Is Rassie diluting the bok jersey - Rassie wants 4 boks in every position

Came across a really interesting article on Planet Rugby that Rassie made a statement in an interview that he wants to build depth. It appears that it makes sense when you think of merry go round selection policy and most selections seems pre-determined by him.

If you watch his interview recently on why he chose the current team and why Sasha and Pollard are not in the team or on the bench. His response was that they already played the last two games, so now it is Manie chance.

If you ask me, I really don't like it is because I believe that it doesn't bring the best out of players. It is okay if you have a shoot out between one and two but to have this level arrogance is asking for trouble.

4 Players in every position and then we still end up without a backup hooker in a WC final.

KC

Lets face facts - you hate eveything Erasmus do and find fault with it, There are two issues here - the one relating to buildin up a squad and the second being that Erasmus is wrong in his selections.

In the first instance there is a worrying factor that is to be brne in mind and that is the position of he older players at pesent in the squad, That relates in particular to the fact of recurring injuries to the older players put a question mark as to their usage in 2027 and after that. - Etzebeth is a typical example. Etzebeh had concussion inry probms this year and his performances in the URC series and tests thus far was not of he high level it used to be. So Etzebeth gets a furher chance to get back to his level of rugby. There is a danger to that approach though - further head injuries could take him out of the game completely.

The second case is Du Toit - he had a serious injury in Japan - was played in tests and Erasms gave him a tonguelashing during the interval and Mpower nearly had a seizure because Erasmus did told him to improve in the remainder of that match - but Erasmus wants to see whether the improvment is maintaned,

He also has a problem at props were Malherbe has effectively already announced his rrtirement from test rugby and hence the need to find 4 tighthead props,

Tesame applies to Pollard - a player with pas injury problems that kept him out of playing since 2016. To mymnd Libbok is to m mind not the answer. To trya nd peserve Pollard for the 2027 RWC wuld be to use him less in tests over the next two seasons - but a further at least 2 other flyhalfs need to be found and developed over the next two years while at the same time trying to ensure that Pollard last long enough to be in the 2027 RWC.

De Allende is another case.where assistance in getting more players invovled is essetial. Esterhuizen over the last 7 years did not prove that he is an option for further development - he is already 31 years old and his performances on both Test and URC has over the last year have not proven he belomgs in the quad, In fact - despite site allegations - Esterhuzen has been unable to stake a real claim for that position. To my mind the option by 2027 will include Willemse Hooker and Mulder the present Under 18 player making hay for the Juniors and likely to go to te Stormers next year, I do not think Esterhuizen will ultimately make the grade to be in the 2027 RWC squad,

To my mind the program to me to find playable options is the way to go, That also is a fact for the finding and building up squads after the 2027 RWC, We my differ about him playinmg individual players in tetss - but the method being developed is to my mind the way to go in te medium and longer term.

So as per normal your heading is really B S supreme.

.

More than anything, it shows he’s an egalitarian who doesn’t value individual brilliance as much as the system itself. For him, it’s strictly about the game plan.

A coach who truly values individual brilliance takes the absolute best player and builds combinations that allow that player to excel at what they do best. That’s what it takes to reach the highest level. That's how you create Fergie's Man U. The player only brings his brilliance, the coach has to bring the strategy for extracting as much of that brilliance as possible. But Rassie literally gives two shits about that. Manie can almost lose us an RC but he gets more starts than Sacha, who didn't recently excel recently, but who was more than good enough. Because Manie won't put a foot out of line or do anything that might catch some shine. Sacha will. This puts Sacha at 3 in the pecking order. Brilliance doesn't matter. Just ask Barcelona, they'll tell you how Messi was there because he was so good at the game plan.

Rassie wants to operate within a very specific system where it doesn’t matter how good the player is, because in his view, the system is more important than unleashing the full potential of brilliant players.

...and it breaks my heart.

But it works. It works so well.

Yeah, while the ABs are in a trough. As soon as they hit their normal averages we're second fiddle again.

