John Mitchell stuck with a team of Donkeys?

Bulls shame Mitchell
 
The enormous task facing former New Zealand coach John Mitchell at crisis-torn Blue Bulls was exposed in a 51-15 thrashing by Pumas as the South African Currie Cup reached the halfway stage Saturday.
Bulls conceded eight tries and three of the team were yellow-carded against modest opponents in northeastern city Nelspruit. 
It was the fourth consecutive defeat for the Pretoria outfit, leaving them 12 points behind pacesetters and defending champions Free State Cheetahs.
Bulls were recently labelled "big, fat and lazy" by South African rugby author and writer Dan Retief. 
"Some big, fat and lazy Bulls are in for a rude shock when Mitchell marches into Pretoria to crack the whip," he tweeted.
Less than a decade ago, Bulls were the dominant southern hemisphere side, winning three Super Rugby titles in four seasons.
They have also won 23 Currie Cup titles, a record bettered only by Cape Town-based Western Province.
After losing 11 of 15 Super Rugby matches this season, Bulls persuaded Mitchell to quit as coach of the United States and move to Pretoria.
Nollis Marais was demoted to coach of the Currie Cup team, leaving Mitchell to prepare for the 2018 Super Rugby campaign.
But after three straight losses, Bulls sent Marais on "paid leave" and told Mitchell to take over the Currie Cup reins.
The New Zealander could never have imagined his debut would be so humiliating as a Pumas team lacking their star -- ill flanker Chris Cloete -- built a 22-10 half-time advantage.

Some of the Bulls players are not Super Rugby standard, and some perhaps not even Curry Cup standard. Mitchell will surely be looking to offload some of the donkeys and recruit some new players. 
This is not just a case of fitness, some of these players just lack basic rugby skills like the ability to pass or catch.
I think a transfer season happens in October to at least recruit in a few key positions.
The rot has set in for some time now- and donkeys have been favored over players with skills- such as former Bulls rejects- and now Springbok players that moved to other regions, after unsuccessful stints at the Bulls. 

 ".......against modest opponents in northeastern city Nelspruit...."
Dan Retief might find himself wondering why he got such a kak welcome next time he visits Nelspruit.

Just watching the recorded game. The Pumas played well. I see Uungerer the caveman and former Shark scrumhalf is playing for them. 
They look like a fast team with mobile forwards. Beat the slow Bulls at the breakdown and they are stuffed.

 The coach at the Kings transformed a bunch of nobodies into giant killers, why can't Mitchell?

The Kings did have some basic raw material to work with. The players could catch and pass. 

In hindsight the Kings should have been retained and the Bulls should have been given the flick. 

 The Bulls have been sh!t for years now 0 ever since 2014 they have been useless with one of the worst coaches ever in charge,
They lost whatever new players brought to the franchise.   They ruined some players with a game plan ten years out of date and I always thought the Bulls were the grave yard for centers and flyhalfs,   Over the years Morne became a dead loss and it took them two seasons to knock rugby sense out of Pollsrd.   Aimless and poor kicking became the norm,
Just imagine a coaching set up with Matfield as attack coach and the picture will be complete,
Ball skills were never part of their coaching and their passing game was basically an enormous mess.   When a player like Jenkins let a ball fall out of his hands after crossing a tryline without any defender being near him it shows a massive lack in skills.
The players cannot even play for 50 minutes without being able to contribute anything it is clear that the fat took over and fitness vanished  completely from their game and they used the sick Mozart system to get past games.
Are their any useful players that can become the core of the squad for Mitchell?  I assume there may be - but he will first have to get them fit enough to play rugby - then get them passing balls for 3 months - and ultimately have to try and knock the BS they have become accustomed to after years of BS uncoaching  out of their heads.   So lets give Mitchell a year to see what he can achieve before making an assessment.             

