Jake the "smartarse" humbled . . .

This article suggests that Jake White's supercilious and conceited attitude is not going down too well in France!

Quelle surprise!

 Rooinek
Jake's style of rugby will not go down well in France.   He is clueless about backline play and the game in the NH changed drastically since 2008 and entials a much more all-round game than it used to be.
Players like Francois Steyn is not really acceptable anymore - and it also accounts for the Morne Steyn fiasco iro Stade Francais - where he is just not making the grade.  The Steyn;s play the game according to the viewpoints of Jake White - so what he will produce at Montpellier will not be in his favour.      

Jake is such a prick and too stupid to learn that opening his mouth tends to cost him  

 Yep all the evidence so far points to Jake being stupid. Bwahahahahahahhaha and he just keeps getting top coaching jobs becasue he is soooo stupid.Something doesnt add up oaks! It gets worse whern you consider his results etc.
A word of caution lets see how this pans out before trashing a proven coach.

What results would that be dumb Beenkop?  

Give credit where credit is due - but I think here we have a case of a person making himself very unpopular by -
*    opening his big mouth at the wrong time; and*    playing a style of rugby at the Sharks that was ultimately doomed to failure and which drove the spectators away from games.
That was why he was given an option by the Sharks to resign or get fired.   So everything is not as rosy as Mozart makes it out to be.     

I never said anything is rosy....I just pointed out he is a proven winner  

 Jake has got his good points and he is a good coach for the occasion...I must agree that he appears to have been the wrong coach for the Sharks not altogether bad but with a few critical failings...his style works on occasions, incidentally so does HM's but I think or concur that what is needed is flexibility to adapt your game accordingly to the style of the opposition to outwit and counteract effectively....stereotype play has a big fault...we need versatility and and a type of "Napoleon"...if you forgive the term to win our battles. I remember Ian Mac was this type who did very well for the Sharks some years ago and would have done very well for the Boks too if Louis Luyt was not so impatient.

Rome was never built in a day. We need creative and versatile coaching by an innovator.

Stereotype style can be easily read and counteracted.

All I see is a coach with a 67% win record as Bok coach, simply not good enough and it's only that % thanks to his first two honeymoon years. His last two years were dismal, so bad he was on the verge of being sacked.
He won a WC thanks to an easy draw a great squad and Eddie Jones.
Making semi s of Super tournaments and failing at the last hurdle is hardly an achievement.
If only Jakes coaching credentials were as large as his ego. The guy is an average coach and a prick. 

We all see that Saffex...I think or surmise, if he was not such a egoist and combined his efforts humbly and amicably with a good backline coach it could have been a different story

We all see that Saffex...I think or surmise, if he was not such a egoist and combined his efforts humbly and amicably with a good backline coach it could have been a different story

I just don't like the guy and never rated him as a coach. I see him for what he is. His style is boring and out of date. He was never one for game plan B. He is no better or worse than Meyer. Both sell sid es short

I recall  watching Jake's Brumbies in 2013. A bunch of no name players playing above their pay grade...the mark of good coaching. The passing among the forwards was light years ahead  of any of the South African teams.
The Brumbies certainly didnt play boring rugby under Jake....nor did the Boks at RWC07. It remains to be seen whether this year's boring Sharks rugby was Jake's fault....or a deep seated rugby culture in Natal. To me they looked like a typical Sharks team, albeit a bit better coached.

Actually those Brumbies were a talented bunch of youngsters who are now playing for Oz. Their talent had nothing to do with Jake.
Jakes Sharks were sorely exposed in the semis thanks to Jakes poor tactics.

Jake's Sharks were exposed because Jordaan missed Reid early in the game for a try  and took all the pressure off the Saders. And because player for player they were outplayed. And because the Lambie/ Serfontein pairing were just as poor as they were against Wales. This sort of stuff:

19 min - What did I say about poor kicking? Lambie takes the restart and knocks it into touch on the full. No way you can blame the conditions, it's perfect for rugby (well perfect might be a wee bit warmer than 7 degrees).

Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/sport/video-highlights-crusaders-vs-sharks--super-rugby-semifinal-2014072619#ixzz3OeSdrF2b

56 min - After a long think from Bismarck du Plessis, he'll opt for a shot at goal instead of a kick for corner... Here comes Lambie... and the penalty attempt is no good. 

Jake for once selected all  the popular players and they flopped.

 No Moz they got their arses kicked because Jake decided the kick and chase was the way forward.

 17 min - TRY CRUSADERS! Kieran Read beats his man on the overlap and doesn't need any help from the winger as he runs in the opening try behind the posts. That was beautiful, he was running with real power and pace. 10-0.

15 min - Real good pace to start this match. It's similar to watching a slow version of a tennis match with the ball going back and forth like a rally.

13 min - A real shame for the Sharks as they decide to run the ball from their own touchline and carry the ball about 70-odd meters before losing the ball. It was beautiful flowing rugby that ended prematurely when it squirted out in the final tackle and resulted in a turnover.

They tried to run the ball....the Saders just did it better. Face it Thomas du Toit, Coetzee, Reinach and Lambie were all massively outplayed.

Jake, much like Heyneke Meyer with the Bulls (except 2 results short) inherited a Sharks team full of talented players. If he had rolled two dice he would have got 7 three times in a row.

Heyneke Meyer, who is clearly clueless arrived at the Bulls and hit a royal flush of spades in his first hand. All the youngsters, Victor Matfield, Bakkies Botha, Danie Rossouw, Gary Botha, Fourie Du Preez, Johan Roets, Bryan Habana where all primed just at the time he arrived at the Loftus front door. Lucky boy.

Unfortunately, when faced with difficulties in depth he has clearly displayed he possesses very little in the way of problem solving skills in the coaching roll. We have now tested how many flyhalves and I bet you he is still not sure who he is going to go with. He drops Jannie Du Plessis and the Springboks got thrashed even worse in the scrum etc. etc.

As for the 2014 season. As badly as it ended, the Sharks had plenty of positives. The Sharks weren't beaten in the semi-final, they were already beaten earlier than that when they lost against the Highlanders in round 11, Stormers in round 16 & Cheetahs in round 18. Those were all matches they should have won and one could see the body language change after they lost to the Highlanders in Durban.

As long as we continue to believe we have better players than our opponents and it's only poor coaching that impedes us....we will continue to lose. Right now our wings are past their best, we have no test class centres without Jean, we have inept scrum halves without F du Preez. Our tightheads are a vulnerable bunch. And we have no fetchers as good as Hooper or a player like Warburton.
We have massive player challenges....and when HM has given youngsters a chance they have been at best adequate. JJ, de Allende, Stepfontein, Mvovo, Lambie, Goosen, Serfontein, Hougaard, Lood, Coetzee, Mohoje.....all failed to grab the opportunity. That's not HMs fault.

I beg to differ Sharky. HM arrived at the Bulls in 2000.

1. Habana was still at school.
2. Victor arrived in 2001.
3. Bakkies arrived in 2001 from the Valke.
4. Danie Rossouw was already there from 1999 but still a youngster of 21, he only started playing Super Rugby in 2002.
5. Gary Botha arrived in 2002 but only played CC. His first season of Super Rugby was only in 2004
6. Fourie du Preez only arrived in 2002 and started playing Super Rugby in 2003. Joost was the incumbent scrummie.
7. Johan Roets arrived from the Boland Cavaliers in 2001.

The Bulls were literally in the gutters in HM's early years and there were powers within the BBs setup who wanted him fired after the 2002 fiasco. They did not want to hear about his bunch of youngsters, i.e. Victor, Bakkies, Danie, etc, who according to him (at the time) were going to become great and win the Super Rugby title.

Nah, HM did not land a lucky and cosy little job when he joined the Bulls. He had a tough time. Remember that he himself was a 32 year old youngster, when he got the job, and that in itself was a big ask. Remember that he took over from Eugene van Wyk and that a lot of stalwarts retired or moved to other unions shortly before he took over. Players like Franco Smith, Piet Boer, Nicky van der Walt, Ruben Kruger, etc. He had to rebuild the Bulls set-up and that was his claim to fame. He brought in players like Anton Leonard from SWD, 19 year old Derrick Hougaard from Boland, etc .

