Is Pollard the answer?

We all seem to be pinning all our hopes on Pollard, and for good reason. The rest of our 10's have ranged from poor to shocking this year, so we'd be justified in relying on Pollard to resurrect the Boks. However, how good was Pollard actually in 2015? In 2014 he had a blinder of a test at Ellis park against the AB's, and his form continued for a while. Fast forward to 2015 and his performances dropped off a fair amount. At the World Cup at the end of 2015 his performances were average and at times even Lambie was considered ahead of him. In short in 2015/2016 up until his injury, he did not perform in any spectacular way. I remain hopeful that he will be some sort of catalyst for SA rugby next year, but in reality, he has had one really good season, followed by a period of his career that can at best be described as average.  

Moz likes to point out the tendency of some to jump on the flavour of the day bandwagon, but even he has done so with Pollard. Are we just desperate for some good news, or is he actually the Bok savior we have been waiting for? I remain skeptical. 

 I don't believe that a single player can be a "Bok savior."...but yes forget the rest, he is the best.

 Bloo fair cop, I got enthusiastic about Pollard and his trajectory in 2015 wan't quite what we hoped. I thought he did quite well in the WC semi though, made all his kicks and had a good general game except for his line kicking which wasn't great. Still a very solid performance for a young flyhalf on the biggest stage. Aa for his being the answer, who knows how he comes back from a serious injury and even more serious illness. Those were challenging events and we will have to see the 2017 version of Pollard to know if he has put them behind him. What I find encouraging is what convinced me about him in the first place. He is a big lad and can take the ball into traffic to good effect. He is aggressive as we saw early on in his play against NZ and he is mentally tough. Hopefully those qualities will bring him back.....unlike our other new candidates he has no obvious knockout factors.....like Lambie and Goosen's lack of physicality and Jantjies' lack of bottle.

Goosen, Jantjies, Lambie have all had ample opportunity now and they have all failed, so we really have no choice but to hope for the best with Pollard. As you have pointed out Moz, there are no glaring fundamental issues with his game, but the reality is we have only seen one great season from him, followed by a long period of mostly indifferent performances.
Unfortunately, if Coetzee remains coach, it be irrelevant who plays at 10.  

 What options are there?
We have to move away from the Morne's and Jantjies of the world. They'll just hamper any advancement.
We are left with Pollard and Goosen ... and maybe Lambie if he gets his head right.  
Goosen was injury prone and never really received much of a shot at 10 under Meyer because of it. Coetzee has also dismissed the thought of trying him there.
Pollard it seems is now our saviour ... but we forget that he too failed us at the highest level. A solid player with the juniors ... and that's where it ended. 
We have no choice but to test them both ... again ... and slot the best of the sorry lot in as our first choice 10. This chopping and changing is doing no one any good.
Beggars can't be choosers.

 @CC. I am with you about Pollard 100%. I have exactly the same concerns, Pollard has had one standout game for the Boks and that was his debut test against Scotland in 2014. It was also his first big game after the 2014 JRWC campaign where he impressed with his captaincy and his clever plays. I remember there was a clever little grubber where simply "pushed the ball in between two defenders for another player to follow the ball through the gap, pick up and go score.

His next big game, after the JRWC, was the test against Scotland, who arrived in SA with a severely depleted team. In typical SA fashion Pollard immediately became the saviour of mankind. In my opinion, he really did nothing special since then and has been adequate at best. I have been saying for ages that he was another one who has been pushed too far too soon. If I really feel like searching for it, I could get posts where I said that the was still very young and that the 2015 RWC was one too soon for Pollard. He should have stayed away from the Bok side until at least the end of 2015 and he should not have been to the 2015 RWC.

Maybe his injury was a blessing in disguise. Imagine if he had to be involved with the current bunch of clowns.

