Lets look at the potential Springbok team based on performance

Full backs :   Coetzee, Marais, Kriel, Le RouxWings       :   Van Wyk, Rhule, Combrinck, Skosan, UlengoCenters     :   Van Rensburg, Vorster, De Allende, Viljoen, Venter, OdendaalFlyhalfs     :   Du Preez, Lambie, Bosch, Pollard, GoosenScrummies :  Venter, Schreuder, ReinachNo 8          :  Whiteley, Du Preez, Van der WaltLoosies      :  Ackerman, Kolisi, Coetzee, KrielLocks         ;  Etzebeth, Du Toit, De Jager, Snyman, Mostert, Erasmus Props         : Dylan Smith, Charles Marais, Dreier and Thomas Du Toit. Mtawrira
Hookers     :  Marx, Van der Merwe, Marutlelle
Add names to the list - it may be interesting.   I will adjust the above as times go on. 

One day, with some like, some people may begin to understand that you cannot jot down a list of names and call it a team. There is not a single person on this entire forum who has any credentials to "select" any team. The best bet is an opinion of how players performed during games and even that is no more than, in most cases, a very biased opinion, if not in alll cases.

 There are a lot of people that would think about potential team players - you are definitely so brain deficient that it is beyond your grasp and that is easy - since you contribute nothing about Rugby on this site and that is a fact as well.
If you can add nothing on discussions don't waste time by writing BS. 

 @Ceradyne
What you say is in a way true, we're all fans / supporters and the like - if we weren't we would be training a squad and not wasting time talking to like-minded fools..  
My bigger gripe with cousin Mike's thread heading is the dreaded "performance" word.  I think the last time a Springbok team was selected on merit / performance was when oubaas Markotter was still a factor.  Even the great Danie Craven selected players for reasons other than their performance / merit.  So did, in later years, Mallett, Jake, Snorre (he had no clue, the players selected their buddies, I think) Coetzee and his merry men are so clueless that they actually read this forum to get some better insight from the likes of Dave, Mike, Moz and the rest of us merry bloggers.

Spot-on Lunatic.

"If you can add nothing on discussions don't waste time by writing BS." You started the kak when you posted your team. LOL

Did not suggest a team - just a list of players to consider.   You are so clueless you did not even realize that.   Look ass creeper go and join your fellows - stop trying to come up with your standard BS whenever you try and attack fellow members on what they write.  
Even in that you are a clueless imbecile.   Can you come up with anything original mong?     

Read your title, baksak.

Seriously how can anybody think SPMarais is going to make it after yesterday......let's not have another list, most of those guys on Tokkie's list wont succeed in test rugby. We need to find 23 players, that to Vlag's point, can play together as a team.....and have the physical and mental make-up to make the huge leap from Super to test rugby. ... We may think that game yesterday was intense. Compared to the Pom/Irish test or the Irish/AB test in Dublin it was child's play.

 Kak - quote his stats stupedo.

 Kak - quote his stats stupedo.

 Skosan, Kriel

 APD added as suggested

So we now have a 30 man team with two spots still vacant.

The same old stuff....lists of Super 15 players.....good one week, poor the next. Most without a hope of succeeding in tests. Year after year we go through this rubbish.

 At least there are some players who have performed consistently well in Super Rugby.  What other norm do you think should be used for selectin of players?   Reputation and what else.  
One thing is for sure - if players fail on Super Rugby level - they are guaranteed to fail on test level as well.   The idea that the opposite is true is absolute BS,         

 
Come now, Ceradyne!

You are being overly dramatic and I see Faggot's jumped in lending you his support. It's not because of your brilliance but rather anything against Mike has him cheering from the side.  

The mere fact that he likes his elderly selection of a decade ago should have had him shut his mouth ... but he too has the right to voice his opinion ... no matter how absurd.

I can't really remember a team EVER coming from you. I questioned you about that before ... needless to say, without a response. You went quite for a spell and then returned with the usual following Mike around the board, critising his every post. I guess that's what you consider contributing, right? 

Feel free to attack him all you want ... but at least let us have a little rugby from time to time. It really isn't that difficult.  

We as fans of the sport are fond of putting our preferences together. We as fans will always be prone to searching for the best set of 23 players. It's called having fun. You should try it sometime.

The fact that the coach keeps getting it wrong spurs us on even more. Having been thumped by the Japanese and the Italians is also reason enough for us to try aid this ignorant quota selection. 

Mike ... I differ with you on many of your choices. Guys like Jesse Kriel, Van Wyk, De Allende, Jantjies, Du Preez, Bosch, Kolisi, Ackerman, Coetzee and Lood should never be considered as Bok options. I know you favour them but there are much better options out there.

