CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
11 Aug 2013, 13:38#1
One has to wonder how Meyer managed to muck up his selections for locks in his squad as badly as he did. That was made clearer than daylight to me again yesterday. The top lock on display yesterday by the proverbial mile was De Jager. Massive in ball carrying, line out play and in all other aspects of play - but he is not in Meyer's squad. T
I think Meyer' would go with Etzebeth at 4 and Kruger at 5 - with Van der Merwe on the bench. I think he should have selected De Jager at 4 and Etzebeth at 5 and when Du Toit comes along bring him in on the bench or put him in as a starter with De Jager on the bench. That makes sense - the Meyer selections do not..
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
12 Aug 2013, 02:35#4
Beeno
With a winning record of 58% and a record of atrocious player selection - there is no reason why his decisions should ever be trusted. The man is clueless - and that will come out in this championship like never before.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
12 Aug 2013, 07:40#6
I'm afraid Meyer is light years ahead of this type of thinking. Look at the context. We will have a huge backrow, with Vermeulen, Alberts and Louw. They provide all the grunt we need. That gives us the capacity to select Kruger, who is our best lineout lock and our best lock on kickoffs....he also is an agile defender.
-
What about the grunt of Lood they ask. Well lood looks a bit like a softie to me and certainly was nowhere against the Stormers or the Brumbies. As the lock who was the main power source for poor old Coenie, he wasn't helping much when Coenie was bent like a bow by Scott Sio and then broken with his right foot going first and then a general inward implosion. And why would we move Etzebeth from 4 where he is a force....just to get a big lump of lard on the park, ignoring all the history that goes into selecting two physical types at lock?
-
We talk about NZ, but those chaps wouldn't select a Lood before he proved he deserved to be there. So far, there is no proof. I would prefer Bekker, but failing that Kruger is as good a choice as any other lock. Meyer must really get a chuckle out of this contradictory thinking. Fans berate Meyer for going Bools style....but then want to change the one forward that gives us an edge over potential opponents in open play.....all to acheive even more grunt. Go figure!
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
12 Aug 2013, 09:28#7
Mozart
Why do you come up with crap and rubbish when you make statements like the ones above? Why do you say that Kruger lack grunt - but is a good defender and our top line out player if it is factually not confirmed and is based on your very prejudiced approach to players.
Just take one statement you shouted about and that is the tackling issue. The total number of tackles made by Kruger in Super 15 was 60. If you compare that with the number of tackles made by other locks it is ridiculously low. Retallick in all his games made 138 tackles - De Jager made 102. Sam Whitelock made 96, Romano 83. Kruger a good tackler? OK - those figures can be misleading so lets look at the figures for the Dunedin testL-
Romano - 7/1
Whitelock - 9/0
Flippie - 13/2
Kruger - 5/0
Why do you say he is an agile defender - when his defence stats indicates a useless defender. The best line out jumper we have - you must be joking. He is very near to the worst one we have on Springbok or Super 15 level if stats are borne in mind. His fame is according to Meyer that he can call line outs - not take line out balls. And the myth that at kick ins he takes over the role of the captain and vice-captain has been discussed and laughed off the board previously.
Now we have three players who provide the grunt - why don't you accept that there is NO and I mean ZERO statistical proof that the grunt is in fact provided and is not a figment of some people's imagination. Is ball carrying with an average gain of 1,8 meters per carry a proof of grunt? Is the ridiculously low tackle ratio of a player like Alberts - who made 1 tackle during the whole Soweto test - a sign of grunt.
This rubbish generation did not work in the tests last year in the RC - what on earth make you think it can work this year? That is exactly the reason why Meyer is a goat - he has learnt NOTHING from what happened last year and keep on punishing us all with the same crap over and over again.
The whole of Super 15 provide adequate proof that De Jager has had more grunt and made more tackles than Kruger made - but in your eyes he seems to be a softy - so one must assume that you never looked at what the softy did on the field of play.
Remember the saying you and Rooinek keep on arguing about - we are repeating the same mistake we made last year in the mistaken belief that it can work this year. It won't and we will not make any progress with that type of approach. .
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
12 Aug 2013, 13:02#9
For a start Moz, Meyer is anything but light years ahead of anything when it comes to selections and game plans, in fact he is quite the opposite and his record to date confirms that. Lood might look like a pup with his baby face but his physicality is marginally behind our best in Etzebeth. He uses his 125kg bulk to good effect, at least we see him with ball in hand and making an impression. His line-out work is spot on and the notion that Kruger is our best line-out forward is a fallacy, he is no better than any of our locks in this department, he hardly stands out. He offers nothing with ball in hand and is the worst defending lock of the lot, there must be stats out there to prove that.
Grunt comes from your tightfive and of the loosies only your 8 is able to influence the scrummaging to a certain extent, flankers hanging off the side of the scrum are not able to expert as much influence on the scrum as the rest. As has been pointed out you are completely wrong regarding Coenie’s performance against the Brumbies so therefore your take on Lood in the scrums is incorrect. The Cheetahs scrum has been good all S15 and Lood played every game.
Etzebeth showed how good he was at 5 when he moved there so moving him there would be an easy option and a temporary one as the obvious choice to partner Etzebeth is Steph du Toit, who himself is a big 4 who will move to 5.
