How do we determine our best side?

When selecting a team one doesn't throw random players into positions and hope for the best. Surely?

That seems to be the case with Fleck and Coetzee ... and to be quite honest the results they've had confirms it.

There needs to be a plan. Each position has to be looked at. Our strengths as well as our weaknesses ... and as a whole need to be assessed properly. The result of that assessment may force our hand in how we cover up our weaknesses while holding on to as much strength as possible.

Take Danie Rossouw at 8th man as an example. That's the kind of selection I'm talking about.

We have an assortment of props and hookers to produce an excellent front row and bench. There is no need to compromise on our strength elsewhere in support of this set piece. Each one is a specialist in his position.

We also have an assortment of excellent jumpers to slot into the 2nd row and so there's no need to compromise elsehwere to strengthen this set piece either.  Once again each one is a specialist in his position.

In other words, we are free to select our best back row and have no need for an additional jumper at flank. PSDT is a specialist lock and that's his strength. Let's keep him there.

Jaco Kriel is a class act and a must in the Bok back row in my opinion. Where do you slot him in though? Is he the best option to play at 6. Are there any other options available to us who can perform the fetcher role better than Kriel? Who?

How about Cloete? Apart from lacking experience, he seems to play to ground a lot better than anyone else in the country. He's quick and powerful and a natural opensider in my opinion.

How would Kriel perform on the blindside? He has tremendous pace and an incredible work rate. He reads the game well and seems to pop up everywhere. It may take a spell for him to settle in at 7 but I'm confident he'll do so quickly. I think he'll be very effective on the blindside.

Are there any other better options for the blindside?

Would Kriel be better suited to the bench? I'm sure he could cover 6, 7 and 8 quite easily and loosing him on the opponents in the last 20 could be a match winner.

Personally I would prefer him in the starting 15.

Then it's just a matter of finding a quality 8th man ... and captain. Is there a better 8th man in the country than Whiteley? Is there a better option for the captiancy than Whiteley? Who? Name him?

Vermeulen seems to be past his best and from what I can tell he has an attitude problem we can do without.

So based on that one can look at a side of

1. Kitshoff, 2. Marx, 3. Koch, 4. Etzebeth, 5. PSDT, 6. Cloete, 7. Kriel, 8. Whiteley (cpt).

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't play guys out of position when we have no need to.

I know I wanted PSDT at 7 awhile back but have had a change of heart as there's a few good option we can use to fill the blindside flank position.

Your thoughts ?

 I have to admit that I also wanted to see PSDT at flank for a while and have also had a change of heart. Strangely, it was also thinking of Danie Rossouw that made me realise that it is a crap idea. Danie Rossouw was one of the most valuable players forwards that we have had in a very long time and we haven't been able to replace him since he stopped playing international rugby.
He was never a sure starter in any of the teams that he played in and he knew it and accepted it. He was not even a sure starter at the Bulls. He knew and accepted the fact that he and Bakkies was a combination. Bakkies knew that he was going to start and Danie was going to finish the game. Danie knew that Bakkies was going to start and that he was going to finish. Both were cool with it and they were mates. That was the way it worked. I can still remember the scenes where they were running around the stadium together, holding up the Heineken cup that they both helped win for Toulon.
Many players would have left the Bulls and go to a side where they knew that they would start the game and be the kingpin in the position. Danie was one of the very few players who knew and understand the idea a 23 man team with a common goal as opposed to a starting 15 of first choice players supplemented by eight second choice players. Danie was like Jacques Kallis in the cricket side. A rugby allrounder who we haven't been able to replace, yet.

Cloete, has really impressed me and strikes me as a better openside in a similar mould to that of Michael Hooper (just on roids). He's a better fetcher that Kriel and the first we've seen since Brussow (spelling).Can we use Kriel and Cloete together like the Aussies used the "Pooper" combo? Why not.The main problem is neither are of colour.

 Nice ideas. Those three would make a mobile and dangerous back row.
But there is a problem, or two problems.
Coetzee & Venter.
Coetzee will do anything not to lose the French series regardless of what it means for the Bok future. He'll get people out of retirement or kidnapped babies if he has to. Unfortunately he knows no other way but to pick the biggest possible players in their positions. That's what he'll do against France. Forget mobility up front. You won't see it.
Venter. The guy is a self interested career man. Everything he does is for his CV. What's typed on those lines translates into higher positions down the line. His role is as defence coach and he will see a mobile back row as a defensive liability so will also opt for the bigger is better approach. The smaller the Bok losing margin is the better his CV will look. 
Smith will be told to shut up and deal with what he's given.
Expect a horror show of boring and unattractive rugby against France.

 
We do not have big Vunipola types to fill the 8th man slot so the next best option is to look for someone in the Read and Parisse mould or as close to them as possible. 