The following are self-concote BS:-

A coach who truly values individual brilliance takes the absolute best player and builds combinations that allow that player to excel at what they do best. That’s what it takes to reach the highest level. That's how you create Fergie's Man U. The player only brings his brilliance, the coach has to bring the strategy for extracting as much of that brilliance as possible. But Rassie literally gives two shits about that. Manie can almost lose us an RC but he gets more starts than Sacha, who didn't recently excel recently, but who was more than good enough. Because Manie won't put a foot out of line or do anything that might catch some shine. Sacha will. This puts Sacha at 3 in the pecking order. Brilliance doesn't matter. Just ask Barcelona, they'll tell you how Messi was there because he was so good at the game plan.

Yu thinmk that brilliance in the team is not rewarded? The fact is that Sacha is still the frst choice flyhalf that will play against the AB's - Same as De Allende. He is ginving Libbok and Esterhuizebn to see whether theya re really up tos tandard i a match he thinks the Springboks will win - even with handicaps like the to players mentioned.

By the way if the stuation is what you describe the first people to be unhappy would it be the players themselves and their is no sign of that at all.

Man United under Feguson was the best soccer team in the UK and somewhat short of being the best in Europe. WE are the number 1 Rugby team in the world - not so? So are you imaging things counter to the real situation?

. .

Bit harsh Mike to say I hate everything Rassie does

I do have the right to question why he is insistent on selecting certain players and only backs his system.

His response to why he is not picking Roos, he couldn't give a straight answer, which is the the theme with him these days. His answer was, we have Kolisi, Kwagga, Marco who can all play 8. We don't need Roos, but then he goes on about having 4 players in every position.

I think capping 50 players a season is excessive.

The other reality is there is simply to much rugby and clubs and country compete with each other for fit players. France always sends a weak team at the end of the season and now Italy start doing it as well.

We see in the URC that a team like Leinster doesn't even bother to send their best team to SA.

I thought test rugby is to always play your best team, but rugby his caught in this position where you try to win the key matches or the World Cup and then the rest is just one big experimentation.

We'll end up with 30 man teams instead of 23 or 24 these days. I have lost count now how many players are on the bench.

I think the boks are playing something like 16 games this season. It is crazy, then you have Rassie just on constant rotation.

I want to see the absolute best and don't want every single player other player to be capped

If I was the Bok coach I’d definitely be striving to have 5 in each position

Easily achieved if you think of the players we have

15 Fassi / Jordan Hendrikse / Gelant / Horn / Siyaya

14 Kolbe / Tambwe / Zas / de Klerk / Jacobs

13 Kriel / Am / Jurenzo Julies / Henco v Wyk / Moodie

12 de Allende / Esterhuizen / Hooker / Willemse / David Kriel

11 Arendse / Edwil / Green / Jooste / Hartzenberg

10 Pollard / Sacha / Libbok / Masuku / Moyo

9 Williams / vd Bergh / Papier / Jayden / Nohamba

1 Ox / Steenkamp / Wessels / Mchunu / Pratt

2 Marx / Bongi / Dweba / AH Venter / Grobelaar

3 Wilco / Thomas / Nthlabakanye / Hanro Jacobs / Frans Klopper

4 Eben / Jenkins / Ruan Vermaak / Cobus Wiese / Moerat

5 Lood / RG / Ruben v Heerden / JF v Heerden / Rahl

6 Kolisi / Kwagga / Buthelezi / Theunissen / du Plessis

7 PSDT / Elrigh Louw / Vincent Tsituka / Ruan Venter / Ludwig

8 Roos / Wiese / Hanekom / Manu Tsituka / Horn

All test standard players

And despite all this brilliance, 5 players in every spot….it took Pollard making every kick in the WC to get the win.

KC

His response to why he is not picking Roos, he couldn't give a straight answer, which is the the theme with him these days. His answer was, we have Kolisi, Kwagga, Marco who can all play 8. We don't need Roos, but then he goes on about having 4 players in every position.

