Manie Libbok

The pros outweigh the cons...simple...back to back URC finals and an away knockout loss to the eventual champions on the 3rd season...all with Manie ar 10...can't wait for him to start for us at 10 again...Sasha still have to emulate that at the Stormers...waiting in anticipation...

..

..

No Dave, that dog won’t hunt. A system which makes random errors doesn’t make it in every case for one player. Maybe Libbok made one or two more or less tackles in those matches, if you define success differently….give him the benefit of the doubt and his tackling stats are still piss poor.

Well firstly Dave, he isn’t selecting him….he was third choice behind Pollard and Sacha in the RC. Whereas he was first choice going into the RWC. Clearly his star has faded.

So given that, why is he still selected. Firstly because he is familiar with the system, you make that point in another string. Secondly because he is a talented attacking player, which supports the narrative Rasmus is pushing that we have become a more attacking team,

But even though he supports the narrative Rasmus never had enough faith in him to use him as the kicker against the Bargies….or even to have him on the bench in the matches that really counted against NZ or Ireland.

And I’m 100% certain the coaches know Manie’s defensive frailty, which is why you see him in the fullback position and Willemse defending up in the line against the Bargies.

A 60% tackling rate will never survive in test rugby.

Pollard played the week before the WC. If Rasmus really wanted Pollard he could have selected him….hell he selected 4 scrumhalves.

Nope he was all set to play Libbok, stuck with him all the way though the first half against the Poms, when losing became a real possibilty . He finally had to recognize the lucky side of the Marx injury, which gave him Pollard.

A farce, but he got lucky, after which we will only see Libbok in the matches we can afford to create an image.

It’s just a debate Dave. I know you haven’t won  a debate today and you are a bit overmatched, but losing your cool is a tell. Insulting everybody when you yourself are the loser is rather pathetic. Of course Rasmus could and should have taken Pollard who Squidge, your hero, calls the best knockout player in the world.

Btw what reason did Dassie give for selecting 4 nines ?

On the whole I thick what Erasmus  implied earlier this year about Pollard.   At the time he said -

*    that throgh careful management he will try and keep Pollard in the Springbok squad until 2026; and

*     that Polard wil end up in the coaching decvelpment progam.

The problem is that Pollard since 2016 to date had been injured a nuber of imes and recovery period were long.

I think hat Erasmus is hinking of Shaca Feinberg Mngomzulu as the number 1 flyhalf of he Springboks in future and he is ooking or one or 2 backups.    We will probably see what Erasmus has in mind on the Pollard issue.   He may be in the 2027 WC Squad - partly as a back-up player if needed as was the cse with Frans Steyn was in 2019.

We will see what Ersmus will start doing the squad to be named son.    Since Shaca will be unavailable for the series.  Libbk maye in the squad - but the question is who else will be in he squad when i comes to the flyhalf position.    

.

    .    

"At no point does he provide a shred of evidence, or even a reliable insight into why he holds the position that he does"

Which is precisely why I enjoy and much prefer someone like Pakie's posts compared to Dave, there is just no comparison, because Pakie backs it up with stats, video evidence and other analysis.

"A one-trick pony"

You are too polite Plum

President of Zero

In  way I distrust somewhat basic elements of stats - since hey do not taake into account for isntance the quality of actions and the consequences resulting from such actions.  A scientific compubased project that deals with every individual player in temas were developed - b alhough he pojec was bough by most of the higher professional player evaluations -

*   some coaches like Meyer and Coetzee refused to use it with ghastly consequences being the result of player and team development; while

*    it is used extensively by Erasmus,  

That program is objctive and not influenced by fo instance Erasmus and e resultant diffeences is clear,   So you get cases like Morne who was a one-horse cart speilist based on goal kicking - but no a real backline pivot,   Experts woldwide have a different vie of he value of playes than people without accss to the program often abse their suppor on pejudic rather on acual performance .

That is where the problem lies - people like Pakie bases eir preferences on photos and raw stats but miss the plot in many ways Mostert is an example.as a good lock in especially line-ous and making tackles - but is really a fringe player since the 2019 RWC especially isnce he only strte in tests .when ohe mre solid locks are out of the game due to injury,     The argument is wheher he is replacable or not,  especially with all he younger and more physical playes coming through the system and  that Mostert will likely be phased out of the future squad selecion by Erasmus as he is elaly replacable.

In the csse of Libbok th fact is that he is tricky a timres in matches - with deiciencies like goalkicking and  defense deficiency he .would not be the real deal at flyhalf which I beleive that critics of Libbok beleiv she ha erious deficiencies,   Playing in he Jantjies style iis not working out in going into the 2027 RWC ad Ersmus will obiously y and find alternatove backps for Shaca.

Unfortnately basic stats is often abused by predjudiced indivduals  to promote certain players - for instance Esterhuizen.    He has a very mixed performance value as a player - he i phsically srong - but pace-deficient wih dubious ball skills as well as defense   I would rather prefer younger players at center than Esterhuizen,    .   

