Hougaard and Chilli Boy benched

Snapster this does say something?

Blue Bulls coach Pine Pienaar has avoided making changes to his starting side for the semi-final clash against the Sharks.

The Bulls advanced to the play-offs by virtue of a powerful performance in their last league match against the Golden Lions. It is because of this showing that Pienaar has stuck with the same starting combination.

What this means is that Springboks like Francois Hougaard, Chiliboy Ralepelle and Dean Greyling will continue to play from the bench.

Blue Bulls – 15 Zane Kirchner, 14 Akona Ndungane, 13 JJ Engelbrecht, 12 Francois Venter, 11 Bjorn Basson, 10 Morne Steyn, 9 Jano Vermaak, 8 Arno Botha, 7 Jacques Potgieter, 6 Dewald Potgieter (c), 5 Flip van der Merwe, 4 Juandré Kruger, 3 Werner Kruger, 2 Willie Wepener, 1 Morne Mellett.
Subs: 16 Chiliboy Ralepelle, 17 Frik Kirsten, 18 Wilhelm Steenkamp, 19 CJ Stander, 20 Francois Hougaard, 21 Louis Fouche, 22 Dean Greyling.

Nope it says nothing, just like Plumtree is struggling with the concept of discarding players who have served him well throughout the CC for returning Boks, good old Pine will be doing the same.

Where selections are marginal like Vermaak for Hougaard, he has stuck with the incumbent. Although I must say Wepner is pretty bloody useless and for the record who is Pine Pienaar anyway?

Saffex

Come now - come now.  Not even the Bulls think Hougaard is a fod enouth scrummie to deserve a starting selection.   According to info receiveed this morning, Pienaar was trying desperately to determine which of Vermaak or Hougaard should be in th starting line up.   During practce he switch them around a number of times and then became convinced that Vermaak was the better of the two.

You still think that a scrummie that cannot make the starting line-up in the Bulls team should be the scrummie of the Springboks??????? 

Oh fuck me now all of a sudden Vermaak is a better 9 than Hougaard - I give up with you lot, you are either stupid or completely clueless

Saddex

Calm down - please.   It was not Beeno and I that made the call about the Vermaak-Hougaard issue - it was the Bulls Managment who did it.   I merely posted an innocent question based on the latest info.

However, the whole episode confirms my previous statement that there are serious deficiencies in the scrummie play of Hougaard that is actually impacting on his selection for teams 

So Mike in your eyes Pine Pienaar is an authority on who should be playing 9 for the Bulls - Pine Pienaar who has achieved stuff all as a coach and who's stupid selections will cost the Bulls their semi - watch this space.

The guy is a clueless fool - he has to be, hell he has Wepner starting, Hougaard, Chiliboy and CJ Stander wasted on the bench - only a complete idiot would make that call

 What does a scrum half do? Well lots of things, but 90 per cent of the time, he is kicking or passing. Hougaard does neither well. He is a superb runner and tackler, but that's not the main event. Ergo...he is no scrummie.

 valid poins Moz. For example if you were about to have a heart transplant, and the procedure failed. However the doctor was at least able to fix the plumbing and replace the toilet and sink on the way out, although useful not the key purpose

Mozart

You hit the nail on the head here.   In profesional sport - like in any other profession - there is really a list of duties attached to each position on the field and a set of guidelines for players in that position.   That does not mean that players should not be able to recognixe and take advantage of opportunities on the field of play - but rather what their basic functions on the field of play are.

There are two key positions in rugby - namely those of scrummie and flyhalf.   As you pointed out - in both cases it in fact  90$ passing and kicking.    That is where both  Morne Steyn and Hougaard does not make the grade - albeit for different reasons.

In the case of Morne Steyn he has two deficiencies - namely he stands too far back in the pocke, does not attack the gain line himself and his passing game becomes ineffective as a result.   His strategic kicking game became seriously problematic recently - too many kicks were aimless and ineffective and merely served as possession hand-overs to the opposition.

