norm applies to every other player on the field of play.

In the light of the above - I agree with Meyer's stance on this issue

carpetmuncher

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 953 RE: Fixing the Springboks
November 14, 2012, 13:47:50

...brussouw stood his own against the lions that has a much bigger pack so saying they would have been much just proves that are still caught in the twilight zone of 3 fatty  donkey style runner like GHD potgieter and co.

Different team, different opposition and most of all different law interpretations between then and now.