                      \\         

...are you about to start opining on your love of bones and arse licking?

Fattex...

Mozart

The story is real tripe.   The submission that Pollard was left out was a shock is BS/    The player list was siubmitted in the last week of May 2023.   By that date Polard wasinjured and did not play any rugby for four months,

Because of what happened in the past World Rugby included a condition that any inhured plae on the player list is barred from being replaced should they be unable to play in the WC tournament/.

So if Pollard was on the player list and unabl to play in the RWC the Springboks his replacement would not have been possible .     That was the case in 2015 when various players who had not played rugby for up to 14 months were in he squad and the squad for instance had Alberts - who did not play any rugby in that series and Meyer could not replaec him.   There included  were on analysis about 8 players wss unplayable.- Meyer threatened to have Alberts replaced but the RWC would not allow such a replacement.    As a result of the Japan disaster virtuaally only 23 players were usable and they had to play in all the round robin matchess    and by the time the play-offs the 23 players who had to play in virtually all matches was "dead on their feet" .   That was a major part of the 2015 WC fiasco,  Erasmus was not prepared to take chances and end up in the disastrous Meyer 2015 situation.

So Pollard was on the standbylist of replacemet provided he return to play rugby before the star of the RWC.and Pollard was called up as a replacement for Marx..   What turned out was that both injruies was in the hooker position and was a major problem in the final duing which Mbonambi was injured,

The fact is that in 2019 Willemse was on that list of players  who were advised to keep high  fitness level and RWC allowed the rplacemet.    as they may be called in to join the squad.  When Jesse Kriel got injured - Wilemse was called up and the RWC had no prblem with that.

One oher thing - the touaments are tough and hre wukk akwys be c cas for calling up replacemnts.   To claim otherwise is ridiculous.       

/           

I have found no rule that says a player can’t be replaced if selected with an injury that doesn’t resolve. Please provide the rule….cut and paste.

And even if this was true Pollard’ s value to the Boks was so great, I would have selected him anyway and lived with a squad of 32 players. Hell Klein only played against Romania and Hendrikse never played best I can tell. Was  having those two guys there worth dramatically reducing the chance of having Pollard there.

We weren’t going to win the WC without him, as it proved to be the case. But he was on track to be ready for the WC…not selecting him was SHOCKINGLY  dumb.

"As all of them are key men and were star players in Japan four years ago, eyebrows were understandably raised when they were not among the players presented to the audience and capped by South African Rugby Union president Mark Alexander.

Given their standing in the group, injuries were all that could explain their omission, and that was confirmed by the SA Rugby media release issued simultaneously with the announcement.

“Flyhalf Handle Pollard (calf), Lukhanyo Am (knee) and Lood de Jager (chest problem) have been placed on standby with six other players. The Springbok coaches were hopeful that they may return to full training before the start of the tournament and be available for call up in the event of injury,” read the release."

And yes, I know it's not the rule, but it's an article from a legitimate source supporting the existance of such rule.

 I've known this for a long time as it's been discussed in various rugby shows over the years...way back in 2015 it was vital for jean to prove his fitness before squad announcement because of this.

If you can’t accept this as proof, please quote the law/rule refuting this.

If the law doesn’t exist, I’m supposed to find a quote that says the law doesn’t exist? If the law exists it has to be down in black and white somewhere, far more logical for you to quote the law. The only law I can find is that only injured players or players with compassionate issues can be replaced. I find nothing about whether that injury couldn’t have existed at the time the team is announced.

So rather than trying to find the rule…I left it to ChatGTP

Yes, a player who is known to be injured before the Rugby World Cup starts can still be replaced if they do not recover in time to play, but there are specific conditions surrounding this.

If a team selects an injured player for the World Cup squad with the hope that they will recover, and it later becomes clear that the player will not be fit in time for the tournament, the team can request a replacement. However, the same process applies:

1. Medical Certification: The team’s medical staff must officially certify that the player will not be able to participate due to injury.
2. Approval by World Rugby: The replacement still requires approval from World Rugby’s independent medical advisors.
3. Timing Before the Tournament: If the injury is known before the tournament starts, and the player is replaced before the first match, the replacement does not count as a mid-tournament replacement. It is essentially treated as if the injured player was never part of the active squad.

The key consideration is that the player must be declared medically unfit. Teams are not penalized for selecting players who are injured before the tournament, as long as they follow the proper protocols for replacement.

Now I have no idea if this is right, but it seems logical. The team is clearly disadvantaged if it selects an injured player who doesn’t recover to participate. And how  do you define an injured player, almost every team member probably has an injury of some kind…it would be a pointless rule which is very hard to police.

Far more likely that it’s a Bok rule under Rasmus not to select injured players for the squad. Except of course if your name is Kolisi.