However, the flyhalf is dependent on the service he gets from the scrummie.   If that service is slow and ineffective - he has no way other than to stand deep in the pocket.    Lets look at Hougaard's passing game and the impact it has on performance of the flyhalf.  For some reason or other - and I pointed this out to Saffex previously -  Hougaard runs a few steps slightly backwards and sideways before he actually passes the ball.   Under such circumstances the ball recipients are placed in a very bad situation with defenders virtually on top of them when they receive balls.   That may even account for Steyn standing in the car park to receive passes by Hougaard.    Be it as it may - the problem in Hougaard's case is the speed of passing more than anything else 

The second basic responsibility of the scrummie is to under some circumstances kick the ball.   Basically this entails two functions and either relates to relieving kicks or startegic kicks.   In both cases Hougaard does not make the grade.   This year there were too many of his kicks charged down - but his releiving kicks were too short and ineffective.   His strategic kicking game is really poor and in essence just handing over possession to the opposing teams.

Another issue with Hougaard is that he does not read game situations well.   He does not vary his fame considerably depending on circumstances.   I would like to give an example in this case.   In the third test against the POMS Pienaar came on.   In one case in particular Pienaar noticed that Oietersen would be in a position to score a try if he could get the ball quickly enough.   He then passed the ball directly to Pietersen  on the wing and not via other backline players - and Pietersen did score a try as a result.   Hougaard would enver have made that critical pass if he was still on the field as scrummie - he just does not have a wider vission of the game situation.

On the positive side Hougaard is a good defender and can make sniper runs around the fringes - he even by those means scored a try against the POMS.- and as a scrummie he does make effective tackles around the fringes.   He is an up-in-the-face kind of player that would not be scared to undertake any defensive requirements.. 

Taking into account the full functional responsibility of a scrummie - the efficiency as scrummie can be summarised as follows based on a functional task allocation of 60% passing and 30% kicking requirement - Hougaard would attain the following marks based on performance:-

*   Passing game (out of 60 points)                          -          24 points

*   Kicking game (out of 30 points)                           -          10 points

*   Attack around the fringes (out of 5 points)           -            4 points

*   Defence (out of 5 points)                                     -            4 points

That would give Hougaard a point allocation of 42 out of 100 points.    Such an evaluation - though theoretical - indicates that he is not passing basic requirements as a scrummie.     

It is for that reason that many regard him as not a natural and instinctive scrummie    I also think it is on that basis that Meyer - and now Pienaar - does not regard him as an answer in the scrummie position.

Moz there is nothing wrong with Hougaards passing at all, its complete bullshit that his service is an issue......his pass both ways is crisp, flat and accurate - FACT

He is not the greatest kicker, but who cares - neither was Joost, the best 9 to play the game

Sorry Saffex

But the passing game of Hougaard is NOT fast.   In all th games he played in - he has the tendency to run a few steps before passing the ball - that slowed down distribution and may result in what you call flat passes.   However, it has a serious detrimental impact on recipients of balls - as well as backline play performances.   Go and watch his games again - and see how many times he ran a few steps before passing the ball compared to how many times he made a direct and immediate pass.   I would say from observation 70% running a few steps before passing and 30% quicker passing.

That element - plus his lack in ability to kick accurately when required - are the main reasons for his failure at scrummie.    Even the other scrummies in SA - defintiely not of international standard - like Vermaak, Pretorius, Groom and Reinach deliver a faster and more acurate service to the backline - than Hougaard.

Of the present CC level scrummies I think Reinach has the best future as a scrummie.   He has more ball sense than any of the others.

As for Morne, another bete noir of snapster, I saw the other day that we have won 8 and lost 8 against the  abs when Morne has been at flyhalf.  Had Morne kicked at his normal rate of success at Dunedin that stat would have been 9 to 7 in favour of Morne. Better than the overall rate achieved since the end of isolation  by a fair margin.

As for Hougaard he should NOT be trying to emulate Fourie Du Preez, He has to realise he is an attacking scrumhalf in. as snapster has said, the Joost mould. Hougaard given some sound guidance could still make it. I sometimes wonder if Meyer is not simply looking for anothe Fourie Du Preez rather than getting the most out of Hougaar given what Hougaard talents. This is of course pure speculation.

An answer has to be found as Hougaard is the best athletic talent at 9 in the game and it would be a huge waste to the Boks if he is not sorted out.  He shoul dbe studying videos of how Joos did things.

Hougaard better get going qickly as Reinach is looking very promising and is likley to be a bolter for the year end tour.

Beeno

There are in fact two issues here.   The one is th present scenario as to Hougaard's performance as a scrummie and the other is his ability to improve.

I believe Meyer did an analysis of what Hougaard is producing and then acted accordingly.   The question therefore arises - can the problem be overcome by coaching.    Hougaard is still young and corrective coaching is consequently a real possibility.

