Meyer as coach

I think people should think a bit of Meyer's predicament in dealing with him as a coach   It is very easy toi cricticize a new coach - especially under the circumstances in which he inherited playes from his predecessors.   His immediate rection was in fact predictable - he was hpong to entice back some players like Mattfield, Botha and Fourie Du Preez to come back and play for the Springboks.    Problem is he was looking for stability - but wanted to use playes that was not up to standard even during  the period 2009-11.   Of the three mentioned  none of them can be the basis for building a team for the 2015 WC and I am really glad that one did not succeed.

He realized that some team-building was necessary and started out with picking what he regarded as the best talents from Junior level with due regard to their performances on Super 15 level - to start as Springboks - namely Etzebeth and Coetzee.   Although people shout and scream about Coetzee - ithe move was an inspired effort to improve the Springbok team.   He was severly criticized for not picking for instance Brussow - but was fully  justified in doing that - if Brussow poor performances this year are  taken into account.

In essence the only real criticism that can in fact be expressed for realistic reasons is the fact that Meyer stuck with players that consistently under-performed this year - namely Morne Steyn and Kirchner.   It is not always certain what the reason for that is - and he was severly cricized that it was based on the fact that they wer Bulls players.   Where he can also be severely cricized is his selection of two Bulls props - Kruger and Greyling - and their inclusion on the bench.   Both had atrocious Super 15 records insofar as penalties against them were concerned - and both failed miserably when they came on from the bench.   However, he probably learnt a very good lesson from that fiasco.

The other issue here is that from remarks he made - and even from games that was played - the public gained an impression that the game plan of the Springboks was simple and centered around kicking and chasing.   Meyer did make some rather poor remarks - but then dealt extensively well with the issue of the game plan and it was clear that it was not so simple as the public thought.   That was in fact a good move and clarified many uncertainties on that score.

Meyer showed signs of a change in approach and start to phase in Goosen as the new flyhalf - moving away from the one-dimensional Morne Steyn as back line pivot.   Many would argue - especially after the atrocious kicking performance by Steyn last Saturday - that he is not moving fast enough on that score.   His persisitence with Kirchner is really amazing - but that is not the issue here.   Insofar as Goosen is concerned we can expect that the phasing in process will continue and I only hope that the move is expedited and carried through faster.

I believe - that insofar as certain moves by Meyer is concerned - he has done well.   He is starting to select better players in key positions bringing in yuoungsters with huge potential and abilities.   There are indications of better execution of the game plan and from that perspective he deserves ccredit.

I am sure that we will sooner rather than later see some more new faces in the Springbok team as the rebuilding program continues.  In the latter regard there will be failures and there will be successes.   I would rather see the program being expedited - and so would some others.   However, Meyer is likely to move prudsntly and not to upset the applecart too much.   Take the Goosen situation for example.   His introduction needs to go hand-in-hand with  changes in the playing methods and abilities of the other players around him.   What I mean is that the one-dimensional playing style of Morne Steyn resulted in certain limited opportunities and playing methodology for for instance the no 12 center -  Goosen/s style requires adjustment of their playing techniques and is much more challenging than the case was with Morne.   The signs are that the adjustment is happening - so the process could even be escallated.

In general to be fair to Meyer - the main criticism that lingers is some elements of his player selection and there I for one am going to keep being critical.   However, I think people should realize that Meyer has done quite well in starting a renewal programme and  under the circumstances we should  look at achievements over a longer period and not the three to four months he was actually in the job thus far.    In general I am optimistic about his future as Bok coach and am watching with interest what is going to happen in the next 18 months.           

Keep it simple Mike, Meyer has failed miserably in selecting and showing blind faith in players like Kirchner, Jean, Morne, Pienaar, Jeandre Kruger and Alberts as starters and then including the likes of de Jongh, Cilliers, Liebenberg and Greyling in the match 22........not to mention the pathetic treatment of Hougaard being shifted to the wing and the discarding of Bekker - not to mention the discarding of players like Daniel, JJ and Jantjies without have played any or very little rugby under him.

