Jake White's record

Against the major rugby playing nations, his only respectable win ratio was against England at 71%

It slides thereafter - Oz 55%, Ireland 50%, NZ 33% and France 25% - my conclusion is that he was an average coach, whose status was bolstered by a WC victory

Dave the stats are misleading. Here's a better way of looking at things

* In 2004 Jake's objective was the TN......he won.

* In 2005 his objective was defending the TN, which we did up until minute 78 of the final TN test....the narrowest miss possible.

* In 2006 the objective was the TN tempered by building for the RWC. Politics destroyed the Boks in 06. For example in that big loss to Oz ,the players were totally demoralized. They knew Jake's position was hanging by a political  thread. The poor results almost all came in this disrupted year and SARU has to shoulder the blame.

* In 2007 his objective was the RWC, the biggest prize of all.....which he won.

For 50% of his tenure, we took on all the rugby nations who counted, and won and we had a  narrow miss in one year. It's a brilliant record of accomplishment. When you have a manager who sets himself the toughest objectives and attains them more often than his peers, you have a manger to cherish.

Jake saved Bok rugby....end of story.

Does not wash with me Moz, I did not rate Jake and the stats vindicate that. Moz how do the stats I have quoted stack up to him taking on the rugby nations that counted and winning - it says the opposite. He was only in the green with England and Oz, and Oz was only just.

67% of tests lost to NZ is shocking as is 75% to France

Well any record has to be viewed against trend. Since 1995 we have a losing record against NZ and Australia. So take your Aussie point of just getting a winning record of 55%. It doesn't sound very impressive. But for the whole period since 95 our winning record against Aus was 46%. Take out Jake's tenure and it drops to 43%.

So Jake raised our winning ratio against Oz by a full 12% points, from 43% to 55%. That's statistically significant.....and he did it with nothing but disruption from SARFU.

Any way you cut it, Jake was a step above all our coaches since Kitch.

Nope Mallett was better with a 71% record. Mallett was a far better coach, the guy has a brilliant rugby brain and commands plenty of respect out there.

What can be said of Jake's record against NZ and France?

Mostly what I make of the record against France is your number is wrong. His win ratio was 33%, with one drawn. The second thing I'd say is four tests at the end and beginning of seasons, are not enough to be statistically significant....in other words this number seems random to me. 

With regard to NZ I would probably say NZ rugby was far stronger in 2004 to 2007 than it was in 1998 to 2000.

The third thing I'd say is Mallett started with a fully formed team handed to him by Carel du Plessis. Jake started with a whole bunch of nothing from Destroyli.

The fourth thing I'd say is Jake ended on a high....Mallett started on a high courtesy of Carel.....and ended on a low.

2004 was an excellent year. He humbled three of our great foes in a matter of months. Nobody expected us to win back to back tests against Ireland, but we did. We hammered a combined PI side that nearly beat both NZ and Australia. We were a minute away from away wins in both Australia and New Zealand. In fact, we outscored NZ 3 tries to 1 in that away test; when last has that happened? We also gave NZ an absolute thrashing at home, unfortunately we let them off the hook with 20 points in what should have been a hammering of epic proportions.

2005 was another great year for the Boks. We won our first series over the French in many years, hammered Australia three times that year and broke the All Blacks fresh from their destruction of the Lions. We were seconds from winning back to back TNs titles, the only time in our history we have been in a position to do such a thing. Unfortunately Pretorius was injured and we had a half back combo that were not great kickers, we ended up just outside our 22 and NZ scored a very fortuitous try.

2006 started off very badly with Schalk breaking his neck. We had a nightmare string of injuries to Bakkies, Jean, Habana, Paulse, Monty, Jaco, Pretorius, Butch, Juan, CJ, Van Niekerk, Wannenburg, Albert, Chiliboy, Steenkamp to name but a few. It was also the year that the Watsons sunk their teeth into Jake and the politicos tighten their grip on him. The team was very unsettled for most of the year as we genuinely faced the prospect of having a new coach by the end of the year! That said, amid the disasters, we broke England's hold on us, won back-to-back tests over Australia and New Zealand, fine-tuned our defensive systems and broke the reliance over individual players.