There are two issues that could indicated that coaching alone may not succeed.   In the first instance Hougaard has played for more than a year as a sccrummie - yet nobody has been able to deal with evident problems displayed by him.   The latter probably is that Hougaard is not really a natural scrummie by instinct.  This is a much more difficult scenario to overcome.   Coaching can most probably be used to correct physical action defencts - it is much more difficult to deal with the mindset of players and correct those..   

The question being posed is whose mindset. Is the problem Hougaard being encouraged to play a Du Preez type game when he is in fact more a Joost? Truly hope the problem is sorted. Maybe Hougaard shoul dreturn to WP where he belongs. We do not have a Fourie Du Preez scrummie model here.

 I have been saying this for some time now, but Hougaard has been shifted to the wing far to often. He should have been kept at 9 no matter what he brings to the team. I think that the Bulls and Meyer never allowed him to develop into a 9 and has been wasting away for the passed 4 years. 

If he can sort out his passing and control of the ruck I believe he can be a fantastic 9, his kicking isn't bad and he brings a lot on defence and attack and if he does it right can create a lot of space for players like Lambie, Goosen and Jantjies by keeping the defence guessing whether he would snipe or not. 

He just tries to do to much on his own around the ruck and seems flustered half the time. That is probably his main problem as he never appears to have enough time on the ball.

Those who cite the Joost example forget that he was under the cosh for 4 years for exactly what Hougaard is being dinged for.......poor kicking and poor passing. In Joosts case I felt he was a good enough technical passer, but more importantly he had a much better feel for the timing and placement of the pass.

Nonetheless, I would say most of the pundits wanted his head, from 1999 to 2003. And face it, while he is good, Hougaard around the fringes and particularly in the tackling stakes, is no Joost.

Mike as per usual you speak complete crap. Hougaard at the start of the season did take a step or two as many 9's do - Genia, Danny Care, McCleod to name but some.

To Hougaards credit he cut the steps out, but you fail to pick up on that as you do with most things.

There is nothing wrong with Hougaards service at all

Actually Beenkop you are speaking kak..........useless Morne has played 9 tests against the Kiwi's losing 5, giving him a mighty record of 44%, it gets worse against Oz where he has played 10 tests and lost 7.......good old 30% strike rate here.

So therein lies a good enough reason for the bloke to be discarded as a complete failure unless 37% against the top 2 rugby nations floats your boat?????

His record is bad enough, not to mention his obvious lack of talent. Had I been coach, Morne Steyn would not have smelt my extended Bok squad ever. I could never select a player just because he happened to be a good goal kicker - goes against the grain in every way.

As a Sharks fan Im glad Hougard is on the bench for the Bulls insted of starting scrumhalf but I allso think Hougard will struggle to keep his Bok place. Hes not better then JP or Habana as a wing & Cobus Reinach is going to be 1st choice scrumhalf some time soon.

Beeno

You are proably correct here.   The first one is the way the Bulls want him to play and coach him accordingly.   That could also be Meyer's approach and his indtructions to the scrummie.  

The second is the mindset of the player himself - which has to be changed if Hougaard ever wanrs to be a reasonable scrummie.

Mozart

There was a touring team here in 2002 - I think it was the POMS.  Shortly after they arrived they asked about who would be the scrummie and to their utter delight - they were told it would be Joost.   They mentioned that they knew how to handle him and they were later in the series very effective in doing just that.

Joost started the art of standing behind mauls waving his arms at players to form up to recieve the balls - in the meantime the opposition lined up accordingly to defend.   One lady friend of mine said she could paint her nails and dry them before Joost would pivk op the ball and passed it.   

From being a very good scrummie earlier in his career - he turned into a very questionable one twowrds rhe end of his international career.   In a way what he did later in his career really harmed his image as a good scrummie.   Unfortunately Du Preez followed that arm waving technique of Joost and perfected it,   Now the same is done by Hougaard.   That in fact leaves series quetion marks as to scrummie development in SA,. 

Hougaard may get out of that environment - but there is not much hope for that unless he leaves the Bulls and move elsewhere so as to get proper sscrummie coaching.

Saffex

So you admit that Hougaard early in the year had the deficiency I mentioned - but he cut it out later on.  I remember the tests clearly in which he played at scrummie and there was no cutting out at all.   Matter of fact it got worse in the third POM test - than the previous two tests he played in.   In Super level there was no real change - he still ran slightly backwards and sideways - at least three steps or more - before he would pass the ball.