No he wrote a letter to the Stormers asking them to get Roos getting further practice and experience iro issues he mentioned and that is where the matter stands at present. He apparently is not ruling Roos out of selection at all,

He did the same in 2018 with Du Toit and Mostert in their move from 5 to 7 - Du Toit passed with flying colors and became a key player in his squad - Mostert did not and he became a fringe player - someimes strating but mostly on the bench when other key players were not available.

I thought test rugby is to always play your best team, but rugby his caught in this position where you try to win the key matches or the World Cup and then the rest is just one big experimentation. .

I do not think that is really the case - rugby is a spectator sport and TV icome determine much in the reent eara. So teams must win or loose viewer support, A lot of people watch games and if matches are not won the spectators loose interest .In an event the cah value of winers are massive and much needed by he franchses and provinces,

The other issue is franchise ownership - especially of he Bulls and the Sharks. The majority owners wants a retrn for their investment and that is winning of matches. White's recent firing is what can be expected if teams lose key matches,

We'll end up with 30 man teams instead of 23 or 24 these days. I have lost count now how many players are on the bench.

WR law s clear on issues - RWC suads are set at 31 and mist frabchises of clubs se that number too. There are always 8 bench players and that is where controversy arose, Erasmus introduced the system known as the bomb squad. In one match this year he had a 3 backline and 4 forwards combination - but he chose Esterhuizen as a bench loosie and not for playing at center. That is the only variation to the system he introdiced since 2019. The rest of the world test teams are moaning about it - but World Rugby did nothing about their moans.

The only teams where more than 8 replacements are used is school Under 18 rugby. Many of the kids are still in the growing phase and injuries stemming from tiredness can destroy yungsters future ruby development completely.

I think Erasmus has in mind abot 34 to 36 players ready to get a call-up as replacement players ready to step into te boots of players to be replaced - that would apear to me is what is the ideal situation.

This guy is pressed by the ANC and the quota policy, he is trying to juggle with numbers as he can so this building squad depth is a classy cover up, not as classy as Trump's cover up in the Epstein files case but this head coach is trying...

Oh what utter shit one would swear rugby was a one man game - let me guess it was Pollard who won every scrum, every line out, was the only player mauling, rucking, attacking and defending

Fuck that Pollard is special

Fucking joke or is that the definition of utter rugby ignorance?

Trad you not found a bridge to jump off yet?

Your logic is faulty….all the players for France, England, NZ and the Boks…….all the coaches for the same teams….put their teams in position to win. It all came down to Pollard, Barrett, Mo’unga and Ramos. Pollard was the man, the difference, the WC winner.

Bullshit Ramos has a better kicking record than Pollard - the game is never won by one player it’s won by a team and the Bok team proved they were the best side at the competition given how hard their journey was to win it

If you can’t comprehend that then don’t call yourself a rugby follower and certainly not a true Bok supporter

But he didn’t when it counted, again your logic is nonsense. If Ramos made all his kicks France would likely have won. It’s not genius that puts you in position where you need perfection from the kicker you never even selected…,,it’s luck.

Hell in the French match 3 tactical kicks bounced perfectly for us leading directly to tries…..France blew this match.

Oh what utter horseshit we were better than France and deserved the win - all you can do is denounce the victory which is pathetic

You bang on about what if’s, could have’s - guess what that’s rugby. Each side has those throughout the game. A fucking kicker does not win it or lose it for you the team as a whole does - if Pollard is lining up a kick to win the game - the side had to have scored the try he is converting or the side needed to exert the pressure to win the penalty - without that there is no kick being taken - fuck me that’s rugby. The only time an individual and not the team is credited with an influence is if a player receives the ball behind his try line and goes on to score without the help of his teammates

Are seriously stupid enough to believe we beat France, England and NZ in a row on the strength of luck

Fuck off

You are simply too stupid to reason logically Dave….no point in my trying to educate you, you are the kid in class who could never understand anything abstract.

And are you seriously stupid enough to believe we won three games by 1 point without luck…in two of which we were behind until the 70th minute.

You want to believe in Dr Lucky…be my guest, fools need heroes.