 I am not sure about Pollard and am hoping for the best.   Pollard was like all of Meyer's new players given a dog biscuit experience.  His game was also negatively affected by Ludeke and in some of the later games it shows a player whose decisionmaking was severely denuded by a nonsensical game plan.
Although he initially showed spark and good decisionmaking that was not consistent by the end of 2015.  That could have been the result of getting only balls under pressure - the rest of the balls went back to the forwards - the so-called Bulls game plan of Meyer and now copied by Coetzee.
The other problems that hit the players badly is them decamping to Japan and then getting no real rest before the starting of Super Rugby.  They tended to come back injured or like Pollard getting injured soon afterwards.   I think most players have ducked out of similar commitments this year and may have helped them.
Pollard was out of rugby for a long time and nobody is sure what effect the absence will have on his game.   Lets hope he gets over the Meyer and Coetzee game plan disease and start playing thinking rugby like he did in the AB test in 2014.         

clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 24710 RE: Is Pollard the answer?
November 29, 2016, 11:08:40  I am not sure about Pollard and am hoping for the best.   Pollard was like all of Meyer's new players given a dog biscuit experience.


Kaaaaaaak man. Pollard had the inside lane right from the start. The Bok flyhalves from the one when Pollard made his debut

2014:
Scotland - Pollard
Arg - Pollard
Arg - Pollard
Aus - MS. Lambie bench. Pollard injured, IIRC.
NZ - Pollard
Aus - Pollard
NZ - Pollard
Ire - Pollard
Eng - Lambie
Ita - Lambie
Wales - Lambie

2015:
Aus - Pollard
NZ - Pollard
Arg - Pollard
Arg - Lambie
Jap - Lambie
Samoa - Pollard
Scot - Pollard
USA - Pollard
Wal - Pollard
NZ - Pollard
Arg - Pollard

Since Pollard's debut he started 16 times, Lambie five times and MS once. And in only one of those, against the blind school in his debut test, did he do anything exceptional .

 Doffies
Brilliant to quote the tests played by Pollard.  Lets look at the history:-
*   3 tests played and dropped*   3 tests played and dropped*   3 tests played and dropped*   6 tests played in WC.
So what did happen in fact.  In the six tests played in the WC - forwards took over the flyhalf function and he got scraps to play with.   The worst game plan in the history of rugby left him to get scraps under pressure.
You apparently failed to understand what I wrote above so spare us further examples of your ignorance.   


 

 He wasn't dropped you blithering idiot. Do you even understand the concept of dropping a player? Apparently not. Talking about ignorance.....

Nice try nonetheless, but no cigar.

 Has Lambie ever had a fair shake?
How many of those test did he start at 10?  
He may not be every ones favourite but to be expected to do wonders with that kind of sporadic game time isn't fair. I wonder ... how many different scrummies has he had in the tests he started at 10? Was he ever allowed to settle in?  
Pollard on the other hand has had oodles of time on the park. What has he done with it?
Well the one thing he didn't do was blow the rugby world away with his supposed brilliance. 
When was the last time we had a brilliant 10?
We just don't seem to breed them.
 

 One man cant be the answer as the rest of SA players are limited in skills.

The solution will be to put tons of make up to cover the poor quality of SA players.

Following the last year's games, SA player deficiencies were openly exposed as they appeared to be thrown quickly out of their depth. Common situations in the game were stressful, leading SA players to commit blunder after blunder.

This severely compromizes  coach gameplans as players are unable to perform regularly on some very common situations.

The most successful (if the word)style was given during the victory against AUS: gain ground, get penalties, kick.
Rigid game plan, very little initiative left to players. Maybe add the odd try from a line out. But even in this department that was supposed to one SA strength, players have shown too little to confirm that direction.

SA players' skills do not afford more than that. Any other gameplan will put them in panic mode as they are unqualified to complete basic moves.

The talent of the coach will shine when the coach disguises it as being something of a higher grade. Not sure that Coetze is able to do that. As to finding another coach, a coach with enough talent to get SA players look for something so different from they are might be interested in coaching sides with actual talent.
Of course, if the money is good enough, it might help finding.

 "Pollard on the other hand has had oodles of time on the park. What has he done with it?
Well the one thing he didn't do was blow the rugby world away with his supposed brilliance. 
When was the last time we had a brilliant 10?
We just don't seem to breed them"

Looks accurate to me. All four of those points.

 Ceradunce aka Dofdoos
You apparently cannot read.  He gave the tests Played in and then failed to understood what he wrote himself.
I cannot help an idiot to start thinking and then come up with hi s standard BS.  

