Meyer & Rassie Compared

Lügnerin, your knowledge of Bok rugby is extremely lacking. Allow me to, once again, educate you... 

HEINEKE MEYER

In 2012, Meyer inherited a team that lost Smit, Schalk, Matfield, Bakkies, Dani, Fourie, Du Preez and Butch. He lost legends of Bok rugby before a single test was played.

His first team featured 4 debutants. Two of those were a new lock pair. There were no clear leaders, and there was much debate at the time, with many questioning the selection of Jean. Even more were pushing for Josh Strauss to be elevated to the starting XV and as captain.

The starting XV had 458 caps. Jean and Habana alone accounted for 146 of them. In fact, if you take the four most experienced players out of the equation, the team had 218 caps worth of experience. Of the more experienced players, some were never Bok regulars anyway. Olivier with 34 caps, Frans with 47, Ruan with 51. As it was, 11 players were under 20 caps. 

Meyer would go on to give even more debuts to Taute, Goosen, Cilliers, Potgieter, Liebenberg, Duane, Jantjies. This was all in 2012.

2013: Meyer blooded JJ, Serfontein, Botha, Nyakane, Vermaak, Kolisi, van Zyl, Willie, Franco van der Merwe, Malherbe, Steph and Adriaanse.

2014: Meyer blooded Hendricks, Pollard, Marcel van der Merwe, Mohoje, Boshoff, Lewies, Lood, Damian, Whiteley, Reinach and Carr.

2015: Meyer blooded Kriel, Koch, Mapoe and Paige.

So, that's 11 new caps in 2012, 12 in 2013, 11 in 2013 and 4 in 2015. We can clearly ascertain that Meyer built depth into the Boks squad by introducing a steady stream of youngsters. Many failed to reward his faith, or would only come good a couple of years later, such as Steph and Malherbe. Either way, he introduced many players Coetzee and Rassie would rely upon much later on. 

RASSIE ERASMUS

He was able to draw upon the personnel introduced and settled by both Meyer and Coetzee. By the very first RC test, he had a starting XV of 438 test caps. 

The average age of Rassie's starting XV for the first RC test was 26.8. The average age of Meyer's very first test starting XV was 26.1. The average age of Meyer's starting XV for his very first RC test was 26.6. 

AGE BEFORE YOUTH 

Where did Meyer suppress the emergence of a youngster? He started with Habana and Pietersen, a successful World Cup duo. He would later trial Mvovo a few tests later. Then Hougaard. Then Basson. Then Willie. None truly stuck until Hendricks. Though he did have some defensive lapses, he was a devastating attacker. He was ultimately ruled out after being diagnosed with a rare heart defect. He wasn't able to work his way into the team by the time the World Cup came around. 

LOCK: Meyer started his tenure with Kruger and Eben at lock. Both debutants. Kruger failed. They were given the England series to settle down. The 28 year old Bekker, who was heralded as the best lock in the world, began the Puma tests in Newlands and Mendoza. He too failed. His perform was so bad that he was lambasted by South Africa's media. Some called it the worst lock performce they'd ever seen. He suffered an injury and and would later play 3 tests before he went to Japan. He never made an appearance again, and even stated that he'd never be able to fill Victor's shoes, conceding that he played poorly. Kruger would play the remainder of the season, being partnered by Flip and Eben. Bekker would replace him for the final three RC tests. Other additions would include Victor, Lood and Steph. Victor dramatically improved our very poor restarts and bolstered our lineout. Steph would never live up to the hype and was often injured. Lood had the most success, but also struggled in big games. Overall, our locks relied upon a pool of players 27 years or younger. Victor was the notable exception, and the only regular over 30. Bakkies started 3 tests, 6 as a reserve. He never featured after the 2014 England test.

LOOSIES: Our loose forwards were Coetzee, Alberts and Spies. Spies and Alberts were the old men at 27 and 28 years. Coetzee was 21. After what was lauded as a highly successful Super rugby campaign, Coetzee debuted with great expectation. He would start 6 consecutive tests before being replaced by 28 year old Louw. He never did live up to the hype and had a poor England series. Coetzee would play at varying points again, but never could step up when the team needed him. 2014 was a particular disappointment, punctuated by an ineffective EOYT. Meyer would call on Brussow in the RC, but Meyer's clear preference was Louw. Schalk played 8 until Duane returned from injury. Alberts never retained his place after his injury troubles. Noone else was to challenge the mainstays.