Eish Ou Maaikie, I decided to let this one fly because it is no use trying to help you out with the facts but then I read your piece again and, sadly, I couldn't resist. It is no secret that I am not the biggest fan of Frans Ludeke but to call him one of the worst coaches ever? Really? He won the Currie Cup and reach the CC final once as well. He is the only SA coach to have won two SR titles. Now, at first glance it is quite something but it actually makes a mockery of one of your favourite arguments regarding SA rugby and Bulls rugby. You often come up with the story about the so-called 2008 law changes that we could not deal with. I have asked you time and time again to explain those changes and to explain which were the ones that we could not deal with. You have yet to clarify that. Problem is that the chain of events blows your little theory out of the water. You see, my friend, it was actually after those law changes that Ludeke won his two SR titles, i.e. in 2009 and 2010. On to Morne Steyn. Morne Steyn finished his career with the Bulls in 2013, which is the season in which they were the top SA franchise in Super Rugby. He was also the flyhalf in the seat when they won the SR titles under Frans Ludeke. Therefore, if what you are saying, i.e. that they were useless since 2014, you cannot pin it on Morne Steyn, since he was already at Stade Francais at that point. In addition, you keep on talking about them using an outdated game plan yet they were the one SA team who got a grasp on your beloved 2008 law changes. On to Matfield. FFS, I knew you were a bit thick sometimes but I now believe that it is probably terminal. I cannot believe that you have, once again, tried to come up with the idea that Matfield was a disaster at coaching. How many more times are you going to bump your head on that one. Let me try this again. Victor Matfield coached with the Bulls for one year. That year was 2013. In 2013 the Bulls was the top SA franchise, winning the SA conference with Victor Matfield as their attacking and line out coach. In 2014, when they were useless according to you, Victor Matfield was no longer coaching. He was back on the field playing again. Jenkins is not the first player ever to lose a ball with an open tryline and he won't be the last. He is most certainly not the first forward to have done that and he is most certainly not the last forward who will ever do that. Hell, Schalk Burger did it in two different RWC play-offs. In the 2011 QF against Aus and in the 2015 SF against NZ. Once again, I am not saying that every thing is honky dory at the Bulls. I fully agree, and I have said so over and over again, that they are in deep kak and it is going to take some time to fix everything. They have made a lot of crap decisions in the board room which got them where they are. But it is not only their own decisions in the board room that are to blame. Lady Luck showed them her arse as well when SARU strong armed them out of Heyneke Meyer and it is not the loss of HM, himself, that was such a crucial blow. First of all, HM was never replaced. They just dumped all of his responsibilities onto Frans Ludeke. And then SARU on advice of HM ripped out a major part of their coaching setup as well. The lost their forwards coach, their fitness and conditioning coach as well as their defence coach with the stroke of a pen. Ludeke was the one who eventually caught the flack for that. When their game went down the tube, nobody acknowledged that Ludeke had the rugg pulled from under him. Nope, he was a kak coach and that was that. Oh and BTW, at the end of 2103, he also lost his attacking and line out coach because HM wanted him, his line out and attacking coach, back on the field as well. So you see, things are not always black and white. Sometimes there are a lot of grey and other shyte colours inbetween.

 The above is as misleading as Ceradunce normally is.   Lets take the various items under discussion.
So lets start with Ludeke - he inherited a good team that played a certain style of rugby and when the style became obsolete and other teams - especially the NZ teams - he failed to realize that his style will o on and cause constant deterioration in performance.   His claim of fame in 2010 - when the impact of the 2008 law changes was not as evident as later on.   So does a good coach gets effectively gets fired?   That is the real issue here.
Matfield was a sh!t ATTACK COACH - a position he should never have been involved in.   He could not be - but it may be the result of his effective center playing during his  playing career,  However, it is the first time I have ever heard of a forward being an attack coach.
As to dear Morne - by 2014 he was utterly useless.   He was dropped from the Springbok team fired by Meyer of all people twice as Springbok flyhalf in 2014 abd became the resident bench player for Stade Francais.   So what is wrong with my statement on him?
You cannot just blame the Board - they are not the coaching set-up.   Although they ultimately approve the transfers - the ultimate responsibility lies with the coaching team.
They lost top class players like Labuschagne because they were totally devoid of coaching and usage of players. 
 

 The above is as misleading as Ceradunce normally is.   Lets take the various items under discussion.
So lets start with Ludeke - he inherited a good team that played a certain style of rugby and when the style became obsolete and other teams - especially the NZ teams - he failed to realize that his style will o on and cause constant deterioration in performance.   His claim of fame in 2010 - when the impact of the 2008 law changes was not as evident as later on.   So does a good coach gets effectively gets fired?   That is the real issue here.
Matfield was a sh!t ATTACK COACH - a position he should never have been involved in.   He could not be - but it may be the result of his effective center playing during his  playing career,  However, it is the first time I have ever heard of a forward being an attack coach.
As to dear Morne - by 2014 he was utterly useless.   He was dropped from the Springbok team fired by Meyer of all people twice as Springbok flyhalf in 2014 abd became the resident bench player for Stade Francais.   So what is wrong with my statement on him?
You cannot just blame the Board - they are not the coaching set-up.   Although they ultimately approve the transfers - the ultimate responsibility lies with the coaching team.
They lost top class players like Labuschagne because they were totally devoid of coaching and usage of players. 
 