 Pollard seems to be the best that is available right now, he has shown he had the talent but he will need a coach that can bring is the players he needs around him. To me he is another example of a coach spotting a talented youngster & then throwing him in the deep end. 
When he comes back the coach will have to be patient & bring him in slowly, this is the way NZ develop players.

 clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 24712 RE: Is Pollard the answer?
November 29, 2016, 16:50:37  Ceradunce aka Dofdoos
You apparently cannot read.  He gave the tests Played in and then failed to understood what he wrote himself.
He was never dropped by HM, you stupid fcuking qunt. He was always part of the matchday 23. If you want to see a player who was dropped, then JJ Engelbrecht is an example of a player that HM has dropped or Jacques Potgieter or Francois Hougaard or Wynand Olivier, etc. Players who he nurtured at some stage in their careers and then  dropped like a bad habit and forgotten about. Not to be used again. That is what dropped mean you hallucinating old fucking fart.

Tok was never a Pollard man, called him a Morne clone. Once this stone head gets an idea he never moves on. Pollard is still on his non approved list. By the same token once you are on the list like the weed Goosen, you can earn no more than a 3 from any reporter in the Welsh game, but you remain the best hope for Bok rugby.

 Handre is a talented player but one man cannot change the problem...if hypothetically we had Jonah Lomu, Dan Carter, Jonny Wilkinson as a standby, Os Du Rand, Ulie Scmidt , Danie Gerber, Mannetjies Roux, Ruben Kruger, Andre Venter ....blah , blah blah our rugby would NOT change...it starts with training, discipline, motivation and respect/pride of your team colleagues...rugby players are not clones or tools...they are just as human as you and I. It's a very selfish business with leeches today exploiting (especially with looters/parasites) hence the demise of EP rugby...that produces at school level...Dale, Selbourne, Queens, St Andrews, Grey PE, and Saffex's old school Graeme College...it's irony...rugby is following money...instead of money following rugby.

 Mozart
Where did you get that BS from?  I wrote at one time that Pollard must guard against becoming a Morne clone.   He was really in danger of having his career destroyed by Ludeke and Meyer and their BS game plan.
That remains my viewpoint.  I have no problem with Pollard at 10 - but if he deteriorates to the level that Morne and Fat Fransie did, he will become a liability.  
A warning that he will have his career destroyed by Ludeke and Meyer is appropriate since it would not be the first case where it happened with those two supposed coaches.       

 I used the the Eastern Cape as an ironical example...a province that produces huge talent but because of finan cial structures looses their best to other franchises simply because they get paid better elsewhere...all players are tempted elsewhere...get real folks...you go where the pay is first and all stars in SA are just temporary...Lambie and Goosen are lost in a circus of indecisive ar se hole coaches...we really don't have coaches and are looking for one or two or three prima donnas that we think can change our rugby...no individual no matter can change this...rugby is not a key man game. or 10 man ...it's a 15 man game with each man from 1 to 15 doing his part.

 clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 24714 RE: Is Pollard the answer?
November 29, 2016, 18:44:28  Mozart
Where did you get that BS from?  I wrote at one time that Pollard must guard against becoming a Morne clone.


What a lying fcuking hypocite. You specifically said, at the time, that he was a Morne Steyn clone. In fact it was at the time when you believed that Tim Swiel (remember him) was God's gift to mankind.

clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 24714 RE: SA Super 15 rookies
February 01, 2014, 09:15:01

Beeno

The best rookies are the following-

Sharks -  Swiel, Esterhuizen, Fisher, Williams

Stormers  - Van Wyk, Kolbe - maybe too small as a qing

Lions - Hanekom, Jaco Kriel 

I do not think Hendricks can be regarded as a rookie - he was constantly on the bench for the Cheetahs last  and had quite a bit of game time.

I do not rate Pollard as a flyhalf - he is a Morne Steyn clone - and that is bad news.

There you have it you lying tw@t.

 Now that I think about ou Mike's predictions...... Only one of his eight predictions became a Bok. A bog ordinary one, but a Bok nonetheless. Some rugby genius we have here. That is, of course, apart from his take on Pollard.

Oh shame the poor victims Lambie and Goosen have been hurt by the nasty coaches....man the stuff fools on this site believe.

Mozart it's not only Lambie and Goosen but the team... 15 men ...if you think one , two or even 5 players can save us...you are missing the point...the problem is much deeper than this.