I'm surprised to see you have no scrummies or props. How come? We have some excellent prospects available. Van Zyl and Venter are wonderful talents to expose to a higher level of play and as for props ... we have powerful men who can easily compete and better what the world out there has to offer.



 

 cc
I asked members to add names so that I can bring those in - especially props and scrummies - I also need names in place of the players you mentioned - so that I can add same to the mix.  
I am not looking for a team - I am looking for a group frm which ultimate selections can be made.
Thanks for dealing with ceradunce - he is just a nuisance and follows whatever I write to criticize same.   Normally on complete distortion of what I wrote.
Heaven help anyone who ever wrote something negative about Morne Steyn, Meyer and even Fat Fransie and sloth Willem Alberts.   Those are Mozart''s heroes and so Ceradunce must support him in that hero worship.    

Totally agree with Mike in that a player who can't perform in SR very unlikely to  cover himself in glory come the Tests.
It all amounts to reputation selection. 
Mike FFS, put Snyman and Mostert on your list. And please can somebody explain to me how Mostert is big enough to play SR but too small for Tests? The guy is having yet another good season, plays an important role in the winning mindset of the Lions and has a work rate second to none. 
We always talk about how rugby needs to change in SA but we keep wanting to pick locks that weigh 120kgs. Same with our loosies. We insist that Whitely, Kriel, Kolisi, and a few others are too small but then please have a look at what the Lion's did to the giant Sharks pack.
If we want to play better rugby we have to accept that we need smaller loosies and locks, who arrive at two or three more rucks per half than their larger counterparts and do so more quickly for most of the game. 
We behave like packs with smaller forwards get bossed each week when actually all the evidence points the other way. Two smallest packs in SA? Lions and Stormers. 
And I'll say it again. The best rugby teams in the world are as follows...ABs, England, and then it's kiwi SR teams that fill the next three slots. 
This  nonsense about the step up to test level has been shown by the Jaguares to be a complete myth. 
If someone is big enough to compete against the NZ franchise sides then he is big enough to play test rugby. 
Or not. Let's make sure that nobody in our pack weighs less than 120kgs and then complain after the game how we got dominated at ruck time.

 
Mike ... many players have been tried out over the last few years and to my mind most have failed at the higher level of play. To be honest I never expected them to step up and do us proud any way.

Frans Steyn is a fine example of a failed entity and so is Morne.

Jantjies has shown us all that he isn't an international test player ... so why keep him on the list?

Same goes for Jesse Kriel, Lood, De Allende, Trevor and Kolisi ... and so the list goes on endlessly ... yet when I look again I see them back in contention. It doesn't make any sense. 

I like the running lines of a guy like Mahuza. I like his pace, his defensive strength and his ability to deal with the high ball. He is a youngster with much talent and to my mind it's time we move on from the old and failed players of yesteryear and develop a team from scratch.

Marx and Marutllule are my kind of players and so are Kriel, PSDT, Willemse, Lourens Erasmus, Marx Koch, Odendaal, Francois Venter and Shaun Venter. Guys like Jamba Ulengo, Sergeal Peterson, Goosen, Jannes Kirsten, Snyman, Mostert, Notshe, SP Marais, Dylan Smith, Charles Marais, Dreier and Thomas Du Toit.

We need to start from scratch. Select our top three best in every position and work from there ... not go back a decade and fool ourselves into believing that we'll be competitive with the elderly.

A fresh approach. A competent coach ... one with an actual brain would be a great start.

Any way ... nice talking rugby with you, Mike.


 

 Plum
I have added Mostert and Snyman as suggested.
Insofar as Mostert is concerned - Mozart has had a campaign against him from the start always on the basis that he is physically inadequate.    This despite the fact that he is physically the same size and weight as Matfield has been.    You would find that Moz art will go bananas - but I did add him on your advice.
By the way - the moment Mozart start giving players false names is the moment you must realize he is prejudiced against them - in most cases for no real reason at all other than they are a threat to his favourites.   The list is basically endless and it is best to just ignore him.    Also he is the only member who ever claimed that none-performers on Super Rugby level suddenly become top class performers on international level when they put on the Springbok jersey.
I may add that I look for two things in loosies aside from other standard requirements - namely pace and ball sense - the latter case is the reading of games and anticipating where the ball is going.   Some of the physically bigger players are so pace-deficient they cannot get to breakdown points and is consequently virtually useless in all departments of the game.          

 Thanks CC
I did add players listed by you.   I also replaced Jantjies with Goosen.

 "Come now, Ceradyne!

You are being overly dramatic and I see Faggot's jumped in lending you his support. It's not because of your brilliance but rather anything against Mike has him cheering from the side."   
.....and
"I can't really remember a team EVER coming from you."

