How sterile were the Boks ball in hand?

The Boks' attacking stats make dismal reading.

We kicked less than Argentina, made almost double as many runs and more than double the passes, ran 178m more than them, yet they comfortably beat us.

I have only seen the last 15 or so minutes of the game, but even then as the Boks launched wave upon wave of attack there was no subtlety or smarts. Just one guy passing to the next guy running into the closest defender to set up a ruck after which one guy passed to the next guy again, all in a flat line.

Argentina left, Boks right.

Nothings changed.

The only plus in the team is home town advantage......travel?.... won't win.

Nearly looks as if SA rugby do not know how to initiate attack from a backline.

Hope the oaks are understanding Allende and Kriel are  better center pairing.

Esterhuizen and Am were not a problem. In fact, what Esterhuizen did was more than Damian has ever done for the Boks. Too many missed opportunities, forward passes cutting out try scoring opportunities and breaks. There were some good things, as well as bad. Less handling errors. Better passing from the half backs. The line speed from Argentina was immense.

Beeno, had Damian and Kriel been playing we'd have had less on attack and conceded a few more tries. It's very dishonest to point out the centres who made very few errors in the game. 

I felt Mostert was hopeless. All game. The duo of Eben and Steph was far, far superior. However, Rassie subbed Eben for Steph. Beast had a poor game. 

Over all this was a game of small margins. The Boks left several tries out there. By contrast Argentina had a try in which 2 obstructed Mostert at the ruck, who could not cover the fringe when Louw had to mark up on 10. 

The other try by 14 could have been avoided had Willie marked up better. It was 2v2. But Willie got sucked in by 13 and left his back exposed to 14. He was always going to get beaten. 

Another try. Boks rush up outside in and Eben takes the ball carrier. However, they get the offload and that leaves us scrambling desperately. We couldn't cut the attack out thereafter. 

I think we shouldn't rush into an overly emotional response. 

Start with white line fever and ball hogging and you may get the answer!!!!!!!!!!!

Start with white line fever and ball hogging and you may get the answer!!!!!!!!!!!

Start with white line fever and ball hogging and you may get the answer!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry I read that as Boks with their sterile balls in hand.
Must be a dyslexia thing.

It doesn't make a great deal of difference who is selected to play in the backline, the Boks don't have the cattle, it's about as effective as replacing the chairs on the Titanic.

The Boks would have been effective had they been more pragmatic. The Pumas were rushing up on the outside repeatedly, while the Boks were straining to go wide. It was a tactical failure on Rassie's part. By the time he unloaded the bench and the Boks tried to muscle Argentina out of the game, the damage was done. They knew they just had to soak up the pressure and win. Pick us off if they get turnovers. This was less about personnel; more about tactics and coaching. Rassie got it very wrong. 

Jake would have cut hit his cloth to the material at hand, that's what smart coaches do when stuck with a bunch of plodders.

The Boks still don't have any shape under Rassie......they are rudderless.

Sorry I read that as Boks with their sterile balls in hand.

Close enough, WD

We should be building a formidable defence, building our fetching and counter rucking game to ensure a steady supply of turnover ball.....and attacking off that. 

Exactly right....start there instead of playing hot potato with the ball.

Agreed, defence has to come first. Meyer was slated for that, but had a plan in place to open up once he built the pack, which was in tatters when he took over. Build a foundation. This is also why I say to be calm, because none everyone wants to change players. I recall before World Cup 2007, the fans wanted Du Preez, Butch, Juan, Smit, Percy and Os gone. They were all useless donkeys. The rest is history. If a Bok coach heeds the fans he'll inevitably fall into the cycle before Jake took over, a cycle where we never featured the same starting XV for 4 straight years. It bred instability and chaos on the field. Rassie made a tactical blunder on Saturday, it would be an over-reaction to make wholesale changes. When New Zealand were making errors against Australia's pressure defence the Kiwis were more level headed. We need to follow suit. This team has potential. 

Has potential? Not with a schoolboy centre pairing it hasn't. I'd bring back Fransie, if nothing else it will give some on here a heart attack.

I haven't seen Frans in a while, but if he is anything near his usual self, he'd obviously be fantastic. Serfontein is another, but he can be overpowered at 12. He has been solid at 13. This centre pairing is not the worst thing ever. Its the most stable we've had in a long time. They definitely have potential. Like all things, if used properly. 

You have not seen his play?  Be assured it is no better than he was in 2014 and 2015 when he was a total flop.  Hi s usual self was best described by Plumtree when he said he is no center at all.  So dream on.         

Bluebok

The traditional strength was a combination of  forward strength and backline play of an acceptable standard as far as I am concerned.   The problem was that tests varied according to that situation.

I agree with you about defense,   There were serious deficiencies in all tests played and that needs to be corrected.

However, there was on Saturday a major problem and that relates to the forwards in the main.   When Etzebeth was carded  and afterwards replaced the Tight 5  was totally screwed - if I may use that term and went on the back foot.   That being said there was a serious deficiency in selecting of Mostert at 5 - he is not physically strong enough to make a positive impact on performance of the Tight 5 as a whole.   That being said the end result was domination of the Tight 5 by the Pumas.   

The situation was further made wors3 by the fact that the Puma loosies totally over powered the Springbok loosies and with Beast and Marx also not having a  good game the Springboks were  doomed.

There was too much emphasis on Pollard having had a poor game - he was often on the back foot when he got balls and his main mistake to my mind was his tendency to carry the ball himself rather than to pass it.

There will always in any game be missed tackles - but for the backline players make 10 tackles - missing 10 and losing ball possession 11 times is to my mind inexcusable.  However, the Pumas ran circles around the Springboks backline and the missed tackle situation is just part of a much wider problem.  

Those are the main problems in the test as far as I am concerned and there is hug room for improvement in all aspects of play..         

Correct, Mostert was not good enough. 

Incorrect, Pollard was not on the backfoot. Cite one instance. 

Correct, Beast and Marx were too quiet. 

The errors are such that I find it difficult to believe you watched the game. 

AO - what else have you said I was wrong in.  Definitely right about the loosies being over-powered by the Puma loosies.

And Pollard was often under pressure and tried to carry the ball too often himself - also true.

You cannot make vague statements about what happened and then claimed I did not watch the game since you differed from my perspective as to what happened. .