I think Erasmus has in mind abot 34 to 36 players ready to get a call-up as replacement players ready to step into te boots of players to be replaced - that would apear to me is what is the ideal situation.

Spot-on Mike.

"You bang on about what if’s, could have’s - guess what that’s rugby. Each side has those throughout the game. A fucking kicker does not win it or lose it for you the team as a whole does - if Pollard is lining up a kick to win the game - the side had to have scored the try he is converting or the side needed to exert the pressure to win the penalty - without that there is no kick being taken - fuck me that’s rugby. The only time an individual and not the team is credited with an influence is if a player receives the ball behind his try line and goes on to score without the help of his teammates"

Tell me you're a plank without saying you're a plank.

Mozart

Childish shit like you cAme up with is not a realisic basis for discussion of any issues relating to rugby - and what you wrote above is worse than childish shit - never fact-based and totally off topic as to be expected,

The only time an individual and not the team is credited with an influence is if a player receives the ball behind his try line and goes on to score without the help of his teammates

Is this for real?

Oh, it's real.

Dave logic = Dogic

I have not problem I Rassie having 5 players in every position in camp.

The key word here is camp. That is great that he lets players know that they are in the loop.

However, why did we play game against the Barbarians and against minnow teams when we were going to rotate.

I would say, bring back the A teams and some tour games. Why could we not take an A team to NZ and get them to play midweek games. We are going to be there for two games. That will give Rassie plenty of time to asses the other players. It worked for the Lions when he put his fringe players into the A team so that they can get match fitness without the risk of dropping a test match.

I jus think capping so many players and having a revolving door doesn't help

Yes it’s for real Pakie you dumb prick what part is beyond you

Moz you are fucking dumb because only a dumb twat would believe a single player wins you a rugby match - you are too fucking stupid to comprehend the fact that plenty happens before a kick is taken and shock shock some kicks are landed others not

But that aside - any twat believing beating France, England and NZ to win a WC is down to luck is a fucking moron

You are so fucking pathetically childish that you can’t acknowledge how great Rassie is at what he does - you are not a Bok supporter

Too stupid to see what everyone sees

Buttplug fuck off you are not worth the effort

Too stupid to see what everyone sees

You're a bit harsh, Bitterbal learnt his rugby in the 50's don't get your hopes up that he'll ever understand that Rassie's strategies and game plans are varied and deep.

For a start he can't get his head around the fact that with a squad of 50 Rassie is heavily into future proofing.

All he whines about is luck.....tell you what, for mine, if the Boks win every RWC by luck I'll have it, thank you kindly.

KC

I am afraid that idealism in a very restricted environment is a problem. Mid-week games are out and the BRI Lions is an exception in that regard, The cost factor attached to such huge squad is a problem - especially since there is no provision for televising such mid-week matches and can only happen if televizing is in place. There are no signs fo such contracts have been reached or even envisaged in such cases. As I said the BRI Lons is an excetion to the real situation at present.

As to the preparation of especially new players into the system is essential for future replacement of aging players, All the Rugby Champions participants faced weakened teams in the July test window period with England and France setting the example,

There are some players in the over 30 players who must ensure he re still competitive - if they are not they should be phased out of the squad as soon as possible. The sooner they replace players like for instance Esterhuien and Mostert - the better. There are some positions where the older players seems to be persisted with and I think the looisies and scrumhalfs are two such examples. By the 2027 test season we will have clarity and most of the over-30 players will largely being replaced.

Those that remain will be still being rated in their positions accordng to world experts, It was always the case that over 30 players have negaives other than performances as well. It is a fact that such players are often injured and recovery periods take longer than the case is with younger players, That brings clasics like Etzebeth and Pollard into the problem area - especially if their past records on that score is borne in mind. Willie, Malherbe and Kitshof are already gone and my guess is that Kolisi, Mapimpi, Am, Reinach and De Klerk may also be on the way out by 2027.