The other point I want to make...I do not take sides...not yours or Mikes or Denny or Rooinek or whatever...now and then each one makes sense in certain issues but you are talking beyond your intelligence...you are not a fool but a pompous, self-appointed authority that would be disasterous as a selector in todays modern world.

 @Seb. I think that the fact that "...the problem is much deeper than this",  is the concerns of many of us and has been for some time. I for one, have said often enough, and again recently, that our entire rugby set-up is sick to the core. Everybody was jumping on HM's back for four years and while I am not saying that he is blameless by any means, he was not the sole reason for our demise. In fact, I am convinced that he has actually done well under the circumstances.

I can also take off by writing endless essays on the subject but you only need to look at a few pointers to understand the issue. I have mentioned this before but it basically boils down to:

1. We won the 2007 RWC in a year when we had two SA teams in the final of the S14. Now, and this is very important, nobody is going to convince me that the current circus called Super Rugby is a tougher competition than what the S14 was. Not even the S15, IMO, was on par with the S14.
2. We did quite well in the 2011RWC despite being saddled with the likes of PDV, Gary Gold and Dick Muir. Why? Because we held our own in the S14 over the entire four years leading up to the RWC. Well, OK, apart from maybe 2008 when PDV also thought that he could change the Bok ethos by playing "expansive" rugby.
3. What happened in Super Rugby after2011? F@kol, TBH. That was also the time when we first came up against this conference crap and that was the start for the real demise in our rugby. No matter how much the rugby administrators tried to BS us into believing that it was a system with massive advantages for SA rugby. It wasn't. And then we ended up with the current BS. We were no factor in Super Rugby. Nada. And that was the product that HM gad to work with. He had a pool of players who were statistically nowhere in Super Rugby and it is getting worse and on taop of that we have a few pumpkin brains who are responsible for coaching the Bok squad, and the rest of the coaches in SA are not very far ahead of that lot when it comes to coaching abilities.

We are indeed properly stuffed.

 Who are you? 
What have you done with Sebastien?
Indeed, sir!! SA rugby is rotten to the core and it's going to take a determined person who truly loves the Bok to sort it all out.  
Haaaaaaaaahahahahaaa!! Well said!! He truly is a pompous ass. 

We need to identify the top 3 or 4 players in each position and work with them in a squad.  
We need to rid ourselves of this incompetent coach and hire someone who at least knows what the shape of a rugby ball is.
We the fans have had enough. I believe we're coming together as one ... finally. It is good to see that we haven't given up on the Bok. It is good to see that we're prepared to fight for our beloved rugby.
I see it on various media formats.
It fills me with hope.

 

 Cera...you make sense...I don't know why they call you "Ceradunce" your postings on French rugby is good...certainly more than I know.

This forum knows sweet fanny adams what's happening in the "minnow" rugby world...the next defeat of the mighty Boks will be one of the following: Georgia (who incidentally beat Fiji. Tonga and Samoa and Japan...not last game but previous). Very few here if any knows what's happening in rugby world...except in the so-called tier 1 countries....I follow a tier 2 rugby forum with posters who know far more about this game than we do...they are rugby lovers and not artifical nation followers...they respect NZ (but nobody else) and their comments are intelilgent and informative...actually far knowledge about the GAME. They love rugby and want to promote it to the lesser parts of the world...they love the game in ITSELF and don't punt tier 1 with their advantages...in other words rugby as a sport must grow and be advanced. Money,or the lack of it, is the basic problem in tier 2 or 3 growth...but watch out tier 1's in next WC in Japan.

 They talk rugby and only rugby?
Any chance I can ask you for the link?

 Yes Cleancut....just google Tier 2 Rugby forum...I was a member 2 years ago but these are far more intelligent than here...even in tier 1 rugby...their comments are outstanding...I was amazed...they come from all over the world...rugby lovers from:Georgia,USA, Malta,India, West Indies, Ukraine, Poland, Slovenia, Czech Republic and many minor rugby countries but also NZ, Ireland,England, Oz, South American Countries, Canada, Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Sri Lanka, Russia and Latvia. and yes many others...I was one of 2 members from SA...they did not like me too much, except the Georgian and Russian and USA/Canada posters..you will be amazed how much people in this world love this game...the problem is exposure...most people once it catches on it's contagious, it's the best team sport in the world...I too want every nation to be infected by this lovely game...more minnows with true rugby spirit than those controlled by big bucks...real rugby lovers...not those the use patriotism to bash each other...if you understand my drift.