FRONT ROW: Our front row consistently featured Beast, Bissie, Jannie and Strauss. We tried many tightheads with varying degrees of success. Noone could oust Jannie out of the starting berth. Steenkamp had a successful run, but never truly looked like overtaking Beast. Malherbe was underwhelming at best. 

CENTRE: Centre was quite the conundrum. Meyer trialed many players and all newcomers failed. Damian, Kriel, Serfontein and JJ were the dishonorable mentions. All were defensively suspect and failed to generate the attacking play they were highly acclaimed for. Jean was our most successful longest serving centre and captain. He presided over the successful 2013 team. He would ultimately be replaced by Damian in the World Cup and his absence was greatly felt. JP had a stint at 13, and is, alongside Fourie and Jean, statistically our most successful player at 13 under Meyer. That said, he didn't last long there before making way for the failed JJ. Serfontein did a job at 13, but never made an appearance again once Kriel debuted at 13. The younger replacements were a failure. Of the new gen players, Serfontein looked the most promising. How sad it was that he never had a chance to play in the World Cup. 

HALFBACKS: Meyer dropped Morné for Goosen part of the way through the RC, which was a failure. Meyer then turned to Lambie, who failed. Morné was brought back into the squad and starting XV in 2014 and formed a fantastic partnership with Ruan in a free scoring campaign where he was the key trigger man. He was dropped in 2014 for Pollard. This was successful. However, Meyer would later drop Pollard for Lambie, which failed spectacularly. Morné would never feature prominently again under Meyer. No other 10 made an impression. At scrumhalf, he tried Hougaard first, the Pienaar. Neither really delivered. Reinach was given a run and was the worst performing scrumhalf since Januarie's howlers in the twilight of his career. Du Preez handily outplayed all of them. No other nine did anything of note. 

WING: Habana was always our premier wing under Meyer. Pietersen was successful in the England series of 2012, looking rejuvenated by the change in coach. He would feature sparingly at wing until he returned again in 2015 to reclaim the no. 15 Jersey for the World Cup. He was successful. Other notable wings were Hendricks and Willie. Both were successful, the former losing his place due to a serious health concern and the latter moving to fullback. Basson failed to replicate his successful Super rugby form. No other wings made an impression of note.

FULLBACK: Kirchner had a patchy 2012 season, but a very successful 2013 season. He was one of the foremost catalysts for attacking play throughout 2013 and outplayed his RC counterparts. Willie later owned the jersey, but was horribly out of sorts in the WC, making scores of errors. Lambie was another viable alternative, and Goosen did feature. Noone could match the playmaking ability of Willie, who was clearly the best fullback in SA. Certainly the most creative. Noone else could match what Willie, Zane or Lambie brought. Too bad the latter was repeatedly tried at 10, with no degree of success.

There we have it. Meyer went to youth first. Victor, Schalk, JP, Du Preez, Fourie, Bakkies were the primary "old guard" Meyer brought back into the fold. Bakkies was only a starter in 3 tests: 1 in 2013 and 2 early in 2014. Youth replaced him. Victor was vying with Lood for a starting spot. In the end they were rotated. Lood never lived up to the hype in big games and Steph was never a factor at flank or lock. Jean was the consistent old man at centre, but was replaced by the unsuccessful Damian. Schalk was one of the best Boks of 2015. Victor was never quite at his very best, but contributed well, adding depth at the very least. Our halfbacks were youthful, and we trialled many young back three players. Most of the newbies failed, but some still contribute to this day. 

Todah Raba. 

AO

Just one plain question?  How long did you took to d ream up the BS?

I can answer the question easily - how many of Meyers new caps lasted more than 3 tests?   The list is as long as the rubbish  you wrote.

You gave a long refrain about how good Meyers situation was. but devoted one paragraph to Erasmus  with a load of BS in it.  If you wanted to be fair how many caps did the starting line-up in the test against England of the 2012 Springboks had and how many did they have in 2018?

Which personnel  did Erasmus got from Meyer??????????

You have lied about the average age of players before - the famous 27 age in the Japan test - and since it is a whole list of BS one can just wonder,    You probably went bananas with your calculations because the average age of teams are calculated on the starting team only - if you want to bring in the bench you have an extremely difficult formula getting it down to minutes played and then work out an average age of the starter and the replacement player that way,   That makes it virtually impossible to get a correct figure and nobody bother to do it anyway.   