That is why we shoud watch out for Under 20 players that will increasngly. be used in the squad by 2027. There are also Under 18 players like Pratt and Muller that is liely to feature in the set-up by 2027. The 2012 Under 20 RWC team produced a long string of players that played test rugby - those players were key in the Erasmus successes since 2018 and I am sure the same will apply to the 2025 Under 20 winners.

"Moz you are fucking dumb because only a dumb twat would believe a single player wins you a rugby match - you are too fucking stupid to comprehend the fact that plenty happens before a kick is taken and shock shock some kicks are landed others not"

Dave, you actually can't be this stupid.

All I want to know is, how are you still alive?

It's astonishing to me to think that there are adults out there with such staggering inability to reason, or even grasp the most basic of concepts.

You really should talk less and listen a whole lot more.

Plum

It's astonishing to me to think that there adults out there will such staggering inability to reason, or even grasp the most basic of concepts.

Rich coming from you, Your arguments are routinely based on things you dreamed up without any basis of actual proven facts anyway. LOL

Yes it’s for real Pakie you dumb prick what part is beyond you

The part where you contend that no individual can be credited for having an influence on the game. Against France Kwagga came on and won two crucial turnover penalties just minutes apart - one cemented the position from which Eben scored a few phases later, the other won the penalty that Pollard slotted for the win. Without Kwagga, those penalties don't come and we lose, regardless of what the team did, because it took the specific strengths of that one player two bring about those two moments.

Pakie

So that ty scored by De Alloende where he followed up a kick carried te abll to wihin 5 meters of the rench tyline - got out of the beakdown and back to his cnter position resulting in him scoring the try he actually set up did not happen.

So i is sacrilege even to menton it. Without the 7 points from that try the Spring boks would need 3 more penalties to have won the match,

Sorry but your believe in fairy tales make it hard to believe the statements you made on rugby issues,

So that ty scored by De Alloende where he followed up a kick carried te abll to wihin 5 meters of the rench tyline - got out of the beakdown and back to his cnter position resulting in him scoring the try he actually set up did not happen.

I'm trying to find where I said that try did not happen, but I can't. Maybe you can help point me to where I said that. But anyhoo, thank you for proving the point that individual impacts matter and can be measured. Nice to have you agreeing with me and Plum and Moz for a change.

and back to his cnter position

So by the way, first receiver from a ruck is not the center position.

The part where you contend that no individual can be credited for having an influence on the game. Against France Kwagga came on and won two crucial turnover penalties just minutes apart - one cemented the position from which Eben scored a few phases later, the other won the penalty that Pollard slotted for the win. Without Kwagga, those penalties don't come and we lose, regardless of what the team did, because it took the specific strengths of that one player two bring about those two moments.

You could not have explained this more succinctly

To me it takes both scenarios to win a game .... a combined team effort overall, and then the odd individual brilliance from any given player.... at any given time...here and there.....

A break here, a side step there, a monstrous Mostert tackle over there... .a huge Eben hit right here, a Kwagga steal or two there....and then a brilliant Pollard kick under pressure as well.

It really isn't that difficult to comprehend ....

It just looks like we are giving to many players caps and we are stuck with the long in the tooth players such as Willie and Mpimpi that are still in camp and taking up space other players should have had.

We can learn a lot about NFL, they have their starting team, those who will definitely play on match day and then they have a training squad. Those that did not make the cut but are still kept on the books and train separately and any one of those players can be called up. It works, players can hang around and see if they catch a break or try get another contract. That's what happened to Zammit, he couldn't make the 48 or so players so he was part of the 18 man training squad. They still got paid something like $200k for just being in camp for 5 months well the comp carries on.

We see in football they have the A team and the Reserves team. Maybe Rassie wants to make the guys feel inclusive and part of the wider group. Maybe Rassie like to rotate players in and out based on what he needs.

We see Rassie is a very in the moment kind of coach, he is constantly moving his players around the field and off the bench. Trying to find the right time to sub players. That is why we see the bomb squad We also see a player like Manie getting dropped 30 min into a semi and Eben before half time.

However, I still don't like that we are giving caps away so cheaply

Or maybe I'm answering my own question. Rassie is trying to do a Amercial Football style match day where he can call on his entire 50 group players and then decide who to pick.