Lets look at the BS of the Dofdoos again.  He stated that Meyer's problems started with the fact that rugby performance in Super Rugby was below par.   How dare he says something contrary  to his master Mozart. 
The latter stated that players who under-perform on Super Rugby level and whose stats are poor on that level suddenly became top players when they are Springboks - so what does that tell us?  
The real fact Dofdoos - who knows zero about rugby - does not realize is why SA teams struggled in Super Rugby.   The main reason was their coaches and the  fact that they - including his treasured Meyer - has a game plan that went out years ago and the result was an inability to score tries, which contrary to his masters belief is not necessary to win matches.  
Super Rugby franchises outside of SA moved on from where they used to be - SA stayed mired in the past.
 
As to Pollard - the simpleton find something I wrote about a match where Pollard tried to duplicate the BS Morne produced as a rule.   But then he thinks that the sun shines out of Morne's backside.  So what does that prove>   Nothing much since he cannot understand even his own writings.     

Lets look at the BS of the Dofdoos again.  He stated that Meyer's problems started with the fact that rugby performance in Super Rugby was below par.   How dare he says something contrary  to his master Mozart. 
The latter stated that players who under-perform on Super Rugby level and whose stats are poor on that level suddenly became top players when they are Springboks - so what does that tell us?  
The real fact Dofdoos - who knows zero about rugby - does not realize is why SA teams struggled in Super Rugby.   The main reason was their coaches and the  fact that they - including his treasured Meyer - has a game plan that went out years ago and the result was an inability to score tries, which contrary to his masters belief is not necessary to win matches.  
Super Rugby franchises outside of SA moved on from where they used to be - SA stayed mired in the past.
 
As to Pollard - the simpleton find something I wrote about a match where Pollard tried to duplicate the BS Morne produced as a rule.   But then he thinks that the sun shines out of Morne's backside.  So what does that prove>   Nothing much since he cannot understand even his own writings.     

 Awesome ... thanks Sebastien.
That was quick & painless.
 

No country in the world fails to utilise talent ti the extent we do. Dumb coaches, dumb selections.Imagine if Pollard played for the abs or Oz by now he would be the worlds best bar none.

 Keep on digging ou Tokkie. Keep on digging, mate.

I was pointing out the analogy between the demise in Bok rugby and Super Rugby but I knew from the start, that that would be way above you to understand that. You are of the school who thinks that a good mechanic should be able to build a Bugatti Veyron using Dacia parts. Oh shyte, Now I am going to have to spend days explaining what a Bugatti Veyron and a Dacia is......... Tsk.

 Listen Doffies - you said Super Rugby is of importance in developing Springbok rugby - Mozart (your boss) said that the opposite is true and that Super Rugby players who perform is not fit for Springbok rugby.


I am really surprised that you differ from your moron counterpart.   However, the point you miss entirely is that the game of rugby moved on - in SA it stagnated with dolts like Coetzee, Ludeke, Gold and Meyer responsible for coaching.    Their approach caused SA rugby to drop behind the game played in the rest of the world and is destructive for progress of any SA teams on Super Rugby Level and in tests.  
Players must essentially play what is required from them by coaches and what coaches believe are their game plan - in most cases a missing game plan.    The rubbish required by the coaches cause teams to play extremely predictable rugby and the scoring of tries falls by the wayside.
Sure there are players who should not be in Super Rugby teams - SA has too many teams in Super Rugby  - thus weakening the teams - but the main problem remains the coaching they receive and the missing game plans used.    
Incidentally after trying for years I have never discovered the game plans of De Villiers, Meyer, Coetzee, Ludeke and Gold.  My impression is there were effectively no game plans in the case of the sh!t coaches mentioned above.  I should never have mentioned De Villiers - he was not the coach - the team was run by a player clique who was only interested in their own advancement.   They used the same plan  used by the Bulls in 2004  and the whole games were getting worse and worse.  
Now lets get to another piece of BS as an example.   Matfield was the attack coach of the Bulls under Ludeke - can you now understand what was the real problem in that team?    I know Matfield pretends he was a center where he was moonlighting most of the time - but of attacking rugby he knew ZERO.     