There is just one question - how many tries had

*    Meyer's team scored  in the June tests and in the RC in 2012; and 

*    Erasmus'  team scored in the June tests and the RC in 2018

How many times did Meyers' teams scored 30+ points against the AB's?

What are you trying to prove by bringing up players that you denigrate on the basis of pet hate?   

Listen the above is a list of drivel unbelievable I listed 3 questions - ask those and you get to the gist of the story.   Erasmus already showed that Meyer is not even near his level of coaching.

I listed a number of questions and would like a true answer and not further drivel.    

I think it is unfair to make a direct comparison between the two coaches directly.

Meyer's expertise was with the forwards and that was used as such (as assistant coach) by Mallett during his 17 matches he won in a row. During Meyer's total time as National Coach he was not allowed the luxury of an experienced backline coach.

Rassie's forte is also with the forwards and he was also equipped with a nincompoop backline coach in Mr Stick. Rassie however realised the writing was on the wall and somehow managed to obtain the services of Swys de Bruyn and I think the recent improvement in the Boks performance may have something to do with this.

Lügnerin, how many tests can a coach afford to lose to a non-performer?

I have never lied about the age of the players. I have twice calculated the average, did not feel like doing it a third time and said "roughly 27 years". You proceeded to produce a number which was indeed roughly 27. 

If you think I am lying, I challenge you to work it out yourself. The information is freely available. Go for it. I dare you! 

The figure your hero Mozart produced was 29,7and mine was 29,4 - how did that got to 27 BSter?

Why not answer the simple questions I put to you?

You are indeed covering this thread with utter BS,   How can anyone ever believe you?   

As I said, it was a rough estimate from memory. One you confirmed yourself. 27 is roughly close to 29. Hence the word roughly. You are straining desperately to attack Meyer now because Rassie was a cock fool and blew a win. He really let his players down. Any excuses? 

My information on this thread is absolute iron clad fact. You can disprove nothing. You never do prove anything. Just confirmation that you know so little about Bok rugby. Ende. 

29,7 (Mozart's figure) or even 29.4 is a hell of a lot different from 27,   There was no roughly in your calculation - so you got caught out lying and then have the audacity not to admit you were wrong.

But I have a serious problem - despite all the drivel you wrote in the starting posting on this thread - I asked you some simple questions  that even a ten-year old would answer with the greatest of ease.   You never answered so what must I say about your total rugby ignorance??????????    

My 2c is that there basically a big difference between Rassie and all previous coaches (so it appears to me)...Rassie focus is on team/squad and rugby depth overall...the previous coaches focussed were more concerned on winning each match to keep their job...I might be wrong but I don't think he focusses on instant results but on long term results...previous coaches were concentrating in keeping the impatient fans and rugby bosses at bay.

My impression is Rassie ignores band-aid fixes and does not get side tracked...he focuses improving the wider picture. This was something that Ian MacIntosh did but was not given time because Louis Luyt was an impatient man and the WC was looming up...Kitch Christie inherited a lot of Mac's groundwork...both were outstanding coaches...sadly the shallow rugby fans don't see this.

I once had a long chat with Pieter Muller (Springbok Centre and one of the best defensive ones) and this information I got from him...he rated Ian Mac as the best rugby coach he ever played under.

Seb

I agree with you about the basic situation as outlined by you.   Erasmus inherited a situation where the Springbok team had to be rebuild from the mess left by the last two coaches,   He had another problem that since 2014 became endemic and that is political interference of a much higher scale than before in team selection.

He has to determine which players could make a difference in going into the 2019 RWC with a proper player squad and game plan.   According to his critics on site he must  ignore the situation he started to correct he has according to their attacks select some players who are not up to standard because they have a list of players the four members dislike and others who failed - which they have build into must-select players.

I think the best thing is to ignore whatever the four members in their hate campaigns come up with,  because there is no logic in what they write and they invent reasons no other person would raise - often enough misrepresenting the situation totally.    

It's worse then that Chabal, Rassie is an impatient coach who chops and change. He doesn't always reward good play and can turn on his players. Meyer work to build depth, which he ultimately did, but felt the pressure too much. Rassie is tactically inferior and his clunky attacking game needs to change. Watch the 2014 Bok win over New Zealand to see the difference. He is not the coach we had hoped he would be.

I want to add the following objective assessment of what happened in the RC since 2012 quoted from News24:-

 "Saturday's clash between the Springboks and All Blacks was one for the ages, but it was never going to have any impact on the overall tournament log. 