Bottom line is, we would not be having this debate if Kruger had proved himself at test level, he has been a complete failure and retaining him would be yet another step at ensuring the Boks fail to challenge the likes of NZ, for we will lack the grunt in the engine room to impose ourselves physically. Kruger is a very average lock who lacks physicality and certainly does not make a difference in the line-outs and is a complete passenger in general play and a liability in the engine room. Meyer will retain Kruger and we will continue to fail.
Until Meyer hits the 75% mark with selections like Kruger, I will continue to challenge these selections for they are clearly wrong. We cannot afford to select substandard players when better players are being overlooked. Most rugby followers will agree that Kruger has been a failure and that Lood has been one of the finds of the S15. Lood over Kruger is a no brainer for me.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
12 Aug 2013, 13:32#10
Saffex
What bothers me about Meyer is that every squad he selects look worse than the previous one. He ignores good performances and in the case of his favoured player - ignores per performance as well.
Worst is he sticks religiously to the same players that let us down badly last year. I have no problem with the experience concept - I do h0owever, have seriously problems when selections are made without regard to performances.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
12 Aug 2013, 17:06#12
Dave, Lood is the new Flip Flop. ....remember when I told you he was bog ordinary? Lood is the same player.
-
Denny I'm not saying Meyer is a cerebral coach....I'm on record as saying that we are nuts to ignore Jake. I'm simply saying, unlike most on the Board, he at least chooses a team.....rather than a collection of players. You can't seriously believe that a Bok coach surrounded by other top notch rugby men, is missing considerations put forward by a bunch of Board mopes?
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
12 Aug 2013, 17:18#14
Oh gosh....that changes everything!
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
12 Aug 2013, 18:00#16
Mozart
With respect - I am differing from you. If there is one thing Meyer can justifiably be accused of - is that he puts together a collection of players - definitely not a team. Building a team means that you select players that could in combination adds value to performance and like De Villiers said recently - the key element is performance, not anything else.
However, in team selection Meyer does not look at the performance criterium at all. In doing so he sticks with players showing nothing in proven performance. His basic selection always centers around -
* whether a player was in the Springbok team at any time during the last five years - irrespective of how successful the team or player was when he was in the set up; and
* whether a player was associated with the Bulls in the past or at present.
Since he ignores present form - he is not selecting a team or squad - he is putting together a group of players that is bound to fail in the end. As such he ignores totally the fact that some of his selectees failed over the past year and the same time fails to recognise the deficiencies showed in their relevant positions last year. That is why he comes up with selections like Steenkamp, De Jongh, Alberts and co. - who all failed badly in the games they actually played in..
Selecting a team means in effect that you look at the best available options - not a conglomerate of players that somewhere in the past showed something that might be of interest - but at present cannot contribute to the general performance of the team as a whole.
I cannot understand why Meyer cannot see that where player combinations of last year failed to deliver positive results in the RC - the same combinations would deliver the goods this year. A classic example is the back row - whom you suddenly turn into something different making them contributory quasi-locks or props and neglecting their actual performance requirements in defence and attack - because of the under-performance of a lock like Kruger. . That does not represent team building, because it leaves the team vulnerable to exploitation by the opposition and is destructive of the team.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
12 Aug 2013, 18:33#20
Mozart
It is not only the Super 15 that counts in the final analysis of player performances - it is also the tests played last year where player performances is of importance. That indicates a Niagra of failures that exist in Meyers squad and is clear for everyone to see.
What makes you think that players who failed to deliver in last years RC will deliver the goods this year - taken into account the limitations of those players this year are even worse than they were last year - as is proven by their continued sub-par performances in Super 15?
Is it not the time to weed out proven failures of last year and try something differently? In other words is it not time to see that better performances in Super 15 are taken into account at all? We must be the only team in the RC that does not take cognisance of last years test and this years Super 15 performances. That is what makes us looking like idiots in the rest of the countries in the RC.
What makes you think that the failing players of last year - will suddenly contribute to turning the situation around and make us successful this year? It is because of failure to evaluate poor performances properly and doggedly and unthinkingly persist in clinging to past failures that our campaign this year is heading for disaster.
All fine words like "strong ball carriers", "bone crushing tackles" and "agile defence" means nothing in game situations - especially if their is a total lack of it ever happening.
There are better players coming through in SA - and failure to recognise that is destructive - and that is what Meyer is doing to SA Rugby at present.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
12 Aug 2013, 18:42#21
I know the coach you want Maaik....his name is Rudolph Straueli. He selected all the "new talent".
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
12 Aug 2013, 19:27#22
Mozart
Personally - I never liked Mallett and Straueli because of poor player identification and selection - same goes for De Villiers, who could not change the teams because he was not in charge (the senior players were).
I liked Du Plessis - because he started a rebuilding process that was ultimately successful and produced a top team that evolved and was inherited by Mallett - who subsequently destroyed the team over a period of less than two years.
I liked Jake White because he identified players properly and build up the team for the 2007 WC - he was consistent and gradually removed the poor players and replaced them with better ones.
Meyer - he is a cross between De Villiers. Mallett and Straueli with the difference that his player identification and assessment is a joke in bad taste and he is bull-headed like Mallett and against any change like De Villiers. Matter of fact he combined the worst elements of De Villiers, Mallett and Straueli into one package.
I would like to see Jake White back as a coach - he will stop all the present craziness that is bedevilling our rugby. .
.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
12 Aug 2013, 20:24#23
Well I can't disagree about wanting Jake back. But you forget, he also rescued older players like Monty and Os. Also had his supposedly gruntless lock in Albert van der Burgh. Was a big proponent of CJ....and apart from Fransie, pretty much ignored the youngsters.