 Listen Doffies - you said Super Rugby is of importance in developing Springbok rugby - Mozart (your boss) said that the opposite is true and that Super Rugby players who perform is not fit for Springbok rugby.


I am really surprised that you differ from your moron counterpart.   However, the point you miss entirely is that the game of rugby moved on - in SA it stagnated with dolts like Coetzee, Ludeke, Gold and Meyer responsible for coaching.    Their approach caused SA rugby to drop behind the game played in the rest of the world and is destructive for progress of any SA teams on Super Rugby Level and in tests.  
Players must essentially play what is required from them by coaches and what coaches believe are their game plan - in most cases a missing game plan.    The rubbish required by the coaches cause teams to play extremely predictable rugby and the scoring of tries falls by the wayside.
Sure there are players who should not be in Super Rugby teams - SA has too many teams in Super Rugby  - thus weakening the teams - but the main problem remains the coaching they receive and the missing game plans used.    
Incidentally after trying for years I have never discovered the game plans of De Villiers, Meyer, Coetzee, Ludeke and Gold.  My impression is there were effectively no game plans in the case of the sh!t coaches mentioned above.  I should never have mentioned De Villiers - he was not the coach - the team was run by a player clique who was only interested in their own advancement.   They used the same plan  used by the Bulls in 2004  and the whole games were getting worse and worse.  
Now lets get to another piece of BS as an example.   Matfield was the attack coach of the Bulls under Ludeke - can you now understand what was the real problem in that team?    I know Matfield pretends he was a center where he was moonlighting most of the time - but of attacking rugby he knew ZERO.     

First of all, I do not have a boss. Least of all Mozart. Second, I have told you to stop digging, oubaas. You are well on your way to the centre of the earth at this stage and I am not too sure if you know how hot it can became down there.

You keep on waffling on about this that and the other coach and you do not realise that you are actually helping me a lot in proving how crap our rugby set-up really is. We do not have the coaching ability to turn this around. In order to turn the Bok side into a NZ beating side, or maybe an any other side beating side, you would need somebody who could perform a 100% make-over of each and every contender.

Let me try to explain something to you. When I was in the SADF, I once volunteered to do a shooting instructors course. That was when I already had about ten years of service behind me. On the first day of the course, the instructor said to us: "The very first thing that I want to tell you is to forget everything that you have learnt up till now, about shooting". That, my friend, is more or less where we would have more or less have to start.

Now, just to rub the salt in to the wounds a bit more. How many more times do you want to break your nose against the same cupboard door? Every now and again you revisit the argument about Matfield, the Bulls attacking coach and every time you end up with a broken nose. Matfield was the attacking coach for the Bulls in 2013. This was the final log for the SA Conference in 2013:

Pos
Team Rnd W D L Bye PF PA PD TF TA TB LB Pts 1 Bulls 18 12 0 4 2 448 330 +118 41 34 5 2 63 2 Cheetahs 18 10 0 6 2 382 358 +24 38 32 2 4 54 3 Stormers 18 9 0 7 2 346 292 +54 30 18 1 5 50 4 Sharks 18 8 0 8 2 384 305 +79 40 31 3 5 48 5 Kings 18 3 1 12 2 298 564 ?266 27 69 2 0 24
So, explain the problem with Matfield as the attacking coach. Feel free to use the number of tries scored. Also feel free to use the Try Bonus points as a possible yard stick to assess the Bulls' attacking abilities compared to other SA franchises. The floor is yours.

I could inflict some more pain by saying something about Frans Ludeke and game plans and rule changes as well but I will spare you that at this stage. You already have more than enough to deal with in explaining what makes you think that Matfield was a k@k attacking coach.

Granted Ceradyne the Bulls had an awesome season that year.
But credit must be given to the form players that season and not the ex fly-half substituting as an attack coach.
Another reason the Bulls did so well that season was due to the fact that they did not use Matfield at fly-half for any games.
When u have class players combining as a team and winning they will make any coach look great......yes and that holds true for Matfield.
Attacking coach my a...!

Lots of opinion v facts.