 The above is as misleading as Ceradunce normally is.   Lets take the various items under discussion.
So lets start with Ludeke - he inherited a good team that played a certain style of rugby and when the style became obsolete and other teams - especially the NZ teams - he failed to realize that his style will o on and cause constant deterioration in performance.   His claim of fame in 2010 - when the impact of the 2008 law changes was not as evident as later on.   So does a good coach gets effectively gets fired?   That is the real issue here.
Matfield was a sh!t ATTACK COACH - a position he should never have been involved in.   He could not be - but it may be the result of his effective center playing during his  playing career,  However, it is the first time I have ever heard of a forward being an attack coach.
As to dear Morne - by 2014 he was utterly useless.   He was dropped from the Springbok team fired by Meyer of all people twice as Springbok flyhalf in 2014 abd became the resident bench player for Stade Francais.   So what is wrong with my statement on him?
You cannot just blame the Board - they are not the coaching set-up.   Although they ultimately approve the transfers - the ultimate responsibility lies with the coaching team.
They lost top class players like Labuschagne because they were totally devoid of coaching and usage of players. 
 

Stick to the Bulls Tokkie. Stick to the Bulls. Forget about Morne Steyn and 2014. You were the one commenting on the Bulls and one of the worst coaches ever. Discuss those law changes, what were they and which were the ones that we could not adapt to. If Matfield was such a kak attacking coach, why did the team that he was responsible for come out as the top SA team. Surely if he was so kak, they should not have featured at the top of that SA teams, don't you think? Explain to me how the fact that Ludeke lost the bulk of his coaching team did not have an adverse effect on the results. Come on, for once in your life, back up what your arguments. Why do you say that Matfield was a kak attacking coach if the results prove otherwise. Why can't a forward be an attacking coach? Is it only backline players who does any attacking during a game? Doesn't forwards also attack? Do you really understand what an attacking coach does? Maybe you should start off by explaining your opinion of what the role of an attacking coach is and what his required skills sets are. Then you can proceed and explain to us where Matfield failed in his role and then, to top it off, explain how it happened that the Bulls ended the particular season where they did. All of that despite the fact that they were saddled with a "sh!t ATTACK COACH". The board were the ones who allowed SARU to waltz in and take over their personnel. If the reasons that you mentioned were the reasons why they lost players, then what were the reasons other unions/franchises also lost players and keep on losing them?

 Listen
You make out that coaching at the Bulls were acceptable - yet Ludeke got fiored as a coach.   The bulls got to the play-offs0 in 2013 and hen was beaten by the Brumbies - the Bulls being the besy at the time of a bad lot of SA teams.  
Whwen the SA teams start to improve - especially the Lions and the Sharks - the Bulls they took a dive,  and that deterioration was clearly visible.
I think you must realize that World Rugby 9at the time the IRB) accepted rules to make the game more attractive for the spectators.  That entailed playing a more comprehensive game - not the kick and chase game with aimless kicking being the norm.    the total picture emerged where a more ball-in-hand game emerged.     The Bulls never even triesd top adjust to that rugby strategy,   
You cannot even understand when what I wriote about Matfield as coach and ask why a forward cannot be an attack coach.   Attacking in rugby should eb domne on a comprehensive basis with usage of all players in the team.  If that is not understood a forward with the emphsasis on forward play is not an attacking coach arse.  Matfioeld was such.
As to dear Morne - by 2014 when eh elft the Bulls he was already poor and a failure as a player at flyhalf.   Despite that the clueless Meyer brought him back to play at flyhalf for the Springboks in 2-014 and after the Perth test Meyer never used him until he played on the bench in a few WC matches,  n If you are too stupid to realize that hwhatever skills he had was coached out of him and that he ended up as bench player for Stade Francais as a result then nobody can open up your closed braincell as all. .      