Going into the match, the All Blacks had already secured the title while the Boks would finish 2nd in the competition regardless of what happened in Pretoria. 

As it turns out, the Boks surrendered a 30-13 lead to concede three tries in the final 20 minutes to go down 32-20. 

It was a heart-breaking night for South Africa, who came within a whisker of securing their first back-to-back wins over the All Blacks since 2009. 

There is still the end-of-year tour to Europe to come, but now that the Championship is over we can look at how Rassie Erasmus fared in his first year of competition compared to his predecessors. 

Saturday's result saw the Boks earn 1 losing bonus point, meaning that they finish on 3 wins and 3 losses for a total points haul of 15 points in the 2018 tournament.

That return is South Africa's best in a Rugby Championship since Heyneke Meyer's Boks that accumulated 19 points in both 2014 and 2013. 

Allister Coetzee, meanwhile, scored 10 and 14 points in his two years in charge in 2016 and 2017, respectively. 

Bok Rugby Championship history:

2018 - 2nd (15 points)

2017 - 3rd (14 points)

2016 - 3rd (10 points)

2015 - 4th (2 points)

2014 - 2nd (19 points)

2013 - 2nd (19 points)

2012 - 3rd (12 points)"

The attack on Erasmus started by the same four member even before he was appointed and the praise songs of Meyer and condemnation of Erasmus was their constant theme.    When one reminds them of certain facts and advise them to compare to what happened in tests against the same national teams - they ignore facts and invented their own twisted logic.

A number of easy examples are as follows-

*    Log points in RC in 2012    =  12    -    in 2018    =    15 points

*    Log position  in RC in 2012 =   3rd -    in 2018    =    2nd

*    Tries scored (all Matches)  2012  =  19    2018   =    29

*    Points against AB's             2012  =   27   2018   =    66

If there is a comparison to be made the above clearly favours Erasmus - yet facts are never the strong suit of the attackers on Erasmus - they ignore facts or dream up their own and when caught out they try and lie there way out of spots.   A typical one is the average age of the players in the Japan test - OA claims it was 27 - fact is it was 29,7.   The 2,7 difference in fact represent  a 40,5 years difference - ie 2,7 x 15.   

I aqree it is not fair to compare coaches on any basis - the differences faced by the two coaches are complicated  -  but that does not stop a barrage of attacks by Mozart and co. on Erasmus starting even before he was appointed as coach.  So what must objective people do in dealing with their BS?                              

How droll. You've just been humiliated regarding Meyer's management of youth and experience. Now you try to tell us how successful Rassie is. The day after he bungled an All Black test!

No, in fact, as stated already, the third instance of me dealing with the average age of the Japan Books was a rough estimate based on what I remembered the previous two times I calculated the average. 29 is roughly close to 27. Either way, you are a liar, as you stated in July that the team was the oldest ever. It wasn't. 24 to 29 are a man's prime years after reaching full development. 

You cant stop finding ways of embarrassing yourself. 

The only member constantly embarrassing himself are you - sad to say.   I stated the WC2015 squad was the oldest average squad ever and Meyer bragged about the fact that the selection in the Japan test was the most experienced ever playing for the Springboks ever in the history of Springbok Rugby.   

That new "roughly" story cropped up only when both Mozart and I proved that you were wrong.

Fact is there was very poor management of the teams selected by Meyer,   His selections ultimately resulted in disastrous performances by his teams in the period November 2014 until September 2015 (including the Japan disaster).   Played 9 - lost 6.

I think to be fair one has to remember also that Meyer refused to select any Lions players for the 2015 WC squad,   The reason was that he did not know whether the Lions players would fit into his game plan and he could not envisage how to coach them into playing his questionable game plan.   What was clear was that the elderly players he selected were so set in their ways - they could not learn anything new,

Sorry AO - but I do not think that Meyer really was a success as a coach and your arguments are in the main totally unsubstantiated,   Time to move on from a bad period in Springbok rugby and move on.                 

Well, were it not for Lambie, Reinach and Coetzee, the Bo ks would not have been beaten in Wales in 2014. Were it not for Damian they wouldn't have lost to Australia in 2014. Were it not for Kriel they would not have lost to Japan. Were it not for Damian and Lood they would not have lost the WC test against New Zealand. I can concede where Meyer made mistakes. You spend your time defending those mistakes, which is quite puzzling considering that you are anti-Meyer.