You can do that a few times during a match - as you mentioned all scrummies do that - but they do it in exceptional cases a few times during the match - not 79% of the time.

However, if Hougaard can cut out that nonsence and get some good scrummie coaching  - he may come right and end up as a good scrummie - otherwise definitely not.  

pine pienaar has achieved squat as a coach.chilli and hougie should be starting.what a plank !!

hougaard is a 9 not a wing.as someone here said he is an attacking 9 and needs to play his natural game,something it seems our players are discouraged to do.

bulls will still win by 10.

greenfever

Welcome to the Board - you can really see we are always argueing about issues here - that makes life interesting.

So my advice on your contribution is - dream on - what you said about a Bulls victory will never happen at all. 

Mike stop lying, Hougaard cut the steps out - FACT

 So Dave both Meyer and the Bools have this wrong or perhaps there is just an anti Hougaard conspiracy out there.

Oh without a doubt Meyer got it wrong, Pienaar was no better at 9 and we lost the clout Hougaard brings to the 9 role - he was completely wasted on the wing.

As for the Bulls, there is no call on Hougaard there, the Bulls coach retained the side that thumped the Lions last week, much like the Sharks have benched returning Boks like Beast and Alberts

These coaches to their credit are showing faith in the players that have done the job all CC. I see no issue with playing Vermaak ahead of Hougaard, given Vermaak is a good player and been putting in the yards doing the CC

Saffex

Lets bury the hatchet on this one.  Unlike you - I think that Hougaard needs serious professional coaching before he will make the grade.  I hope he gets it and develop his game further - we desperately need a good scrummie..  

 was Chilliboy benched because he fell on his own finger and hurt his eye?

Crap, aged 24 he does not need coaching on how to play 9, he was a revelation at 9 under PDV, has played there all his life, all Meyer needed to do was show faith in a class act instead of treating him like a fringe player. Hougaard is a gem and should be embraced and allowed to play his game - sadly his below par showings this year have been a direct result of a conservative approach by the coach.

Hougaard should be allowed to play at 9 and be part of a game plan that was employed against the Ozzies a few weeks back - in that environment he would thrive.

Its a disgrace and insult to the player that he has been moved to the wing. This guy is our greatest attacking weapon amongst the backs and is being treated like shit. His treatment is part of what is wrong under Meyer as coach - much like dicarding JJ, Daniel and Jantjies from the test squads when these players had had very little or no game time under Meyer at all. Its damn poor player management - much like the continued investment in a useless player like Morne, or a hasbeen like Jean

Ah, we have reached the coach is clueless stage.

Saffex

If there is a player that needs specoilized coaching badly - it is Hougaard.   If he was capable of meeting requirements Meyer would not have dropped him.   He buggered up badly this year and that is that.   You may not wish to recognize it - but many others do.

What is bad that he - as you said - played rugby at scrummie for years - but still have deficiencies in his passing game and his kicking game.   You keep on saying ther is nothing wrong in his passing game - but compare him with a rookie like Reinach, it is clear for all that Reinach has a quicker and more accurate passing game than Hougaard.    Reinach also have a better feel for the game and better ball sense than Hougaard.  

In any event if Hougaard  was perfect as you imply  - he would not have been replaced.   You may have an adverse opinion on Meyer - but he would only act on proven facts - he would be mad to drop a player without sound reason - and Meyer is not mad.    

Mike are you stupid? If Meyer and the Boks had won the majority of their tests this season then fair enough, use Meyer as the measure. Dont come tell me Meyer got it right by moving Hougaard to wing, for good old Meyer has effectively fucked up as the Bok coach to date - but for that performance against Oz and maybe one good half against England.

Try wake up, it might help. Meyer has got it wrong and the results back that up. Part of him getting it wrong, is shifting Hougaard to wing - get it???????????????

Moz, last I checked you were hardly praising Meyer now where you. Let me guess because I find fault in the guy, you will tell the world he is ok??

Saffex

With due respect - my friend - it was not only Meyer that Hougaard was more a liability than an asset as a scrummie in the tests this year thus far.   There were many others who saw a  number of eamples of inadequzcy.  Even you may disagree - there was many people who believed that the main obstacle to constructive backline play started with Hougaard and went back to Morne Steyn.

The combination of the two was in fact deadly insofar as backline play is concerned.   I believe that the person really to blame was Morne Steyn - but that is neither here nor there.

I think with proper coaching Hougaard will come right - we desperately need a good scrummie.