 Listen
You make out that coaching at the Bulls were acceptable - yet Ludeke got fiored as a coach.   The bulls got to the play-offs0 in 2013 and hen was beaten by the Brumbies - the Bulls being the besy at the time of a bad lot of SA teams.  
Whwen the SA teams start to improve - especially the Lions and the Sharks - the Bulls they took a dive,  and that deterioration was clearly visible.
I think you must realize that World Rugby 9at the time the IRB) accepted rules to make the game more attractive for the spectators.  That entailed playing a more comprehensive game - not the kick and chase game with aimless kicking being the norm.    the total picture emerged where a more ball-in-hand game emerged.     The Bulls never even triesd top adjust to that rugby strategy,   
You cannot even understand when what I wriote about Matfield as coach and ask why a forward cannot be an attack coach.   Attacking in rugby should eb domne on a comprehensive basis with usage of all players in the team.  If that is not understood a forward with the emphsasis on forward play is not an attacking coach arse.  Matfioeld was such.
As to dear Morne - by 2014 when eh elft the Bulls he was already poor and a failure as a player at flyhalf.   Despite that the clueless Meyer brought him back to play at flyhalf for the Springboks in 2-014 and after the Perth test Meyer never used him until he played on the bench in a few WC matches,  n If you are too stupid to realize that hwhatever skills he had was coached out of him and that he ended up as bench player for Stade Francais as a result then nobody can open up your closed braincell as all. .      

Nice try but no cigar. What were the changes that was made to the laws and what was it about them that the Bulls and the rest of SA rugby could not adapt to? Bear in mind that the Bulls won the S14 the year after the law changes, and the next year as well. Bear in mind also that SA won the TN the year after the law changes and we beat the B&IL in that same year. And that was with a plank like Peter de Villiers as coach. Come on mate. This is your chance to get me to stop asking you about those law changes. I have been at you heels about it for more than five years after all and in five years you haven't managed to answer those simple questions. That was also a nice try about the attack coach but you have still failed to address what exactly his role is and why it has to be a backline player and definitely not a forward. Maybe I should help you with a little hint. Try establishing what the principles of attack in rugby are. OK, I will go one step further and name them for you. They include win possession, get go forward support, achieve continuity and apply pressure. Now maybe that would help you to get to the role of the atttack coach in rugby and hopefully get to an explanation why Matfield was, or was not a kak attack coach. Once again, Morne Steyn left the Bulls at the time when they were at the top and I still cannot see how you can hold him responsible for what happened in his absence. It is almost like the time when Morne was replaced against the ABs with the scores level and you blamed him because we lost the game after he left the field and was replaced by your golden boy. One thing that I would like to add though is that as soon as you find yourself in a corner you start typing/spelling like a five year old and keep calling the person you are talking to stupid.

 Ceradunce
Just read the article L-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/premiership/11322829/Change-the-rules-to-stop-scourge-of-negative-rugby.html
I know you are stupid but maybe - just maybe - just maybe - you will understand the impact pertaining to the rules implemented in 2008,   I do not blame you if you don't - Ludeke did not understand the impact and Meyer said that he cannot implement because the SA players does not have the required ball skils.
What does that tell you about the recent donkey-brained coaches mentioned.   

 Ceradunce
Just read the article L-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/premiership/11322829/Change-the-rules-to-stop-scourge-of-negative-rugby.html
I know you are stupid but maybe - just maybe - just maybe - you will understand the impact pertaining to the rules implemented in 2008,   I do not blame you if you don't - Ludeke did not understand the impact and Meyer said that he cannot implement because the SA players does not have the required ball skils.
What does that tell you about the recent donkey-brained coaches mentioned.   

 Ceradunce
Just read the article L-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/premiership/11322829/Change-the-rules-to-stop-scourge-of-negative-rugby.html
I know you are stupid but maybe - just maybe - just maybe - you will understand the impact pertaining to the rules implemented in 2008,   I do not blame you if you don't - Ludeke did not understand the impact and Meyer said that he cannot implement because the SA players does not have the required ball skils.
What does that tell you about the recent donkey-brained coaches mentioned.   

My liewe bliksem but you are going to great lengths to avoid answering the questions. Even as far as scouring the internet for something/anything to help you in your ducking and diving. WTF has that article got to do with what I asked of you. I mean that bloody article was written seven years after your so-called 2008 law changes. Maybe if I repeat the issues, you might get it this time. This is what I wanted to know:

1. What were the changes that was made to the laws and what was it about them that the Bulls and the rest of SA rugby could not adapt to?Bear in mind that the Bulls won the S14 the year after the law changes, and the next year as well. Bear in mind also that SA won the TN the year after the law changes and we beat the B&IL in that same year. And that was with a plank like Peter de Villiers as coach. Come on mate.
   




2. What exactly is the role of the attack coach and why has it got to be a back-line player and definitely not a forward. Let me remind you again of the hint that I gave you, i.e. "Try establishing what the principles of attack in rugby are. OK, I will go one step further and name them for you. They include win possession, get go forward support, achieve continuity and apply pressure".
   




