Learning from Past Mistakes

If Meyer is to be successful he needs to be stout and single-minded in his vision. Peter never had the strength of character to stick to what he believed in as much as he lacked the technical knowledge. He never knew his best combinations, didn't understand the real value of what was available to him and often yeilded to media pressure when he should have known better. It was much the same under Straeuli. A building process is one thing, but never an excuse for a lack of direction in the present. Meyer needs to lay the law down in the forthcoming England series. And when the doff media in SA try to pressure him, he must be as bullish as Jake was.

A few interesting facts about the selection merry-go-round:

Centres
Frans, Jean, Olivier, Adi, de Jongh, Bobo, Monty, Butch, Fourie, Kirchner, Newman

Fullbacks
Jantjes, Lambie, Monty, Pietersen, Morne, Pienaar, Kircner, Frans, Aplon, Rose, Pienaar

Wings
JP Pietersen, Habana, Nokwe, Odwa, Aplon, Olivier, Jean, Adi, Basson, Hougaard, Mvovo, Chavangha

Flyhalf
Butch, Morne, Pienaar, Lambie, Frans, Grant, Rose

Props
Smit, CJ, BJ, Mujati, Steenkamp, Beast, Jannie, Greyling, Kruger, Carstens

Flanks
Schalk, Brussow, Juan, Louw, Stegmann, Kankowski, Roussouw, Spies, Potgieter, Alberts, Watson, Van Niekerk

Was Peter ever certain of his best players? Not so sure he knew what he was doing. Very few of his tinkerings with what Jake left behind actually worked.
 

What is with the constant reference to Jake all the time? One would swear he was a great coach???? The guys record for the 2 years leading up to the WC was so poor that he nearly got axed and should have been axed. In the end, a great squad, an easier ride to the final and Eddie Jones won him a WC and for that trophy, he was excused for the average coach he was and placed on a pedastal of greatness by some.

Meyer has his wits about him and has proved he has what it takes to succeed. He will prove a better coach than Jake, for the simple reason that he is a better coach. Jake was at best average and hardly came accross as a dignified individual.

Card you are big on stats, give us Jakes record leading up to the WC. The reality of the guy was that he started well with a talented squad of players, the opposition worked him out 2 years down the line and he had nothing to offer as an alternative. One trick pony who could not adapt with plan B. At the WC Eddie Jones provided plan B!!

Dave, my point went right over your head. The point in mentioning Jake is that he refused to be pressured into making selections for the sake of pleasing people. Straeuli never selected the same conseutive lineup, often going for whoever was in form. By 2003 WC we had no synergy whatsoever. Peter hit the panic button and selected players that were media darlings yet utterly useless. This disrupted the team alot. Lambie at 10, Watson at 6, Bismarck at 2, Jean at 12, many duff selections.

Regarding Jake though. He never started with a talented team, nor did we have great depth. Up until the 2007 WC we only had one test quality wing as JP was still unproven in the position. There was either Jean or Olivier, no 13 backup, no tightheads of note, no adequate replacements for either lock, no cover for Monty, no cover at 10, was there ever a quality 8 after Joe left for France? No Dave, you lack perspective. Jake's only dodgy year was 2006 which was a write off because of injuries. This is the list of injuries that year:

Habana, Jean, Du Preez, Pretorius, Juan, Butch, Schalk, Steenkamp, CJ, Monty, Joe, Venter, Paulse, Wannenburg, Albert, Bakkies and many many more.

You lack any sense of perspective or honesty.
 

Jake didn't start off with a great squad. He started off with the squad that DeStroyli had built and which was humiliated in the RWC QF. He started with no succesful Bok tactics, no captain, no momentum.

And everything he did was accomplished against consistent opposition. Face it he got no cooperation or loyalty from the Bools. And none of the provincial coaches except for Muir ever showed any loyalty....they were all scheming for his head as well. Then there was SARU who recalled him in the middle of the TN, forced him to work with a damn committee, interfered with his selections.....and never had his back from the very beginning. They were in effect the boss from hell.

What Jake left behind was a RWC and a TN trophy.....and a squad of players who frankly should have been good enough to win the next RWC, but SARU appointed an incompetent as Jake's replacement.

 Card, nothing went over my head I can assure you. More to the point, was I paying much attention to your post. Bullshit, SA always have depth in players, so Jake would have had plenty of players at his disposal at the time he took over.

Dont make excuses re injuries, just provide his record for the 2 years leading up to the WC, it was piss poor.

Perspective my arse - mine is spot on Jake was an average coach with the personality of a fish

Between 2004 and 2007 (Tri-Nations), who were our test quality centres? wings? locks? front rowers? loose forwards? half backs? fullbacks? You talk as though we had every position covered, well we didn't. Etienne Botha looked like a good prospect until his death in 2005, but there was nothing else except for an Olivier that failed the grade. Habana our only test quality wing. Jake struggled for flyhalves outside of Butch (Butch was injured throughout 04 and 05 and had two setbacks in 06). You're full of nonsense. Jake unfortunately had to deal in reality where your failed list of nonentities would have been torn apart. For you and you alone there was enormous depth, in reality the cupboard was bare.