2007 was another fine year. With many of our players fresh and ready to go we won the World Cup. In the TNs we unfortunately lost Smit and the lack of his presence showed in a very tight test against NZ were they won with bench. We had a make-shift side on the away tour and faired far better than most expected! We led Australia 17-0 at one stage, and held NZ for 67minutes at 13-6 before a late rally sealed the game. Jake's plans were proven to be correct as we were the best conditioned side at the World Cup.

That's the reality of the situation. Jake did what Peter and Mallett couldn't do with greater depth of talent and more settled squads. Mallet had two good years, and to be honest, the 1998 NZ side was the worst in the countries history; they folded in all their TNs tests and were pretty dire outside of that. Australia were obviously inferior to us until they roped in that League defence coach. By 1999 NZ and AUS stepped up and Mallett had no answer. By the end of his tenure we were playing the frantic attacking game that Peter had us do in 2008! He had lost the plot completely and was unable to keep up with his peers. Jake had three great years and even in his poor 2006 he made important changes and developed from it. No Dave, no matter which way you look at it, Jake is, to date, the best Bok coach we have ever had.

Something you fail to address is the fact that when Jake took over, all top sides were hammering us. Nobody took the Boks seriously, nobody feared us. It was the lowest slump in our rugby history! He had to BUILD a winning mentality with very little and EARN respect from our opponents. Jake ended up as one of the most respected coaches in world rugby. That respect transcends the sport as even in other sports like League and American Football people are aware of him in those coaching circles! Name one South African that has come close to that Dave. Just one. To add further egg to your face the IRB recognise his coaching ability and welcomed him into the fold. He was also a strong enough leader to keep a lid on Bakkies et al - he who had a squeeky clean record of discipline from 2004 to 2007 - and was man enough to drop his good friend schalk as warning to clean up his act. There was no dirty Bok behaviour under him and it went a long way to earning respect in the game. All these things have been tainted by Peter now. Meyer must bring back that honor.
 

 I did some comparisons last year against Jake and Piet De'villiers and if you compare the two and measure the lossess against major and stronger teams it is quite astounding. Jake had a modest upward curve then dropped in 2006 but then rockeded in 2007. Where as Devilliers dipped, whent up in 2009 and then just crashed to take it below the level when jake first started.

Also what I liked about Jake is that he made some brave decisions when it counted, in 2005 we got hammered by Aus, but that prompted jake to get rid of Jaco, i tried to drop kick the ball van der westhuizen, De Wet Barry, Marius Joubert, Breyton Paulse to name a few and switch them out with Jean De Villiers, Jacque Fourie etc. 

If you look at the players he unearthed during his time and the development projects he had in place, I would say that he was an far better coach than what people give him credit for. Remember when he played a no named Tim Dluani who became one of the bulls favourite flanker and only due to tragic kneck accident had to retire from rugby. Then there was Bryan Habana, Frans Steyn, JP Pietersen to name a few. Jake gave his all to try and meet political and SARU demand. He started a programme to try and fast track young black talent with the like such as Jonghi Nokwe being the benificiarries and don't forget Chilli Ralapele.

My point is Jake has a great history for unearthing talent which none of the other coaches has proven. Yes he may have some flaws in his coaching but he proved that he can get better. Just remember before he became a test coach he was only coaching the under 21 boks and took on the challenge. 

 Moz, Carel was worse than Straueli and the stats have France at 25%. You cant start making excuses about when tests were played or how strong the Kiwi's were. The Kiwi's are always strong and every Bok coach faces the same issues.......Mallett and Kitch dealt with them in a better way and produced better results than Jake - its a fact

"The Kiwi's are always strong"

The All Black's of 1998 won only two tests. The All Blacks of 2005 and 2006 are the best in the countries history. The Wallabies of 2004-2006 were stronger then that of 1997 and 1998. The Aussies of 1995 were a mess laden with aging players and injuries. You see? No perspective at all Dave.

 Nothing to do with perspective at all. All I see is you and Moz making excuses for Jake's average record......if its not that he had a weak squad of players, its that the opposition were at their peak - what utter bullshit. Next you will be telling me the Boks never had an easier ride to the WC final under Jake???

I don't need to make excuses for Jake, as he has in fact a very impressive record. And that World Cup, we played the form sides in the most physically demanding campain any side has had to endure (except the time constraints for Fiji and Nambia last year when facing Wales). Those are clear as day facts.