Not only has he selected poorly he has adopted an outdated gameplan - why on earth would you instruct your 9 & 10 to launch the ball so often, when its obvious to all and sundry that the margin of retaining possession under these tactics is minimal.

I had high hopes for Meyer but he has downright poor. His blind faith in Morne has been an insult as has the notion of playing a hasbeen out of position at 13.

Meyer has inherited nothing, he cant blame PDV - he had 3 SA sides end up in the top 5 of the S15 - the talent is in abundance...................there are 20 players out there he could have used, instead we see him invest in washed up hasbeens.

The bloke had better catch a wake up soon or piss off

Saffex

I think that we are in agreement on the issue of player selection and I stated it clearly.   With regard to the player treatment and seletion of players I do believe there are playes that he should not have selected - but I do not think that he had much of an option in some cases.   In other cases he should have made different choices with due regard to recent performances of players in the Super series.

In a period of rebuilding - any coach will inevitably make mistakes.   The playes mentioned by you should never have been top choices - he made his bed and must lie in it.   Insofar as scrummies are concerned - he kept Hougaard in that position - to which th latter was moved as a replacement of an injured Fourie Du Preez.  

During the tests this year it became evident that the Hougaard at scrummie experiment was a failure.   Hougaard could not be reatied as a scrummie and he moved him to his naturall position on the wing.   He had no choice and retained him in that position, in spite all the staements about Hougaard - he this year in particular showed serious deficiencies as a scrummie since he is not a natural scrummie.   Slow service - he tends to run a few steps before passind - put the whole backline under pressure,  His kicking game was not up to standard (there were too many charge-downs for instance) - it was really of his main problems.    I do not think Meyer would ever have moved him to wing if careful analysis and sturdy of his performances was not done.  He also got caught in possession far too many times.   I believe Meyer had no option - but to move Hougaard to wing.  

In th latter regard I believe that we are in agreement that the Springbok backline was disfunctional.  I am sure Meyer thought that the problem would be solved by rreplacing Hougaard as scrummie - but he was still stuck with Morne Steyn - a one-dimensional player.  

When it was decided that Hougaard was not functioning to best advantage as a scrummie - Meyer had limited options  and that left him with Pienar.   There was really nobody else he could fall back on.   Be it as it may - the backline has shown signs of improvement with Pienaar as scummie - especially after Goosen came on from the bench.   Careful analysis indicate that Pienaar is a much better ball distributor than Hougaard.   The problem with Hougaard was that afer more than 12 tests as a scrummie - he was still not functioning properly - and I believe that to keep Hougaard as scrummie will not have any desired affects o9f a functional and effective backline.

In any event - Meyer treated Hougaard in acordance with his performances as a scrummie  - nothing else was the case here.   I find it rather funny that Meyer is accused of selecting Bulls - in this case he in fact did move a Bulls player - so that is the end of the Bulls saga as well.

In any team rebuilding process any coach would make selection mistakes.   Meyer was scared stiff whenhe selected Jantjies and ultmately found out that - although  good goalkicker - Jantjies defence in the channel is non-existent.   Unlike Greyling - at one stage even punted by you - he dared not try out Jantjies as a flyhalf.   It could only lead to a disaster - so he refarined from using him.   Greyling was  a huge emnbarrasment and Meyer would have learnt from that.   Incidemtally for every one thing Jantjies ido well on CC level - he bugggeted up 20.    He is a good ball kicker - but we have had our fill of players being seleted based on kicking skills.

Meyer is guilty of poor player selection - but in a rebuilding environment there will ne successes and mistakes.   Lets not concentrate on the mistakes side only - look also at the successes like Eizebeth and Coetzee as well.  

No more hype-players who fail on CC-level - should be in the team  Allso "rugby geriatrics" need to be removed.

 Meyer bulls selections have mostly been a disaster. Many have now been dropped. He is only get the best team now. Morne and Kirchner must go. I am not even sure that the non stop kick and chase is his gameplan or just Morne kicking the ball away. When Goose and Lamb are on the field the ball gets run and passed, not just booted away.

It's a tough one with Morne. Goosen wasn't ready, and is still arguably not ready. I would start him though next weekend, and I guess Lambie could have gone there previously.