 Wrong, for as long as I have been following rugby, I have always compiled lists of players and at no point was my list a weak or barren one - so bullshit, Jake had no excuse at all - he was just and average coach who had no plan B

Dave, whether you like it or not Jake has joined Kitch in the coaching pantheon, and rightly so. Unfortunately you Watsonistas just could never get over the fact that Jake saw right through the Watson myth from the start. Hell even when Watson was tossed around like a rag doll by Soialo, you chaps still thought the poor tyke was test quality.

Disagree Moz, Jake could never touch Kitch or Mallett

Jake is light years ahead of Mallett in terms of mental toughness.

Ha ha ha - Mallett would chew Jake up and spit him out without even a flinch

Malletts record was 71%, Whites 67% - enough said

Kitch was no great coach. He had a great bunch of players, many of whom were legends of the game, and motivated them. Joost, Stransky, Pienaar and Williams have all stated that he was not a very good coach in terms of technical understanding of the game. His tenure was very short and he never had to face a real challenge abroad. I give him credit for the part he played in that World Cup, but lets not overstate his ability.

Mallett is a good coach, no doubts about that. I would have no trouble accepting him back at the helm. The reality is however that he is not a great student of the game and he has on many occasions been slow to keep up with trends in the game. I don't think his attention to detail can match that of Jake. In fact, Jake was technical analyst during Mallet's era, but when he was released the Boks fell apart. I see a definite link there. You say that Jake is rubbish yet is has now twice resurrected sides in the lowest point of their history. To be quite honest, what he is doing at the Brumbies surpasses his achievements with the Boks. Yet again, nothing you say can be backed up with evidence, in fact, even a shallow assessment complete disintegrates your whimsical bleatings.
 

 Card you really are a bloody card.......so from this wonderful wisdom of yours, you would conclude that Jake at 67% was the best coach, Mallett at 71% was in the middle and Kitch with 100% was at the bottom of the table. 

Please give it a break mate, you sound more stupid by the day.

Jake is not fit enough to polish Malletts and in particular Kitch's boots.......Chalk and cheese stuff. As the stats prove, Jake was a failure, in particular against NZ 33% and France 25%. Attention to detail my arse.

The Brumbies, what has he done with them exactly?

You are very good at cutting and pasting numbers Dave; I credit you for being able to navigate your keyboard. You don't however seem to be able to understand the context and value of those numbers. Yet again, you have not been able to negate so much as a syllable I have uttered.

Your last question is ridiculous really. In fact, it's actually scraping the barrel of idiocy.
 

 Numbers, yes.......I need look no further than 67, 71 and 100

As for the Brumbies, Jake has done stuff all with them. Last I saw they lost to the Sharks and should have been beaten by the Cheetahs. I bet the Brumbies end in the bottom end of the table, thanks to mighty Jake.

So Brumbies have played 5 and lost 2 - wow Jake has really turned them around!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dave, the Brumbies lost 16 players and the majority of the team are novices, in fact it's the most inexperienced Super rugby side in the competition's history. Jake had to start with literally nothing and there is nowhere to pull players from like in South Africa. Had you any honesty you would have noted how fortunate the Sharks were as the Brumbies dominated them! The Cheetahs game was even, but they completely shutdown an impressive Chiefs side and humbled the rampant Highlanders. Sure Dave, Jake has done absolutely nothing.

 Bullshit, the Sharks should have won that game by more. It was after that match that I concluded Jake and his Brumbies did not have a chance in hell. The Sharks should have put 15 points over them.

Last I checked the Bulls lost 7 or 8 Boks and look where they stand. More excuses for Jake......player drain and no resources. If that was the case Oz would not stick in the top 3 year after year

The Shark's should have won by more you say? This despite being savaged at the breakdown, manhandled all over the field, creating nothing for practically the entire game? Laughable, lets have a looksy at that game.

Missed Tackles
Bismarck (4)
Coetzee (3)
Pietersen (3)

Backline Stats
Brumbies 17 defenders beaten to the Shark's 7.

The Shark's were left to make a lot of tackles, and that counter-rucking from the Brumbies was lethal. Two fluke tries against the run of play saved the sharks from a deserved loss. Plumtree himself was very unimpressed by the result and stated they got out of jail. At least he can fathom some honesty, but then, he isn't fueled by a hatred for Jake. Hatred spurned by Jake not selecting the pathetic and worthless Watson, or by selecting Monty.



 

 Manhandled and beaten at the breakdown my arse. I dont hate Jake, I dont know the bloke, dont care to either. Nope just never rated him as a coach and the stats back that up - end of

I have heard you on more than one occasion cite your dislike for Jake the person. But that aside, the Shark's game does pose questions over your ability to keep your emotions away from your better judgement! You won't accept that the Brumbies bettered the Sharks because you don't like Jake.

 Nope the Sharks won because they are a far better side. It has stuff all to do with Jake. Get real Card, why on earth would I hate the guy? Give it a break. Dont rate him as a coach and he never came across as a likeable chap - but I dont know the bloke so why the f would I hate him? Grow up man

What aspects of the Shark's play was better? I'm not asking for anything other than a specific facet of play that you feel edged the game in the Shark's favour.

 4 tries to 2, a dominating scrum and superb performances from the Sharks loosies, Alberts in particular