 Mozart
Lets look at the following:-
"We have massive player challenges....and when HM has given youngsters a chance they have been at best adequate. JJ, de Allende, Stepfontein, Mvovo, Lambie, Goosen, Serfontein, Hougaard, Lood, Coetzee, Mohoje.....all failed to grab the opportunity. That's not HMs fault."
After writing that we have player deficiencies in certain positions - we got the above statement.   
Lets deal with the player deficiencies first:-
*   One of our main problems under Meyer has been the situation as to Morne Srteyn  a one-dimensional flyhalf with limited abilities - the worst is his lack of ball sense and one asset only - his kicking at goal.    That serious deficiency harmed our backline performances and got worse as time went on.   In the above list you mentioned  Goosen and Lambie.   Goosen had extremely limited game time and Lambie in general was better than Steyn at his best    Steyn always was a poor selection - proven conclusively by  the fact that he cannot even akehi Club starting line-up at present.   Every flyhalf Meyer tried was as all-round players better than Mone Steyn - end of the flyhalf debate.
*    A real problem was the center issue.    Meyer started off with Francois Steyn  and Jean de Villiers.  lets look at  Steyn first.   He was poor in the tests in 2012 and got injured and has not played for the Springboks since then.   At center for the Sharks he was a dead loss in 2013 and 2014 - the worst attacking and defending center in 2014.   So he is not an option at all.   De Villiers never really made the grade at 13 and when moved back to 12 showed some real class in 2012 and 2013.   However, in 2014 he was below par - so the option to play him became problematic and remain so.   In 2014 Serfontein at 12 showed more than De Villiers did - a classic case of age taking its toll.     Meyer than tried a number of players at 13 - with mostly average results.   He then fell back on Jacques Fourie - who showed zero in attacking play.   Meyer then brought in De Allende - who played at 13 for the first time since he left school and showed some abilities attck wise - he played  for just about two games at 13 - so he did not have adequate eprformance time to warrant your assessment.   In essense therre is no rpoblem at 12 - the problem remains at 13 - complicated by Meyer never sticking with players and allowing them to settle in - we had nine players in that position since Meyer became coach - that is the real problem.
*    The scrummie situation always produced problems  - since Hougaard was sub-standard in 2012.   Meyers first reaction was to fall back on Pienaar and in 2013 he brought in Du Preez.   Both were at best average - reputation players whose performances on their return was average.   They are definitely not the answer - they are way past their best performance ages and were no better than reinach.     Problem is that we have a scrummie problem - but neither Pienaar nor  Du Preez somves that problem.   
*    Our main problem amongst the locks was Meyer's selection of locks.   He wanted all the time to select Bakkies Botha and Matfield as his locks and could not get them initially.   When he finally got them they both failed and we have a problem now.   Botha realizing that he is not good enough to play international rugby - announced his retirment - but the poor Matfield is reducing our Tight 5 to  a Tight 4.    As long as we hav Matfield - we will have problems in the Tight 5.
*    Meyer dd not take cognition of the fact that aging players are showing decreasing performances and that leaaves serious question marks as to certain players like Jannie du Plessis.   
*    In some p[ositions Meyer started off badly like selecting players.  Here we have the critical no 7 position.     His first selection was Alberts - who is not a loosies backside.  A poor-performing loosie with no ball skills and no ball protection and recovery abilities.    So when Alberts - who was really nevver a loosie -  was injured he ended up selecting Mohoje at 7 and then went for Burger - the latter being better as an impact player from the bench.    The best loosie combination Meyer eve had was Vermeulen, Coetzee and Louw.  The other player with potential was Arno Botha - but he was laid low by constant injuries.   Alberts annd Mohoje were serious flops.
Unfortunately there are gaps - but Meyer's floundering around did not produce answers - and his lack of consistency and his falling back constantly on reputation players who was sub-par was the main problem - not the players.   
As  long as players are selected on reputation only - especially the older players - we will suffer badly this year and Meyer seems to have lost it all in the process.  