Do we really have to go through this again? I thought we had it covered the last time you went down this road..... or is it just a matter of short term memory loss on your part?

Ceradunce - Dofdoos
Is the above another of your brilliant rugby comments or just confirmation you are Mong2 following the leadership of Mong 1. 
Yet to see any real rugby comments from you - CC is 100% correct in his assessment.  

 
Remind me!!

Oh goodness. I said that I do not watch enough of the games to have a good enough opinion of the players' abilities and skills to put together a team. In addition, I do not have the knowledge to know how players would perform within certain combinations and against certain opposition. That means that any team I do put together would be as much of a wild guess as any of the endless lists of BS produced by our resident "experts". What I do have, though, is a pair of eyes and a fair amount of what has worked and what not during games. That is the angle of my contributions. In addition I do think that I can make a far assessment of the stats - which I still believe should actually be referred to as data - and what has happened during a game. What I do not like is fabrication of "facts" to suit a preset agenda.

So here we have Mike who said he was going to stop with the insults insulting .....and Carbuncle who said a scant two weeks ago he was gone and would never return, back with the same old tawdry insults. What happened desnotter....no pride?

 That's very honest of you Cera. Respect.
Mike, I don't think Mozart would have Mostert in his team but I appreciate that everybody has a different view. 
My question is this. 
Two loosies, one weighing 105kg and the other 115kg.  
What advantage does that extra 10kg provide?
The guy who is smaller is likely to be quicker, have more stamina and be more nimble. Tackling the smaller guy is also more difficult for multiple reasons. 
It's only the freaks of nature that will serve as evidence to the contrary, but they are the exceptions.
Everyone goes on about Ellis park being at altitude and that being the reason that the Lions dominate the last 20 minutes of games. Well the Bulls play at the same altitude...so where's the difference?
Unless you are playing crash ball rugby, I cannot see the point of playing with a bunch of giants up front. 
Whitley is the perfect example of that in SA. Has a ridiculously high tackle count and success rate, scores tries and has great handling skills. Name me another 8 who provides as much around the park as he does in SA? There simply isn't one. Not by a long shot. The fact that his spot as the starting 8 for the Boks is under debate tells us a lot about the SA rugby mentality.
Fine I'll agree that bigger players are better but first I want to see the evidence. Currently there is none. And the best team in the world operate the same way by focusing more on speed and agility than thuggery.
And I'll say it again. There is no point using last year's Bok performances as a benchmark for anything. Using isolated examples from the horribly coached games of 2016 are meaningless. 
Honestly I'd like to know what I'm missing.

Well that's an interesting challenge Plum....why not simply select a very mobile team and play them off their feet? How does one counter that argument. . Well I would start by saying all the top teams of the last 8 years at international level have been huge. The Boks of 2009, all the AB teams, the current English team.....the Irish team. Big loosies, massive centres.....giant locks. So that history woulld have to be negated......you would have to make the argument a small, mobile team has never been tried. . But it has been tried from time to time....back in the early 2000s our backs were 10lbs smaller than the Oz backs with huge centres like Mortlock. They simply ran over us. The same thing happens year after year to Oz, they don't have a strong enough front row and concede penalties which negate their clever attacking play. . The hilarious thing is the same posters who say Matfield was too weak, are enthusiastically promoting Kriel and Mostert. . So what about Saturday and the Lions. I would start by saying the Stormers had their own vulnerabilities, a very weak loosie trio...who last week were being spoken of in the same way that the Lions are this week. And a weakness at tighthead in Malherbe. That should have been countered by our two locks, but Etzebeth and Stephanie had very poor games. And here's the thing, in spite of that small pack, the Lions can scrum.....to me that's their magic factor. But can a Bok pack comprised of these small chaps find the Lions' balance of pace and yet good set pieces. That's the leap you have to make. . So the mobility team, in this incarnation, can't be easily dismissed....but a whole lot of history has to be wrong for that team to succeed.

 Why be misleading again - I said that you attack Mostert for being physically deficient and would not accept that the same could be said about Matfield - more or less same weight and height.   That is not promoting Mostert - it is merely stating a fact.
I am not exactly in favour of a mobility team without a strong Tight 5.   The idea that loosies must be slow and heavy as an extension of the Tight 5  is a real problem that bedeviled the Springbok team in the Meyer era and the idea that you have to have baby elephants as loosies is real BS.  Loosies have a function to follow the ball and if they are too slow for that and props arrive at breakdown points before them it reduces their usefulness by 50%.   Also slow loosies makes far too few tackles and their defense is only found around scrums and rucks - if they even get there - making them totally inadequate.   Since you do not expect from loosies to protect breakdown balls and make turnovers - no one will convince you that that is a major function of loosies. 
Insofar as centers are concerned - especially the AB's - you are again making an assertion that is really crap.   The two inside centers were normally big - the outside centers - eg Conrad Smith - were not  big players .    Neither is their present combination with essentially Nonu out and SB Williams past his best. 
The problem with backline players is that most of the big guys are not really playing thinking rugby - that is why all of Morne and Fat Fransie were serious flops in backline play - the former for the Springboks and the latter on Super Rugby level.   Both were atrocious defenders as well.
However, in your book none of the players mentioned will make the grade since your concept of rugby is years behind what rugby has developed into over the last few years where slow, unthinking players who cannot handle balls are toast and always beaten by their opponents.             

