Hougaard summed up

By the same source Dave used to sum up Matfield, in the same article ....why did you leave this bit out Dave? Were we not supposed to read this?

"This brings us to the continued selection of halfback Francois Hougaard. Has an international halfback for a major side ever played a poorer game than Hougaard against Ireland? Probably not. His passing was terrible. His option taking was invariably wrong. He made handling mistakes. His kicking was invariably ineffective. And he gave his forwards no running go-forward.

All of this is inevitable in his play. How a Springboks coach can pick someone who plays halfback rather like a chunky winger with no passing skills is beyond me.

It is obvious to anyone with any knowledge about rugby that when Hougaard is playing at halfback, the Springboks can’t have a fluent, attacking backline. The deterioration in the play of Handre Pollard is obvious. He is standing far too deep. He is kicking too much. And his running game, as a consequence, has fallen away"

You have to love this silly bugger...Pollard's game has "fallen away". In one test mind you, where on second viewing, I continue to believe Pollard had a perfectly solid game. He later goes on to call Willie le Roux....Hennie le Roux.

A mouth connected to a not so clever brain. .

Nope, the article was there for everyone to read.

I don't agree with the take on Hougaard at all - look no further than his tests against Oz and NZ

I do agree with the take on Matfield which has been the issue all year.

Hougaard along with at least 11 other Boks had average games against Ireland. That one game does not define Hougaard.

Matfield has been a physical liability all year  

Rory Kockott made his debut for France last weekend.

Hougaard is our best 9 as he proved against the best in NZ and Oz only a few weeks ago

Far too many clowns have short memories

I am trying to understand how after Hougaard did very well during the RC and now had one poor match (aided by very poor protection from his forwards) and now he must be history?

Agree mate.

For me 8,9,10,12 and 15 are the players that "create" attacking plays.

In a sense Meyer has built some depth, or perhaps I should say we have depth for those positions, but it very much depends on horses for courses. If Hougaard struggles in wet weather it is something he needs to learn, but he as strengths that simply cannot be ignored.

He is a tremendous defender, he is strong with ball in hand, and he really doesn't have such a kak pass.

Yes he kicking is not great, but I actually prefer a halfback that is very sparing indeed when it comes to kicking.

Might be oversimplifying things, but the way  see rugby is simple.

If 1- 8 does their job at set phase  and breakdown, you allow you 8 to link with your 9 and 10, then 8,9,10, 12 and 15 should be your playmakers obviously in different ways 9, 10 and 15 will use the boot as part of their make up, 8 and 12 will hit the line, your 13 14 and 11 must be your finishers.

The roles do interchange a bit these days, but it boils down to setting it up by the forwards in gaining the momentum, then exploiting and creating space by the playmakers and finishing off by the flyers.

"I am trying to understand how after Hougaard did very well during the RC and now had one poor match (aided by very poor protection from his forwards) and now he must be history?"

Morne had one poor kick and he was history. The problem isn't that Hougaard had one poor game that was an exception. The problem is he had one good game that was an exception and then relapsed to the scrummie we know. And what you liked about him in that game was the stuff he used to do on the wing.

One poor kick, you don't seriously believe that, do?

He has been poor since 2010, and got worse every year there after. His one strength in 2012 cost us a coupe of games in the RC.

He should have been put to pasture 2 years ago.