 Man you do make it up.......suddenly the South Sea Island sides are world beaters.......give me a break. Nothing impressive about Jakes record of 25% to France, 33% to NZ, 50% to Ireland and 55% to Oz - I call that failure in the highest regard.......no papering over those cracks at all

So you deny that Fiji had a better game than both Australia and New Zealand? Do you deny that Samoa and Tonga gave good accounts of themselves? Do you deny that England were the last team we would have wanted playing finals rugby? Do you deny that Argentina was one of the best teams in the competition? Honesty is required here. Answer each of those.

Do you honestly believe Fiji had a better game than Oz and NZ - how insulting. Samoa gave a good account of themselves, but one has to place that in context, they were never going to challenge for top honours ever.......good account of themseleves ranked outside the top 8. Nope the last sides you want to play in a final are NZ, Oz and France in that order. England were an average side that year. Argentina was not one of the best sides in the comp. Hand on heart - no bullshit required

You have just sullied your credibility Dave. Fiji had a much better QF than both Australia or New Zealand. Australia were humiliated and New Zealand played to a stand-still. Argentina were a sensation, with a campaign so good that it boosted their bid for Tri-Nations honors. England of course are the perfect fit for a Finals. Their kind of rugby is not easily negated in a do-or-die fixture. The lengths you will go to in slinging mud at Jake... honestly Dave.

 Nope anyone will tell you SA had the easier ride to the final, anyone will tell you Fiji and co are not fit enough to compete with Oz or NZ's B sides and same goes for Argentina in the pecking order - that will never change.

Its not about me slinging mud at Jake its about all the exuses you come up with to protect your hero - he was an average coach with a record to prove it. You are big on stats - counter 25%, 33%, 50% and 55% - go on

South Africa edged an absorbing clash with the exciting Fijians 37-20 to book a World Cup semi-final place.

The Springbok forwards laid a platform for total domination and South Africa romped to a 20-6 lead in Marseille, but the Fiji backs had other ideas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/7029687.stm

South Africa survived a brutal first-half battering by Samoa as they opened their World Cup campaign with an impressive victory in Paris.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6978833.stm
 

Argentina powered to a convincing victory over France to claim third place in the Rugby World Cup on Friday.

The Pumas, the revelation of the tournament, ran in five tries to snuff out French hopes of revenge for their opening-match defeat last month.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/7051512.stm

Ask anybody? No thanks, I don't take any old sod for a credible source Dave.
 

 and you are expecting me to bow down in awe over Bok victories over Samoa and Fiji and the Argies beating France?

I think the clearer picture is how poor Jake was in scraping through against Samoa and Fiji and then sneaking past a Pom side in complete disarray in the final. More to the point I think. Good old Jake true to form, or should I say lack there of. Wow the mighty Fiji and Samoa, sides that have never beaten us in their entire history!!!!

So you'd rather we played against the hapless Aussies and All Blacks rather than teams who put up a good showing? Very strange.

 Are you seriously telling me any rugby nation would rather play Oz and NZ than Fiji and Samoa in a WC.......oh boy, you really are easy pickings aren't you? Give it a break Card, your hole is getting too deeeeeep!!

I buried you alive long ago Dave. The assumption was that New Zealand was always going to be in the final, that they in fact had the World Cup wrapped up in advance. That never happened as they were a long way from being anything like Championship material. Australia on the otherhand were humiliated by that England side you said was average. And I do mean humiliated. But be that as it may, you are entitled to your opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 Bury me, you will never. Fiji and Samoa vs NZ and Oz - no contest and every single rugby player and supporter will tell you that. Much like those same folk will tell you what a great player Bismark is. You do follow a warped pattern Card, but hey ho - each to their own buddy

Speak of the devil, Bismarck had another howler last week. Let his side down badly ;)

We were in a terrible state in that Final and SA barely scraped the win. Penalties that should have gone England's way failed to materialise for some strange reason.

Peter Richards played out the last 10 mins or so on the Flank, a Scrum Half and the smallest man in the Squad. Wilkinson played the entire tournament on one leg, as his ankle injury was so bad and Jason Robinson had his shoulder dislocated by ( an unpunished ) late/high tackle by Burger...I could go on and use other injuries as an excuse for failure.