 Ceradunce
If you now claim you see too few games to make a contribution - why are you writing a comment on what I wrote when starting the thread?    

 @Mikedrol. It is not a fact that I am now "claiming" that. I have given that very same reason, for not coming up with BS little lists, time after time. One does not need to watch any games to draw up something like that. It is purely a list. You can try to colour it in by claiming that it is based upon performance as much as you like, it will still be BS. 
A rugby team consist of 23 players. Nothing less, nothing more. If you can draw up a list and provide a comprehensive motivation then you can begin to start thinking about the term "team". 
By comprehensive motivation, I mean providing the reasons why you have selected each player and what the role of said player would be, based upon his abilities and skills as well as his role in a broader game plan, obviously addressing the opposition that you will be up against. Reason being that your team that would be facing the ABs away in the RC would be quit different than the one that you would select against Argentina in, let's say, Durban.
 If you cannot do that, then I would suggest that you stick to a title like "My own little BS list of players that I like". If, however, you do think that you can indeed follow the above and produce a Springbok team, then it would be interesting to see your coaching resume.
Frankly, I cannot see you having any better credentials to select a team than what I have, and I have f@kol to offer. Having seen a few more games than me could well make you a better bet at scratching your arse than me but that would be about it, I think.

 Listen stooge, start a thread to show that you know something about rugby dofdoos.   You are making me tired of being an ars e fly following every move I make.   One of these days I am going to eat some beans and sh!t straight into your face.  
Hell what a brain-deficient Mong you are.   Go and see a shrink maybe he can help.    

 Listen stooge, start a thread to show that you know something about rugby dofdoos.   You are making me tired of being an ars e fly following every move I make.   One of these days I am going to eat some beans and sh!t straight into your face.  
Hell what a brain-deficient Mong you are.   Go and see a shrink maybe he can help.    

 
Aaah yes ... I remember now.

For a moment there I thought I'd picked up a bit of what Faggot's had these last few years.

Thankfully not.

Sooo ... as far as you are concerned you don't have anything of value to contribute to this rugby site ... and yet here you are ... contributing.

Puzzling.

Sooo ... you don't have sufficient knowledge of the game ... you aren't watching any of the matches ... probably too damn confusing ... which means you probably don't even know who's playing where and for which team.

I too wouldn't think it wise to comment on anything rugby related ... yet you have much to say about Mike and his contributions.

I must say ... I now understand why you have your nose up Mozart's bum ... you two are much the same ... clueless loudmouths.

Haaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaaa!!

 CC
Well put - both are rugby intelligence deficient and we have to put up with their BS. 

 
Oh well, Mike ... what can a man do?

There is an arsehole around every corner and I at times wonder why we've been alotted more than out fair share.

There's just no avoiding them ... is there?

 "Sooo ... as far as you are concerned you don't have anything of value to contribute to this rugby site ... and yet here you are ... contributing.

Puzzling.

Sooo ... you don't have sufficient knowledge of the game ... you aren't watching any of the matches ... probably too damn confusing ... which means you probably don't even know who's playing where and for which team. "

No wonder you are so far up ou Maaikie's backside. Exact same MO of twisting what has been aid to suit your own crap agenda. How about you show us your credentials that make you an expert at selection. 

Thanks Moz. 
Indeed history is littered with examples of bigger teams doing well. 
On your point about the Lions scrumming well despite normally having a lighter pack. I think a lot of it has to do with stamina. Those smaller guys simply have more of it. 
Also, it's not only at set piece where the small Lions pack dominate. They basically own the ruck stats week in and week out. Owning that link between attacks is why they scored the most tries last year. It's why they worked their way up from their own try line right to the Stormers front door on Saturday.
Note I am not advocating having a smaller team all round. Just that more mobility is necessary up front. 
Moving a 110kg or 125kg player off of a ball once he's settled is equally difficult. The determining factor is who gets there first. Right?
Regardless, you make valid points. 

Nice chatting with you Plum, let's keep talking as we get more data.