Kragdadigheid has a long, failed history

Back in the 60s WP was supposedly not tough enough to take on the Bools. Till Jannie Elngelbrecht ran them to bits with his arm in a sling. Later Gerhard Muller ran right over the Bools monster 8th man to put them away.

In 1999 we were going to crush the Aussies with our monster pack.....they simply broke us open via Horan and the adminstered the coups de grace, via our specialty, the drop.

In 2003 our monster pack with Rautenbach and Bezuidenhout and Danie on the flank were going to bury the much smaller ABs. Spencer had a field day running us ragged and Sommerville showed Bezuidenhout scrumming isn't all bulk. By the end of the gamne he was taking time to explain the finer points to a baffled Bezuidenhout.

Size is no substitute for skill. We have been down this path many times, never succesfully. Our great teams, like the one that won the RWC in 07, had balance of speed, size and skill. Would Monty make a Heyneke team, I doubt it. Did he win the RWC for us, you betcha!

Moz there is a huge difference, in those days those big lumbering forwards had no skill at all.......the game has long moved on. A prop nowdays has to be able to run, pass and tackle as a secondary role to his primary role of being a scrumming hard nut. 

Rautenbach and Bezuidenhout were piss poor rugby players in the true sense, hell even Martin Johnson falls into that category and he was about not that long ago, thats how much the game has moved on.

Size is not a substitute for skill. The modern requirement is size and skill, not one without the other

Saffex

You are right about size and skill- but how much of that do we have in the present team?   If we look at the team selection of Meyer - I would equate the following having size - but very little skill:

     Kirchner, Pietersen, Meisiekind, Morne Steyn, Spies and Alberts

That makes five of the starting line up and 1 bench player.    What i refer to as very little skill will be disputed and I need to explain a bit further.    Kirchner is not the best under the high ball and is not really up to standard as a defender - Joe Pitersen is much better in all fields than Kirchner since he has a more advanced skills level .    Pietersen is a slow coach and when he played at center it was evident that he has no passing game to speak of.   Also a major problem in defence.   Meisiekind had to suffer for many years in respect of the half backs and cosnequently he made no real impression as an attacking center.   Problems  with defence as well.    Morne - one of the best goal kickers ever, but a poor service to the outside backs and deficiencies in the kicking game, a liability in defence and no real attacking skills.    Spies - capacity in ball handling and carrying has gone backwards and attack is virtually non-existent, whilst his  defence is questionable.   Alberts has virtually no ball-handlking skills and was the main reason for the Sharks loss against the Lions - he was replaced at half time - becaue of an utterly poor display,    Far too slow to defend properly.   

 Now about Mozart statement about Montgomery.   Meyer would never have picked him at full back despite his advanced skills level.   He was a 100 times the full back Kirchner would ever be.   Joe Pietersen is a replica of Montgomery and he is out in the cold.   Let me just say one thing about the two.     Pietersen has definitely the skills and is top class in defence.   He is 1 centimeter shorter than Monty and three kilos lighter.   Huge difference.    One other non-rugby thing - he has an advanced taste on the part of the ladies - his wife is fantastically beautiful - a source of much jealousy on the part of all males.

On the positive side - some of the deficient -skills level players I mentioned would probably not have been in the team if injured players were available - so that is one pointer in favour of Meyer.    In this category I put Morne Steyn, Spies and Alberts, as well as Meisiekind.    By the way I tthink Olivier has one element of Percy in him.    When looking at the particualrs of Monty - I came across one classic remark by Monty.   He said at one stage "If somebody messes around with my hair - I will use stronger gel".    Is that the case with Mesiekind too?:)  

Yes I think Dr Moz is putting up a paper tiger here. As sapster rightly says ( this has to be a red letter day!!) its size and skill that is the ideal. Dr Moz please read my post re Coetzee being the real deal and get up to speed!! Hahahahahahaha)

Joe Pietersen is a better full back than Kirchner. In fact so is Daniller the 100 plus Kg Cheetahs fullback who plays consistently well in all facits of the game but cant shrug off a slow start to his career and playing for an unfashionable franchise. If you want size he is the guy. He also breaks tackles and is dangerous on attack and has an enormous boot. Underrated in my book

Joe is a very accomplished number 15 and if we were going to have one small tyke in it could be him. However I still l dont like small fullbacks as one wonders just when they will be outmuscled and lose control etc. On balance I would go for Pietersen before Kirchner. Joe also has a prodigious boot. He has a smart rugby brain. I think he weighs in at 87 kg which is not fatally small. H eals ohas tha trare gify of being able to set up his wings - remember how he did that consistently for Sereli the Fijian wingwho played for WP

Mike once again you are speaking complete nonsense. All those players have skill some more than others. None of these players would have played a single test if they had no skill, get a grip man.

JP for a start has plenty of skill hence the number of tests he has played, great feet, vision and eye for an opportunity. Kirchner has a lovely balance to his running, good swerve and step. Olivier is the same.

As for Beeno, man oh man what a load of kak, Daniller better than Zane - bwhaahaaaa. Daniller is in the same league as Morne, ponderous plodders end of. The guy is bog ordinary

Saffex - when are you going to take off those blinkers and start looking objectively at players.   lets take Pietersen as an example.   You speak about him as being a top class wing - which he is not at all.   In Super 14 he never scored  a single try in 2008.   has he scored any tries in Super 215 this year - I cannot remember any - but may be wrong.

On international level he played 42 tests and scored 12 TRIES.     As a wing that is just not good enough.  Also important in the SKILLS ASPECT is ball handling skills and defence.    As Mozart point out so clearly - he is moderate to poor in defence and when he played at center for the Sharks this year it proved that he is a poor ball passer.   To summarize - a big player with very little skills and a very modest international career.

Now for Wayne Kirchner. he played 12 tests  and despite the fact that according to you he "has a lovely balance to his running, good swerve and step" - he scored only one try in the tests he played.   just not good enough on attack and mediocre as a full back under high balls and really not having a broader insight in the game.   Skills - definitely not on the list of skillful players.

Get real - my friend.   On average you have a good idea about the game - but you look bad because of your addiction to average players on international level.   I agree with you about Taute and other players as well - but the above two are too much to swallow - since thjey have bulk, but very little skill.