And still that side with their great Coach couldn't score a try against us !!! :)

Get real Becs. The trip on Butch after he was clear for a try? should have been red and a penalty try alone. The shove on Monty? The repeated collapsed scrums by England in their 22 towards the end of the first half? Monty played for most of that game with torn knee ligaments. Not only did he not complain like Wilkinson (as a kid I ran the 400m with a badly sprained ankle, no complaints, I guess Saffers are made of sterner stuff) he made all his kicks and was faultless throughout that game. The best england came up with was a very lucky break that was thwarted by Roussouw. Game, set, match. The best Bok coach to this date won what he deserved.

Becs....suck on this:

PARIS, 14 September - A polished and ruthless South Africa scored 36 unanswered points as IRB Rugby World Cup holders England saw their grip on the trophy loosen.

South Africa were superior in every part of the field, consigning England to a first blank scoreline in their world cup history.

Jason Robinson was one of the few bright sparks for England, catching a series of high balls and providing most of his side's scant penetration. But it wasn't enough to counter the talent and nous of the Springboks, and just 57 minutes had passed when Robinson left the field, injured and bloodied by his efforts.

Behind 20-0 at the break after a masterclass from South Africa scrum half Fourie du Preez, the second half began with more bad news for England as Percy Montgomery added three points from a penalty. Then a Robinson-inspired move saw veteran Ben Kay presented with a golden opportunity to put Paul Sackey through on the left wing, but he tamely kicked straight into grateful South African arms.

Montgomery put his third penalty in the bag, to add to his two conversions, on 55 minutes. Then, England suffered a hammer blow just as a try was in their sights.

Acres of space opened up on the left as England worked the ball out to Robinson. But just as he started off on his run, with Josh Lewsey on the outside, he pulled up and hobbled to a standstill clutching his left hamstring. He was helped off the field, shirt spattered in blood from a wound above his right eye, to be replaced by Mathew Tait.

Without their star player, England fell further behind. Francois Steyn jinked out to the right and offloaded to du Preez, who had a simple task in putting JP Pietersen through for his second try. Montgomery converted to make it 33-0 and keep his 100 per cent conversion and penalty record, kicking a further penalty a minute from time to rack up 18 points from the boot.

Du Preez's intelligent kicking caused England all sorts of problems in the first half after South Africa took a lead through Juan Smith's sixth-minute try and Montgomery's conversion. Then Steyn struck a penalty to make it 10-0.

South Africa had England pegged back for most of the half and an infringement from prop Matt Stevens allowed Montgomery to kick a penalty and make it 13-0 four minutes from the whistle.

Seconds later, Pietersen finished a length-of-field break to leave England already staring defeat in the face.

 

 So Card, what happend to the mighty Jake and his Brumbies against the Reds today?????????

Whats that 6 games and 3 losses now. 50% win ratio sounds about par for Jake

Congrats to the Reds, they played a tactically astute game. The first side to better the Brumbies so far this season in what was an entertaining derby. Still, not bad for a coach that has the most inexperienced Super rugby side in the competition's history having lost 16 regulars of last year! So far he has discovered Mogg from nowhere, Hooper, Tomane and a few others. He has done something that no other coach has done. You may not like it, but the Aussies are mightily impressed by Jake!

 Would that be the Hooper he left on the bench - great tactics by mighty Jake......so you reckon the Aussies are impressed with a 50% win ratio do you - where you suck that from. The Jake slide is starting - true to form really

Actually Jake still wants to have a look at a few players before negotiating contracts. He needs to decide who to keep and who to let go. So one of his objectives is to test the strength of his squad, some of them have never actually played one game for the Brumbies and are relative unknowns. It needs to be done. And yes, the Aussies are very happy with him. Like it or not, no other South African coach could have got this side playing so well on the back of practically nothing. It's not just trying to improve a side, it's starting quite literally from zero. A bigger task than the Boks.

 Ha ha good one lets experiment during the S15, good call Jake.......no its probably more likely that good old Jake cocked it up completely and decided he did not need a true fetcher in the Hooper mould, he would rather play a Schalk kind of player at 6.........ring a bell?

"Congrats to the Reds, they played a tactically astute game. The first side to better the Brumbies so far this season in what was an entertaining derby. Still, not bad for a coach that has the most inexperienced Super rugby side in the competition's history having lost 16 regulars of last year! So far he has discovered Mogg from nowhere, Hooper, Tomane and a few others. He has done something that no other coach has done. You may not like it, but the Aussies are mightily impressed by Jake! "

Well said.....I would know....I happen to live here!