I agree he should have stuck to his guns....he was under huge pressure to play Lambie, Stepfontein and Reinach. He bowed to that pressure and I am sure he regrets it now. That's where Jake gets higher marks, he was under massive pressure to play Watson and he simply refused.

 

 Mozart
Wrong.   Meyer was under no pressure to play anybody - injuries caused him o play players - no pressure was applied by anybody.   
Meyer's main problem has always been -
*   putting himself under pressure by selecting has-beens he was acquainted with in the past without any regard to performance criteria;
*   him making changes only when injuries forced such changes (eg Le Roux); and *   his inconsistency in selections and refusal to stick with players to give them a  half-decent chance to prove themselves.


    

Wrong coaches and players read the press, there was a huge drum beat to introduce the mentioned players....not one of whom ended the NH tour on a positive note. I believe HM would dearly like to have introduced new players of quality. But as we saw in the Super 15, especially the Sharks drubbing in the semi....none of these players were test ready.

 Mozart
The press do not select players - the coach does.    Granted his first choice half-back air was Pollard and Hougaard - both were substandard in the Irish test and  being inconsistent - he then went for Lambie and Reinach - wh o met requirements in the Italian and English tests.   
You blame Reinach and Lambie for the Welsh test loss - but that is totally unrealistic - given the fact that our Tight 5 was the real cause of the problem - they gave away most of the penalties that ultimately cost us the game.   In fact Lambie and Le Roux made some mistakes, but on the day the real problems were elsewhere.          

 Ha-ha-ha - if the forward play was fine - then why all the penalties?   The forwards gave away 7 penalties - basically because they were under pressure.   That was the long and th short of the matter.   
You are simplistic when it comes to player evaluation and find it easy to blame players whom you do not like - and exonerating  players who were sub-par.  

Ceradyne - Differ all you like. You are welcome to your opinion.

What got Meyer his fame though ? Certainly not the early years when he struggled ?

He may have had a hand in acquiring Victor, Bakkies etc. but you have to agree there was some fortune involved in them all turning out to be mega stars at roughly the same time ? I think we are finding out now it had nothing to do with his amazing coaching ability.

No, my opinion is that Meyer had extraordinary luck at the Bulls. I was the first to protest when Pieter 'pap mond' De Villiers got the job ahead of him but right now I dont think he has much aptitude as a world class coach either. His ability however, to throw multiple 7s in a row precedes him.

Unfortunately he has not had much luck at the tables when it comes to the Springboks. No miraculous arrival of a Bakkies, Victor, Danie, Gary, Fourie....just a few average guys that let him down the moment he puts trust in them. He may have a good win ratio, but if we are mature about it, we all know where the concerns lie.

Another thing that precedes him is his gigantic ego. Meyer needs a bunch of 'yes men'. Guys loyal to the task of promoting the world according to King Heyneke Meyer. Bowing at his throne. He has that in Prince Victor, but that is about it. It was no surprise that Frans Steyn left in a huff since I cant imagine there is enough square footage in one room for both of their egos.

There will be a swathe of players writing books after this Heyneke Meyer run. You can be sure of it and there will be some interesting reading. This I assure you.

Like I said, he has been at the helm for a little while now, and inexplicably no miracle men appeared like they did for him at the Bulls. Now he has to actually coach, which he cannot so what does he do ? Go back to the 'old guard'

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out exactly what is going on here.

Derick Hougaard won him a Currie Cup. Wouldn't be surprised to see him back as another straw grabbing exercise.

The biggest loss wont be the world cup title, it will be the waste of these years of the young talent. There are guys that should be in their prime sitting wasting away.