I must say though, JDV has done nothing!! I mean really, he has done nothing even close to spectacular out there. Maybe I've had a few to many sometimes, but I haven't seen anything from him. It's disappointing.

Mike complete and utter bullshit regarding Hougaard at 9. The lad is a class 9 one of the best in the game. One thing he is not and that is a wing - he is completely wasted out there. Only a complete fool would select Hougaard on the wing.

Pienaar has been worse than Hougaard at 9. With Hougaard we have attacking clout and a great service - FACT

Can, Goosen might not have been ready, but Jantjies was. Give me Jantjies with one arm over useless Morne

 Ive watched the England test series again aswell as the games against Argentina and have come to the conclusion that Hougaard is a fantastic scrumhalf. His passing is fantastic, he runs a few steps draws the opposition towards him and passes but he can also pass normally, the only bad quality is his kicking, you say he can't read the game but he can, during the second test he was phenomenal at creating attacking opportunities and probing the English defence for weak points. I say play him at 9 for the home games behind a dominant foward pack, if he played scrummie against New Zealand we probably would've won despite Mornes terrible kicking. He is wasted at wing.

I think that Hougaard has passionate supporters - but want to ask them one question.   Do you think that Meyer is from a career perspective suicidal moving a performing player away from scrummie if he was doing as well as you stated?    I do not think so - and that is the key to the difference of opinion between us.

Hoiugaard is not a natural scrummie and purists can clearly see that.    Him running a few steps drawing defenders onto himself means that defenders are also drawn onto the recipient of the ball.    It slows down the backline completely and is not what is expected from a linking scrummie.

My problem is that Pienaar is not an answer either - but there is no way that scrummie performances did not improve once Hougaard was replaced by Pienaar in the games he was subbed.   Pienaar has a more instinctive idea about reding of the game than Hougaard -witness the try of Pietersen in the third test against the POMS.   Especially after that test and the one in Mendoza there was a clamour for replacement of Hougaard by Pienaar as starting Scrummie.

I wrote elsewhere that I do not agree with the kicking style game plan - and I remain of that opinion.    In essence after receiving the balls from mauls, scrums, or line-outs - Pienaar kicked away less than 10% of the balls he received.   That is not really excessive.   My main problem is not the kicking part - it is the same I had with all our scrummies since Joost came on the scene.  

There is one major problem in scrummie play in evidence ever since 1995 - ie practised by all the coaches since then - Meyer included.    The only exclusion was in fact Du Plessis - who banned it completely.   Let me describe it in more detail.   Joost stood behind especially mauls waving his arms to forwards to form up to receive the ball - the idea being that they would draw in defenders and quick ball would open spaces for attack wider out.   Du Preez  perfected the arm waving art and played in essence the same game.    Pienaar does not wave his arms - he taps the ball back to ensure there are times for the forwards to form up..    Problem with the whole system is - it does not work   It allows the opposition the opportunity to line up their defenders and slowed down the game - as the result 99% of the time is another maul with a slow ball coming out.

My problem is - I think that technique may in theory be a potential wotking formula - but it in fact does not work.   Meyer is not the first coach using it - it has been around for years before him and the funny part is that it was an inherent part of especially the Bulls game plan.    Pienaar evidently played in accordnce with this component of the game plan  - it was very evident, especially on Saturday    In summary - whenever I see that type of thing being done by a scrummie (arm waving or tapping)  - I personally write that player off as an effective scrummie, theatrics in such circumstances is not called for - the main function of scrummies is effective and accurate link play.

I want to ask anybody on this board - have you ever in your life seen the slowing down of passing by arm-wavng and tapping the ball back into the maul by any other top scrummies in the world over the past 20 years?   Give me convincing examples of that and I will change my mind on the issue completely.

Now back to the Hougaard issue - in very rare circumstances Hougaard made breaks around the mauls and scrums and in ONE case in the test he even scored a try.   All the other efforts ended in nothing - so how effective was he as a scrummie - especially bearing in mind the slow and ineffecive service he rendered?   I have heard statements from people praising Hougaard - but the question remains WHY WAS HE REMOVED AFTER TWELVE TESTS AS A SCRUMMIE?  The other equally interesting question is - WHAT DO CRITICS ON THIS BOARD EXPECT FROM A SCRUMMIE?   Measure up critically and in practice what you expect from a scrummie against actual performances on the field and then the dicussion can proceed on a structured basis.