 Ah so now the Aussies are starting to praise the average are they......the Brumbies supporters are happy with a 50% win ratio to date. I take the Aussies also believ Bob Marley is lurking on Bonzi beach????

say Dave, you're sounding like an arrogant clown, trouble is you're not funny. You're line on Jake is predictable, it hasn't changed over the years......it's obvious how much you hate him. Your efforts to get others to do likewise is not meeting with any success...or haven't you noticed. Average coach....average coach average coach....Blah Blah Blah!!!!!!

And yes the Ozzies are singing Jake's praises.......on a weekly basis nogal. I know it won't meet with your satisfaction but then who gives a fuck what a bitter and arrogant dope thinks and believes? End of!

OBTHW....it's Bondi Beach...FFS, not Bonzi.

 Denny get this into your stupid fat head. I dont hate Jake I dont know the bloke - I just dont rate him as a coach and his record backs me up or have you not been reading - or more to the point - can you read. As for the Aussies singing his praises with a 50% win ratio - either they are stupid or you are just lying - I'll go with you lying i bet

Tell you what, I'd rather be stupid and a liar than an arrogant, bitter and  hate driven moron who squeals for the support of others. I've read all the things you've had to say about Jake over the years, from comments about his morality and recently about his  persona.....and your incessant non stop bleating about him being an average coach over three MB's over many years. It's been tiresome.  Most times it's as if you're desparate to be heard. But like I've said, who the fuck cares what an arrogant, self opinionated,bitter and desparate moron believes.....best it's simply ignored.

 Why dont you prac what you preach you stupid twit.......if my posts are so tiresome, dont read them its that simple......but then again we are talking you here and you are pretty stupid. 

But while on the topic of average Jake, please kindly point out a single post where I have canvassed for support in my anti Jake, you bloody liar?

And given you are too stupid to comprehend what I tell you 3 or 4 times - here goes a 5th. I dont hate Jake, I dont know the man, get that into your stupid head. I just dont rate him as a coach, get it? Also there is no way the Aussies are as stupid as you are and would praise a man with current a 50% record - you are just lying to defend your hero Jake. Stick to the facts, fabrication carries no weight. How's Bob Marley on BONZI beach?????

"Jake has beeen key to success"
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/rugby-gold/brumbies-coach-jake-white-has-been-the-key-to-success-says-pat-mccabe/story-fnbytuqz-1226309689984

"Jake the rebuilder, he can fix it"
http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/08/02/jake-the-re-builder-can-he-fix-it/

Spiro Zavos - "I like Jake White’s explanation about bringing in the good old boys who created the glory days and who were, in my view, responsible for the collapse of the franchise in recent years. I suppose White is used to dealing with tricky political (in rugby terms) situations with his days as the successful Springboks coach and the quota problems with black players. You would think he will need all his skills to get the Brumbies back on track again. He has been a successful coach at every level he has coached, and this is an important element of his chances of being successful with the Brumbies. What he and the Brumbies franchise need now is for the board to butt out of how the team is selected and run. For my part, I am happy to give him the benefit of the doubt about his appointment in the expectation of what he did with the Springboks he might be able to do with the Brumbies.

Wycliff Paul - "Brumbies now a serious threat"
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/brumbies-now-a-serious-threat-paul-20120325-1vsjo.html

"White seen as Brumbies savior"
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/rugby/white-seen-as-brumbies-saviour/story-e6frey4i-1226032931915

I read Australian forums regularly and I could quote easily fifty positive posts that detail why they believe Jake is a great coach. Denny has therefore been vindicated, and not the liar you say he is. As mentioned, he does live in Australia and knows better than all of us these facts. Were I wrong in what I said he would have rightfully corrected me.
 

Thanks Aristrokat, I could very easily have referenced those comments myself but from past experiencies I know for a fact it would prove fruitless. Anyone who prides himself on arrogance is a waste of space in my very humble opinion. Further to the opinions on Jake there is a weekly program dedicated to discussing rugby, it's very similar to the Saffa one "Boots and All" and is hosted by ex players like Phil Kearns and Rod Kafer etc Kafer himself you might remember played for the Brumbies, truth be told they have total respect and admiration for what Jake has thus far achieved with the Brumbies and if you put that into perspective as to where the Brumbies were over the last few years and  how Jake has created some measure of direction with them then it's not hard to understand why they wax lyrical about him.