 @Sharky. You are as welcome to your opinion. You were factually wrong about the names that you mentioned though. I am not intending to jump down your throat and make it personal like some others like to do. You said, though: "Jake, much like Heyneke Meyer with the Bulls (except 2 results short) inherited a Sharks team full of talented players." ... and... "All the youngsters, Victor Matfield, Bakkies Botha, Danie Rossouw, Gary Botha, Fourie Du Preez, Johan Roets, Bryan Habana where all primed just at the time he arrived at the Loftus front door. Lucky boy. "


The above creates the impression that those players were there and striking their prime when he arrived there. That is simply not quite accurate. They were all youngsters who were suddenly thrown into the deep end and with a new young coach on top of that. He brought in some of them after he arrived and they were nowhere near their prime when he arrived.

May I remind you that the Bulls had their worst ever season in Super Rugby in HM's third year, i.e. 2002 when they did not win a single game. In fact they only managed to score on single log point in the entire competition. In 2000 they ended 11/12 and in 2001 they came stone last as well. Their rise only started after 2002. In 2003 and 2004 they ended 6th and in 2005 they were in the semi finals as well. In 2006, when it changed to the S14 they were in the first S14 semi finals as well and won it in 2007.

Moz wrote... or a deep seated rugby culture in Natal. To me they looked like a typical Sharks team, albeit a bit better coached.

Ironically Natal's rugby in the past was always exciting and flamboyant...yes they never won a Currie Cup for nearly 100 years...they tended to have light players and not the depth of NT and WP but they sprung surprises...indeed one Currie Cup season they went close. It was not soon after they defeated NT at Loftus with Tony Watson's classic try...probably one of the best ever. That was the turning point and from that they just grew and grew...Ian Mac's term with the Natal Sharks established some of SA's best rugby...the Sharks became contenders and every side respected them.

Sadly they hover between flamboyant and dour at times...they caught the Saffa style rugby rugby disease and followed the rest.

The culture of Natal rugby has never been boring

Ceradyne. I admit I made an error. My wording was inaccurate. You good with that ?

It doesn't change the fact that they all somehow turned out to be mega stars at around the same time. He hasn't exactly been able to duplicate that feat with the Boks now has he ?

This is my opinion. I dont think he is as good a coach as his tenure with the Bulls might suggest. I think he had a lot of things go his way like a group of about 8 players that turned out to all be world class all maturing at the same time. The moment that favor disappears as it has at the Boks, he has resorted to the old guard.

He wont be the first to do so - Pieter De Villiers did exactly the same thing taking virtually an identical team to the 2011 world cup as the one in the photo with the trophy in 2007. If Percy Montgommery wasn't walking wounded, he would probably have been there in 2011 as well.

From his results at the Boks and the freakin mess we are in, my opinion is he was lucky at the Bulls. Extremely, like someone hitting the jackpot on their first spin.

Also, my prediction is Heyneke Meyer will come and go without any major achievements to his name. No rugby championship and no world cup. Which will be about right for him.

sebastienchabal, I am a huge fan of the Sharks but in the last couple of years they have been sloppy to say the least. They often have their opposition or even a whole tournament in the corner, on the ropes but the lack of killer instinct, the lackadaisical, complacent attitude has cost them and will continue to unless something changes. I am not sure Gold was the right guy but perhaps with Jake 'giant ego' White gone, John Smit will take more of an active roll in determining coaching and conditioning outcomes.

The Sharks probably have too many 'chiefs' at the moment with the Du Plessis brothers walking around like they own the show. It was actually good that Keegan left too. I think they need to lose the attitude and get back to rugby. That is my opinion and I am a huge, fanatical (or finatical LOL) Sharks fan.

Fair enough but "deep seated rugby culture" are the wrong words to describe the problem with modern day Sharks rugby which bears very little resemblance to old Natal rugby...just ask some of the old boys that played and watched rugby before professionalism.

Natal rugby always had the culture of do or die...at times quite reckless and cavalier...well that's why you have die-hard fans...the real problem today is that the Sharks today could do with a generous dose of changed attitudes...as I said they blow hot and cold in a space of a few games...Sharky, it's hard being a Sharks fan...lolz, you need a sound heart

It is hard being a Sharks fan. It is tough watching the speed wobbles develop every time just as they round that final corner....I have been at the 'betrayal line' a few times LOL