3. Further to the above one, then point out "why Matfield was, or was not a kak attack coach".
   

As soon as we have the above three points addressed and out of the way, we can have a nice discussion about the article you quoted because it has no bearing on the 2008 law changes. Another hint why I say that. It has more to do with the policing of the laws, rather than the laws itself. 

 Is there even donkeys in SA?

Why would players bother to a SA franchise involved in SR when they can try their luck with a high quality bridge to NH like the newly added clubs to a european competition?

That NZ coach was lured into a trap. Better for him to do the same and try his luck with european competiton involved sides .

Good morning Mike.

 Have you read the above article - stooge?  You can easily get all the information if you google 2008 rugby law changes - but I do not think you will understand wh at it is about.    

Oh believe me, I have already checked up on the law changes long ago. When they came out at the that time, TBH. And, just to burst your bubble even more, the actual law changes only came out in May 2009 after some of it went on trial in the 2008 SH competitions and some in the 2008/9 European competitions. In addition, many of the 2009 law changes were actually originally law clarifications from as early as 2006, that were only written into law in 2009. Go check for yourself. And, btw, if you need to Google "2008 rugby law" changes to try and find them, it just shows that you are hopelessly lost and have no is idea how these things work. What you need to do is to go to the "Laws of the Game" site and then navigate to law clarifications. That will give you a complete picture as to which union asked for the clarification, what was their reasoning behind it, what was the subsequent reasoning by the IRB/WR and what was their final clarification. It will also indicate whether it is only a clarification of an existing law or if the existing law was indeed changed or scrapped or scrapped and replaced or to be put to trial by means of ELVs or whatever other steps were taken. You see, the reason I kept on asking you which laws were changed and how and where we failed to adapt to them, was because I knew that you have not known how this works, hence your constant ducking and diving and pussy footing around the issue. Like they say in Afrikaans: "Jy het 'n klokkie hoor lui, maar jy weet nie waar sit die bel nie". You pinned your hopes on some article, six/seven years after the law changes, hoping that it would confuse me into not noticing that you are talking kak again. Now be a good man and go look up the law changes and address my questions. A little help...... if you look on the left hand side of the rugby laws page, you'll see drop down menus for laws by year. If you then start with 2006 law clarifications, and work through them from there on upwards, you'll see which ones led to eventual 2009 law changes. Good luck with your quest and give me a shout if it becomes too much for you or if you still do not understand how it works.

 fOK thanks for the above info - but it would have helped if Myer, Ludeke and yourself as well as your fellow village idiots could understand the impact of those laws and adjust the playing style to make sure the laws are effectively dealt with so as to benefit the team to actual advantage.  
The coaches and village idiots referred to mentioned kept on ignoring the impact and you preach about the changes - the changes are approved subject to a trial period and the changes was implemented ion 2008 on a trial basis and applied in all cases in 2009.
Now for the donkey brain ones here,   The changes was ignored by Meyer and completely so because he -
*  prefer players he was familiar with insofar as selection is concerned; and*  Meyer made the classical statement that SA players lack the necessary ball skills to implement revision in their game plan.
The above pout us behind the rest of the world and the results became clear.  Most teams did not adjust fully to a different approach and the results of a change approach left the rest of the rugby playing countries staggering.  Actually the NZ team coaches actually made the major changes after the 2011 WC.  The NH teams was slow on the uptake and the problems hit home by 2015 WC - when the only teams in the semi's  was SH  teams.
The NH  have since started to make adjustments and the benefits are already showing.
However, Meyer was unable to do anything - because the players he selected was set in their own ways and could not adjust to anything new - basically with the exception of a few have had serious deficiencies in ball skills and the fact that Meyer stuck with them was scandalous.  In that category the examples of Meyers backline and insistence on paceless loosies are typical.
Meyer was horrified about the way the Lions played the game and he decided to exclude them from the 2015 WC squad - not a single Lions player was selected - even though the idiot coach selected a string of hospital ward cases.  .     The upshot was the series of losses in tests in 2014 and 2015 - the nadir reached in the Japan test in 2015.
However, ignorance is bliss and the statement to play "traditional" SA rugby is even now heard from BSters on the site.
Just to add - there is no difference in playing style between what Coetzee produced in 2016 and w Meyer did in 2014/15.   Coetzee was even worse than Meyer in team selection and ended up with a clueless core of senior players like Louw, Steyn and a few other dinosaurs.
 

What did Heyneke Meyer have to do with either the Boks or the Bulls in 2008. He was involved with Leicester Tigers at the time and then with a private company.