He even hinted that he may drop a back depending on what team Australia select for Saturday, If they pick and extra forward he might tweak his team. That is his own words.

Look the guy is getting wins, they are not pretty, they are always disjointed and he never seem to have a proper winning streak or have won 10 games let alone 7 games in a row.

I want us to get 20 games in a row, but we see what happens with those teams, after 18 months it just becomes too much and the entire team start falling apart.

Rassie is an enigma and very hard to figure out.

Here’s the bottom line….we never outplayed France, England or 14 man NZ.

FRA

SA

ZL

SA

Stunning numbers. Look at NZ. With 14 men for half the game they beat 37 defenders to 14 for the Boks. They averaged over 60% of the possession…in part because we just kicked the ball away and defended.

The woeful English side was more even, but they still had the better numbers. I wouldn’t say it was lucky we won these matches, it was a miracle.

And of course Pollard had to make every kick. So many things went right for this win. Three tactical kicks, only one of which was really purposeful, bounced brilliantly for us against France. I’d throw in the Faf ankle tap on Ollivon as well, a try saver.

Against England this poor team had us on the ropes. A long kick by Steward to the Bok corner would probably have settled it, instead he kicks a vertical box kick resulting in a scrum and penalty. Up steps Pollard with ice in his veins.

And NZ? Half the game with 14 men against us because of an incredibly dubious red card, far more benign than Kolisis’s hit or Eben’s hit against France. Still it took missed kicks my Mo’unga and Barrett for us to win and NZ had a try dubiously reversed when Mo’unga gassed Dud.

So I stand corrected it wasn’t luck it was a miracle. As for the claim that Dr Lucky was in control of this roulette wheel, you truly have to be clueless to believe that.

Defense is the single biggest factor that got the Boks back on track under Rassie. Here are the stats for the famous 36-34 win over NZ in 2018, NZ on the left:

Tackles: NZ had to make only 73 tackles in the game, the Boks 274.

SA won the WC due to an streak of referee decisions. In fact, the game against England is the only game against a major rugby country that was not tainted with dubious referee calls. All the others had very dubious calls in favour of SA. In the final, a TMO call that took not to count up to 2, not to know what a phase is and what limits of TMO calls are. It is also correct that SARU had declared they had no longer money before the WC so something had to be done and SARU would have crashed out of existence.

The funniest part is that SARU supporters have sunk in deep denial and keep claiming there is a conspiracy against their team to prevent them from winning... When all their victories in a WC have been hand given by referees... Liberals do as they are. Rugby is no exception.

Trud

there were shitty calls for both teams.

we’ve often been robbed too. Think Bryce Lawrence…

I do agree that we got some good rubs of the green, but be partial in your assessment.

we’ve been on both ends of the stick on plenty of occasions.

The French had some issues eg with the Kolbe charge down and a Kwagga jackal where he had his hands on the deck. They were all marginal. There’s one not much talked about, after the French breakaway in the last 3 minutes, we recovered the ball on the deck via Etzebeth…Eben clearly knocks the ball on, on the deck, which would have given France another last good attacking position…..although Ox may have solved that problem.

These calls go back and forth but the AB red card was potentially WC deciding and totally unjustified in my view. And to Trad’s point I never had the sense any of the refs were blowing against the Boks, which hasn’t always been the case.

Balls as per normal. Erasmus biggest career misstake was to pick Fourie as part of the squad to be a back-up as a hooker, He failed miserably in line0-out throw-ins and tr he Sprngboks lost all the line-outs he trew in the ball. That played as bg a role as the absence of Cade did. Aside from that there were two Springbok players yellow-carded and that means another20 minutes where the number of players were equal.

Mozart has totally deluded ideas about rugby - his only real believe is that kicking at goal and making kicks from hand is all that is expected from flyhalfs - his hero at flyhalf used to be Morne Steyn and he did not udnerstand that Erasmus had to save Pollard's career after Meyer tried to turn him into a kicking dummy.