Now we have you not only turning a blind eye to Rassie's mistakes, but you defend those mistakes yet again. You suffer from tribal psychology, because of that, this thread has been created. Thus you have been exposed as a deluded liar. Again. 

That Australian story about the 2014 test has been discussed time and time again and the loser in that game was Morne Steyn - who on his own \snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.   

I have not hesitated to criticize Erasmus when it came to selections and even some aspects of team play - but I am defending him against the BS Mozart, you and co come up with trying to discredit him.   Your comparison between Meyer and Erasmus is also sickening - factually in his first 8 tests the Erasmus 2018 teams were near to 100% better than the teams coached by Meyer against the same teams in 2012,

If you are referring to the AB test in 2015 when referring to De Allende - please bear in mind that was the test Nonu was replaced because De Allende played the fool with him.   Your twisting and turning assisted by Pakie counts for nothing.  And O yes - in the Aussie test De Allende tried to make 21 tackles and made 15.  Pakie  tried to create his own stats in the game and got nowhere.  

Normally I  know in advance about what BS Mozart, you and Pakie  will come up with and I am always on the look-out for deceit and lies.  So lets be careful in future what you come up with.      

From what I have seen, Meyer has vastly more rugby IQ. His setups and tactics were very tailored to the personnel and opposition. He didn't just select players to execute a gameplan, he made changes to accommodate their skill set. He reduced the plan when saddle with limited players but still found creative ways to get something out of them. He wasn't perfect, but the Meyer game was more advanced. 

There's a disconnect between what Rassie sees and believes. He chops and changes far too much, unsettling combinations. He is fortunate yo have a pool of players emerge as viable options, but he is making life more difficult for himself than it needs to be. He has the capacity to be a very Book coach. He needs to cut the kak and get his head screwed on. He has an EOYT to atone for this gaff. I hope he learns from it. Something like this in a WC could mean another embarrassing loss.

I heard this myth about the Meyer game plan umpteen times.   If indeed there was a game plan it got lost in the execution phase - there was no coherent implementation.

The only game plan evident was that the game ended with the no 10 position and that is why Pollard - brilliant in his first two tests started to deteriorate,  During the Meyer years his actual performances deteriorated badly and Meyer for periods used Lambie as flyhalf.   Coetzee and Meyer had the same ideas about backline usage and there was no real plan catering for backline play.

Meyer himself said clearly what was happening and his own words on the issue are being ignored  by AO.    All his rubbish are generalizations with NO SUBSTANCE  Anyone pointing out the BS gets attacked.   

What is a BOOK COACH?   There are serious reasons why Erasmus had to introduce changes - the Meyer and Coetzee years left a void as to a reliable player pool.   The fact is the different candidates had to be evaluated and in the Wales test they were given a chance to see how they perform.   Most failed dismally and most of the Wales test players vanished from further squads.   There were some that were given chances again in the dead rubber third test against England and they failed again when injury issues forced Erasmus to use what OA regarded as success stories  again in failed matches,

Erasmus was remarkably consistent in his selections and that applies to virtually all positions on the field of play.   Players like Wilco Louw, Francois Louw, Jantjies,  Esterhuizen and Am failed in the tests they played in and injuries forced him to use them repeatedly  and he could not find easy other alternatives.   Again he had to face facts - with them in the team he was assured of virtual certain losses.   He was forced into usage of Mostert at 5 despite the fact that he is physically deficient as a lock as his preferred candidate De Jager was injured. 

The above is factual - but I think there are other players not on board yet  and there will be other changes for the end of year tour.   The failures I mentioned got massive write-ups  from the real ignorant on site - there campaigns being based on no real foundations but fabrication, distortion and lies needed to boost the potential of players they believe would help  them in their hate campaigns against some players.   

I see no reason for a thread like this - trying to glorify Meyer and denigrate Erasmus is useless.   Meyer once in four years manage to beat the AB's at home - never away.  Because Le Roux was taken off with a concussion problem in the test yesterday - Erasmus was accused of virtual treason because he replaced him by the same idiotic members.  De Klerk apparently also had an injury problem and the same BS followed.    Etzebeth never completes a test and he was replaced at his normal replacement time.  Same with Malherbe - although he normally remains on the field longer than the loosehead starters,     Since Louw was not reliable - Erasmus was forced to use Koch to replace Malherbe and he did not make the grade.   What else did our local self-proclaimed world experts wanted him to do?

