Lessons from Simon after Saturday

Sound familiar? Yep the penny finally drops. As for the point on the Poms, you could have read that analysis on Player of the Day posted by yours truly.

Fourie du Preez and Handré Pollard must be the Springboks' first-choice halfbacks for the rest of the World Cup
Pollard finally settled the Bok flyhalf debate with a Man of the Match performance against Samoa at Villa Park. The 21-year-old took the ball to the advantage line, his option-taking was good, and he was committed on defence. While one of his restarts went out on the full and he missed a simple conversion, he was successful with a conversion and four penalties. Pollard benefited from having Du Preez at scrumhalf. The 33-year-old provided his flyhalf with quick service, allowing him to take the ball flat and get the backline going. Du Preez's kicking also helped to pin Samoa in their own half and take some of the pressure off Pollard. Ruan Pienaar and Pat Lambie will still have a role to play at this World Cup but, barring injury, it will be as substitutes.

Traditional Bok rugby wins matches
The Boks suffered a shock defeat in their first World Cup match because they tried to play an expansive game against Japan, with Jean de Villiers and Victor Matfield ignoring instructions from the coaching box to stick to their structures. Heyneke Meyer made it clear to his players during the build-up to the match against Samoa that it was his way or the highway, and the result was a return to traditional Bok rugby. The Boks took the three points when they were on offer in the first half (which they failed to do against Japan), fed off opposition mistakes (JP Pietersen's first try came from an interception), and got themselves into opposition territory via the boot before attacking with ball in hand. They also dominated the set pieces, winning all 12 of their lineouts and stealing six of Samoa's, and made good use of the driving maul. The Boks built scoreboard pressure, with four penalty goals resulting in a 17-6 half-time lead, and were able to score five tries in the second half as Samoa faded. They also defended well and prevented the Pacific Islanders from scoring a try. The result, a convincing 46-6 win, should ensure that this is the way the Boks play for the rest of the tournament.

Tier-two nations are getting a raw deal
The minnows have every reason to be upset about the World Cup draw. Japan were expected to play Scotland just four days after their famous win against the Springboks, and while coach Eddie Jones made six changes in an attempt to keep the team fresh, they predictably faded in the second half. Would Scotland have scored five second-half tries against a rested Brave Blossoms outfit? Romania, meanwhile, were forced to play the top two seeds in their pool, France and Ireland, within the space of five days. They were very competitive in their first fixture, with the 38-11 scoreline flattering the French, but were hoping to avoid a big defeat to Ireland on Sunday as they'd had so little time to recover for the game. Yet the Oaks will have a 10-day break before their next match against Italy. Yes, the big nations also have to deal with quick turnarounds, but their follow-up fixture is against a weaker side (the All Blacks played Namibia four days after Argentina, for example) and their squad depth allows them to field a strong B team. World Rugby needs to level the playing field for the 2019 tournament by producing a draw that doesn't put the weaker teams at a disadvantage.

England must learn to put opponents away
The World Cup hosts looked set for a comfortable win when they led Wales 22-12 after 52 minutes at Twickenham. But instead of pulling away, they allowed the visitors to get back into the game. Wales were clearly the fitter team, but England's biggest problem was their inability to get the ball to the wings because Sam Burgess and Brad Barritt were unable to create anything in midfield. Coach Stuart Lancaster also bemoaned the number of penalties his team conceded at the breakdown that the Welsh were able to turn into points.

There are times to go for a draw
England were trailing 28-25 with three minutes to go when they were awarded a kickable penalty. It was close to the right-hand touchline, but Owen Farrell had kicked flawlessly for goal throughout the match and would have fancied his chances of success. However, captain Chris Robshaw pointed to the corner, England went to the front of the lineout (instead of to the middle or the back which would have provided better attacking ball) and Wales were able to repel the drive and ultimately regain possession. Had Farrell kicked that penalty, England would still have had a couple of minutes left to push for another score, and if he had missed, they would have regained possession from the 22m dropout. There's also the fact that a draw would have left England and Wales with seven log points each after two rounds, with the injury plagued Welsh having to play Fiji just four days later, and then the Wallabies, who they have lost 10 consecutive Tests against since last beating them in 2008.

It's the saddest thing that we have to be dragged into and through such terrible tragedies before truth is accepted. Lambie has been playing the same way for six years, Pollard the same since he came onto the scene. So it's irritating that many act as if all of a sudden Pollard emerged as the victor in a flyhalf battle that never truly existed. 
The point on the tier two nations is very important. We saw it in 2011 too, Samoa had to play the Boks and then Wales in four days. Sickening. The tier two sides are improving very well and deserve a better, more equal schedule. IRB failing the game yet again .