I can think of no one that covers as much ground within 80 minutes than Whiteley and with him comes great leadership, handling, pace, work rate and the reading of the game. He is also an excellent lineout option.

Cloete will learn quickly once exposed to test match rugby. He already has the makings of a great opensider ... it's just a matter of experience and that will come with exposure.

I will never select anyone based on skin colour. At this stage in time there are no players of colour worthy of the Bok pack ... other than Marutllule who I regard highly. 

The Kolisi's and Oupa's are average at best and Notshe is just not up to it physically ... especially at test level.

 
Yeah well Plum ... these are my ideas of what a team should look like. I've given it some thought and feel that these boys if left to gather 10 - 15 caps as a unit would be very competitive.

You mentioned in an earlier post about all the positive things Whiteley brings and I tend to agree with you now. He is in the end the best 8th man we have and if given the captaincy will raise his play to a different level.

The things that Coetzee comes up with is of no cocern to me. We all know he's going to fcuk it up.

 Answer: Always pay close attention to what Beeno says!

 CC Cloete does look like a monster and the idea of him and Kriel playing together for a prolonged period is awesome. 
For some reason Kriel is constantly referred to as a non-fetcher but the guys makes vital turnovers almost ever week. He might not be an outright fetcher but he makes a lot of steals. 

We have so much raw talent in SA. Enough to build a team where one can't really decide who should start because the bench is just as world class as the starting 15. Enough that we should demolish the northern hemisphere sides and the Bargies should be a forgone conclusion. Yet our moronic coaches fail so abysmally.
Think about it. Lets says we pick the best 30 man squad in SA for the Boks. 
Even if the coach just manages to get par performances out of them, we should still beat most comers...easily. 
Yet Coetzee failed to beat Italy etc last year and managed only a draw with the Babaas who'd been together for a mere two weeks prior to us playing them. Haha Coetzee the twat dares to say that he was appointed late....when he had six more months with his team than the Babaas coach had. The idiocy is mind boggling.
 Of course the entire world was to blame including the SA structures because they don't produce skilful players. Clearly the Lions team who scored the most tries in SR last year came from fking Mars. 
I'm reminded of Meyer stating that SA don't have the talent to play attacking rugby. Enter the Lions the following year to emphatically prove him also wrong...in the toughest club league in the world.
Its a fking disgrace really. The shortsighted nonsensical pretenders that we constantly get as coaches.  
But i agree. Cloete, Whitley and Kriel with Whitely as captain is how i'd go. 
I think i'm probably the only one who doesn't like Venter. 

 CC
I read the comments and in principle agree with what you wrote.    However, I think the matter should be considered on a wider basis since the problem developed in the Meyer era and the real result was felt in his last year as coach and Coetzee inherited it.   Meyer never really allowed for proper squad development over a period.   He stuck to the elderly till the last minute and could not identify and develop new players and phase them in.   However, in view of the supposed game plan that was not even possible to develop players.
Now let me go further and explain my reasoning on the issue.   I can remember that in 1997 England had a dud team and it was clear that over a period a proper team should be developed.     We are in the same position now - so lets see what can be done in this case.   
Promising players should be identified and performance assessments done - the idea that players should be selected based on reputation without regard to performance is BS.   The assumption that the tooth fairy will transform under-performers into performers when they are selected to play for the Springboks is totally absurd.
In the case of each position the performance must be matched to what is required in that position.   For instance - for many years now there was no identification of what is required from loosies.   Most arguments said that loosies basically should be an extension of the Tight 5 and that was augmented by the need for an extra Tight 5 player (normally Alberts) when Matfield played at lock.   Be it as it may our loosies were selected without regard to pace, ball handling ability and above all - without regard to ball protection and recovery at breakdowns.   Meyer moaned about the deficiency,  but selected pace-deficient players who were in many respects deficient insofar as the role of loosies is concerned.
Once the player assessments are done the problem becomes more complicated.   It is useless to identify players and try to make them part of the team if the coach is useless and Coetzee is.   His assistants may be more capable - but are they going to be allowed to have a say?