Let me summarize - I think the worst thing by SA scrummies - and they are the only ones in the world doing it - of theatrics behind mauls and other phases of play - is passing the ball back to forwwards - which happened in 70% of the balls on Saturday.   This is not effective scrummie play - with two important outcomes - it slows down the whole playing structure and is part and parcel of the deficient backline performances we all complain about.

Problem is that Hougaard added to that by his own slow and ineffective service to the backline - so he has only himself to blame for his removal as scrummie.

Saffex - Jantjies was never ready and don't tell me he is.   Too many cases of poor defence in the channel and way too many cases of chickening out under high balls.   Jantjies blows hot and cold - can be man of th match in one game and subbed early in another.   As a matter of fact - I wish to stop the clamout about him - they would give him one test to play in - since I expect a worse disaster from him than what we got from Greyling last week and Mvovo the week before.  Then at least the noise will stop

 I have backed Meyer from the beginning to be bok coach after White even thouh I'm a massive WP and Stormers fan. During the June tours it made sense that Meyer backed some of his bulls players as he knew the players and the players were familiar with his style of play. But I was hoping over the three weeks that he would introduce players from other unions, but that never happend. He stuck to the same formula and ended up getting worse as each game whent on. 

After that i thought that his excuse of not having time to prepare players would result in him selecting less bulls players but he stuck with them and that has been extremely dissapointing to me. 

Players such as Hougaard and Steyn have been clearly out of form all season and I was hoping that he would go for a brave choice in getting form players in. Yes he had some injuries but there are decent enough scrumhalfs and flyhalfs that could hold their own until the above mentioned players have regained form. I hate the fact that he is using test matches to play players into form, namely Hougaard and Steyn.

One player I feel that should have been in the team is Peter Grant, he is not everybodies cup of tea but he kicks his goals and plays on the advantage line. 

Thus far i have been extremely dissapointin in Meyer but i wouldn't fire him just yet, he needs to learn fast and the home leg would tell us whether he has turned a corner. A true test of a coach to me is to see how well he does in the Tri / Four Nations. 

It is to late now to judge him but I would set a goal next year that if he doesn't win the Championship next year then it is time to let him go and introduce a new coach that will have time to prepare the team for the end of year tour and have the whole of the Super 15 to prepare his squad. 

The thing that I hate most is that some of the coaches in the set-up are not neccessarerly the best coaches around. For example both the defencive and backline coach are extremely poor. The same can be said forthe scrum coach. 

My coaching team would be

Jacques Nienabaar - Defensive

Matthew Proudfoot - Scrum

Bazil Cashtril - Conditioning and Fitness

Backline Coach - Eddie Jones or the Cheetahs Backline coach

Kicking Coach - Vlok Cilliers

kingcorn

You are 100% right about the supporting coaching staff - especially that know-nothing backline coach we have at present.   Our attack coach is at present the forward coach - hoiw on earth that can work out I do not know.   Insofar as backline coaching is concerned - why don't they rather use Campese - I think he has a better understanding of backline play than any present SA Coaches - and he is at present residing in SA in any event.

kingcorn

You are 100% right about the supporting coaching staff - especially that know-nothing backline coach we have at present.   Our attack coach is at present the forward coach - hoiw on earth that can work out I do not know.   Insofar as backline coaching is concerned - why don't they rather use Campese - I think he has a better understanding of backline play than any present SA Coaches - and he is at present residing in SA in any event.

 Many valid points have been written but...

He knew the state of SA Rugby when applying for the position, he shot his mouth of about winning each and every test at his first interview.

He should keep a low proflie (with press/TV)and chose/review his statements carefully prior to broadcasting them off the cuff.

I respect his rugby knowledge and his past achievements....but now he has his feet planted in the most demanding spot in all SA sport.

Everyone who loves the Boks and SA sport wants him to deliver...but he has not as yet.

Sadly.