Why anybody with half a brain would think Lambie after two failed seasons as Sharks 10 would suddenly morph into a good Bok flyhalf is beyond belief. 
Why anybody with half a brain would think the Boks should play 7s rugby rather than tough traditional rugby is beyond belief, but you can read that garbage every day on here.
The notion of relative competitive advantage seems to be beyond most of the parrots who ply their trade as our rugby writers.

South Africans think total rugby is running at will and throwing passes and offloads at every opportunity.  The more structureless, the more creative and cutting edge the game is. 

 The two way chorus at it again.  They are the ones who criticize anything bar what they believe is a kicking game plan.  They never identified what really went wrong in the Japan game and blamed all the wrong players for the Japanese disaster.   Fid they play the "poor version of the Oz game plan against Japan?  The answer is no - they had no game plan and made a mess of everything they tried, with the forwards being nowhere in sight and the backline being a hash.   
Meyer was right about reading De Villiers and Matfield the riot act - they were told to play a tighter game than they did - but with Matfield constantly moonlighting in the  backline it did not happen.
The problems of the Springboks forwards were not solved when Jannie du Plessis and Matfield was on the field of play on Saturday - but with replacement of those two early in the second half the team got the upper hand up front.   
DF
 "The Japan test was actual a perfect demonstration of the model the fans are demanding." 
This is nothing new on your part - just a wild statement without any substance.  Nobody demands a non-functional forward combination and the rubbish and planless game by the Springboks that day.                  

 Samoa by 6.....talk about wild statements. Bwaaaahahahahahaha!  

 Bwahahahahhahahaahhaha what aluagh. Dt Mozzz and ou card are really going of their rocking chairs.
Whilst the sane members of the board were roundly condemming the rubbisg dished up agaisnt the Japs they were supporting the coach a nd in full denial.Now card claims Meyer bowed to public pressure and its not his fault HAhahahahhahahahahaha . The fact is Meyer said publickly he was picking his strongest team, his most ex[perienced team. That selection was roundly condemned by many here. Meyer was not giving the public what they wanted. The condemnation of the selection was widespread as can be seen by the posts on various rugby boards
Meyer changes his team having realised his mistakes (more in line with what the sane wanted0 and Bingo amuch better perfromance.
The Boks played tradional Bok rugby. Good in the forwards (barring matfiled) and some good backline play.ie blanced rugby. Not what Meyer has so often dished up. 
There is actually no escaping the EGG landing Dr Mozzzz and Card.
Your trolling has caught up with you. Cerundunce windpomp escapes lightly as he has not been around but he is generally a little echo!!
Whahahahahahahahahahahaha 
 

 Beeno 
What I cannot understand at all is this reference of the two drones to game plans and when asked how they see the traditional games - all one get back was a load of garbag of unbelievable proportions.   
Mozart was the one that made three classical statements, namely -
*   That 90% of the functions of a flyhalf is to kick balls;*   That SA players are tom poor to play a passing game; and*   That it is not necessary to bother about ball protection and recovery - presumably because keeping the ball in hand is not an option because of the inability of the Springboks to pass and catch balls
When asked about the issue Mozart gave no explanation other than the need to be competitive in the forwards - but then they support players like Matfield and the low work rate Alberts to create what they claim would be dominance up front.   
Desert Fox is even more confused as to what the traditional SA Rugby means.  The fact that the planless game played by the Boks against Japan entails wild ball passing without any objective according to the Australian model.   He went further and wrote under another thread how wonderful the clueless Kirchner was against the Japanese. As a Morne Steyn admirer he is in league with Mozart as to the function of a flyhalf as kicking away of ball possession.   DF also agree in full with Mozart about the need for forward domination - but he also supported Matfield and Alberts to play a role in that so-called dominance.
What those two did not understand is that Eddie Jones outwitted the static game they favour and that no other country play the game they regard as traditional SA rugby and they worked out exactly how to deal with the dinosaur rugby they preach about and the increasing list of Springbok losses is the result.  After every loss their excuse is that the Springboks have not played traditional SA Rugby.   
Its like reading a repeat story without any real game plan with those two around. What is making it even funnier is that they are all-out supporters of Morne and Francois Steyn - the latter on the basis of his boot as well,   So what the flyhalf did not kick away - the center should.   
I have tried for months now to get some understandable comments from the two as to what is expected from a flyhalf and other backline players and yet has to get a coherent explanation from them.  That is why I could just laugh at their comments above.