  

 CC
I read the comments and in principle agree with what you wrote.    However, I think the matter should be considered on a wider basis since the problem developed in the Meyer era and the real result was felt in his last year as coach and Coetzee inherited it.   Meyer never really allowed for proper squad development over a period.   He stuck to the elderly till the last minute and could not identify and develop new players and phase them in.   However, in view of the supposed game plan that was not even possible to develop players.
Now let me go further and explain my reasoning on the issue.   I can remember that in 1997 England had a dud team and it was clear that over a period a proper team should be developed.     We are in the same position now - so lets see what can be done in this case.   
Promising players should be identified and performance assessments done - the idea that players should be selected based on reputation without regard to performance is BS.   The assumption that the tooth fairy will transform under-performers into performers when they are selected to play for the Springboks is totally absurd.
In the case of each position the performance must be matched to what is required in that position.   For instance - for many years now there was no identification of what is required from loosies.   Most arguments said that loosies basically should be an extension of the Tight 5 and that was augmented by the need for an extra Tight 5 player (normally Alberts) when Matfield played at lock.   Be it as it may our loosies were selected without regard to pace, ball handling ability and above all - without regard to ball protection and recovery at breakdowns.   Meyer moaned about the deficiency,  but selected pace-deficient players who were in many respects deficient insofar as the role of loosies is concerned.
Once the player assessments are done the problem becomes more complicated.   It is useless to identify players and try to make them part of the team if the coach is useless and Coetzee is.   His assistants may be more capable - but are they going to be allowed to have a say?


  

Koch is not eligible.

 There is no side to determine.
SA plays with no collective idea to build up a team. It makes it impossible to select any player to play with others as a team.

 Partly right Trad. The point of sellecting players is to create a team. It's more difficult to start from scratch, but it's possible to build a successful new team in a few years. Unfortunately that's where we are ATM.

Draad I disagree somewhat. I think Jake could come in and create a team in a few games....creating a team that plays the style of rugby that fans want will take several years. But we can have a team playing like Ireland or England by the end of the Rugby Cup. We won't though, because we are mesmerized by NZ.

 Partly true Moz. Last year did lots of dammage. I don't think a few matches would do it...we should have a steep learning curve, but we won't beat NZ this year.We are blinded by the idea of running rugby and forget that even teams like NZ kick too. Rugby 101:1. Solid defence.2. Good set pieces3. Motivation 4. A couple of exceptional players.5. A kicker to take points on offer.
The first 3 is up to coaching. We have a proven exceptional player in Eben. I see a few other potentials, ti me will tell....as for the kicker? I'm sure we can find one.

Absolutely, I like your 5 points. . Great defence can negate great attack for 60 minutes.....80 if you get the bench right as well, but too often the benches are chosen to play a more open game.

  White coming in and create a team?   That is weird.   I would credit many coaches to do that - but not White.   Reason is his severe limitations as a coach and that pertains to his limited game plan and serious lack of ability to coach teams to play 15 man rugby.  
He also have a tendency to select favourites and that way destroy teams as happened in the case of the Sharks in 2014.   Definitely not the way to go.        

  White coming in and create a team?   That is weird.   I would credit many coaches to do that - but not White.   Reason is his severe limitations as a coach and that pertains to his limited game plan and serious lack of ability to coach teams to play 15 man rugby.  
He also have a tendency to select favourites and that way destroy teams as happened in the case of the Sharks in 2014.   Definitely not the way to go.        

 But we can have a team playing like Ireland or England by the end of the Rugby Cup.

It is not about having a team that plays like this or that nation. It is about having a team performing at the level required to win most WCs.

It is pointless to ape EN or IR way of playing if it is to lose to those teams and worse, not being able to overcome the NZ hurdle.

Actually those teams, especially Ireland, are playing like the Boks of old. And yes I would take getting to that level by YE....we were miles away from that last year....one step at a time, the WC isn't realistic until we start putting away the European teams.

 Ape? Irony anyone?

 Actually those teams, especially Ireland, are playing like the Boks of old.

Sure, sure. Who does not play like the Boks of old? Maybe NZ and yes, SA.

And yes I would take getting to that level by YE..

Humility is not a lost virtue.
As a reminder, this SA coach is head of a club where he is given unlimited means and yet fails to dominate a league that plays in a favourable way to his conception of rugby.
He is going to be replaced by the irish coach who served a four year spell.

It took several years for IR to build up their team.
The non professional era is over. It takes time and work to build a team.

 
Beggars can't be choosers. I would take Jake White and all his faults in a heart beat over the quota clown currently running Bok rugby into the ground.

I too think Jake would make an immediate improvement. How can he not. One doesn't have to fix everything to see an improvement. Getting a handfull of things on track would be a great start ... the basics ... at least it'll be good enough to beat the Italians.

I'm not sure whether Jake will embrace the young talent we have though. I suspect he'll opt for the elderly boys like Mozart does ... all because it brought him success ... a decade ago.

Meyer too thought it best to seek out the heroes of yesterday and it cost him a match against the Japs. 

We have no choice but to put a solid core together and start basically from scratch.

Depemding on the elderly to save the day is foolish and will set us back a further.

I see none of you have said anything about why we have no need to select PSDT at 7.

I take it then that we are in agreement about the quality of our jumpers in the 2nd row?

Etzebeth, PSDT, Willemse, Snyman, Mostert, Erasmus and of course my favourite ... Lood.

 Lood se gat!