So why did Le Roux started to lose the plot in the last year of Meyer coaching and was ultimately ignored by Coetzee?   The reason was there were no back-up players he could use to support attacking play.   Fact is he had better supporting runners this year than he ever had under Meyer after the performance deterioration of Habana and Pietersen started to take their toll.      

You cannot argue or debate this at this stage...Rassie has just started and HM is gone...I prefer to see the wider picture and what is very clear is Rassie has a longer term vision...but the proof is in just looking at the players, they look united, they look happy and confident and they are really giving it their best shot...a far cry from what we were seeing in the past.

I'm backing Rassie...there is no need for others trying to tell him how he must run the show, of course he would not listen...he has his own agenda and besides what a cheek,,,it really is hilarious...who the hell does this bunch of total ignoramuses who cannot deal with their trivial interpersonal differences on this blog....Bahahahahahahahaha.

A severe case of delusions of grandeur in extreme....this really is funny.

Lets see who has the last laugh...looking forward to it.

Meyer had to oversee a complete overhaul of the team, the first since 2004, with precious little at hand. He didn't have a powerful pack in 2012. Rassie had an assortment of options. Eben was only making his debut in 2012 and was a far cry from the player he has become the past couple of seasons. Duane wasn't very good when he debuted in 2012. We didn't have anyone to fill in at 13. We had no options outside of Habana and JP until Hendricks. The latter suffering a severe heart condition and would be eliminated for the remainder of Meyer's tenure.

Where was Willie? He only started in 2013, and was very error prone. He was preferred to Zane in 2013, but moved to the wing as he was making too many mistakes. He only really came of age on the 2013 EOYT. Unfortunately he was horribly it of form in 2015, his kicks and passes were not sticking. He was poor under the high ball. 

What else was there? Locks? Lood was tried and failed. Bekker failed. Steph was nowhere and often injured. His time at flank was a disaster in the World Cup. 

What else? Meyer only made changes through injuries? Is that why he started Pollard and Goosen? Or Willie? Or Duane? Or JJ? Or Serfontein? Or Vermaak? Or Lood? Or Damian? Or Hendricks? Or Malherbe? Or Steph? Or Coetzee? Or Taute? Or Kruger? Or Coenie? Or Eben? The list goes on. The answer is plain and simple. The notion that Meyer only made enforced selections due to injures is plainly fallacious.

As per Rassie having a longer term view? Is that why he dumped his centres? Or kept dumping his loose forwards? The man has been throwing spaghetti at a wall until something stuck.

Meyer wanted to overhaul the entire game in SA to adopt a model very close to that of New Zealand. He was never given the opportunity to advance SA rugby the way it needed. He presided over the most vulnerable period of Bok rugby since 2000-2003 and kept the team #2 for most of it. For two years we were unbeaten at home by anyone aside he All Blacks. We had two unbeaten tours up north until the fan favourites came onto the scene.

It's ironic. Meyer was lambasted for kicking, when his Boks didn't do enough of it. Rassie's Boks have been guilty of aimless kicking all year, many leading to tries, and this is lauded as a step forward. His clunky attacking game and demolition of a win over New Zealand making embarrassing reading for the groupies.

The fact of the matter is, Meyer's model of Bok rugby was better. The opening post eliminates a large number of the lies perpetuated by the media puppets.  

This type of discussion with AO is useless.   He developed a theory about things and when it is countered he started writing absolute nonsense,

Meyer made some real statements - he said clearly that th SA backline players do not have the skill set necessary to play a ball-in-hand game.   If that publicly expressed comment was taken into account how could the following statement by AO be true:-

"Meyer wanted to overhaul the entire game in SA to adopt a model very close to that of New Zealand."

Who did Meyer have available for the 2012 tests of experienced players, which he in fact picked:-

Kirchner, JP Pietersen, De Villiers, Francois Steyn,  Habana, Morne Steyn, Ruan Pienaar, Spies, Jannie Du Plessis, Bismarck du Plessis and Beast.   He only had to find 3 positional players and the bench players - which would not have been all that difficult - but he messed up the bench with Bulls players.  Most of the ahove name4d player had more than 20 test games experience.

So who did Erasmus take over in 2018:-

Willie le Roux, Kriel, De Allende, Pollard, Vermeulen, Du Toit, Etzebeth, Malherbe, Marx and Beast.   The difference was the este experience of the players Erasmus had available.   Five of the players had more than 15 test caps and the others have had some bench experience and very little starting experience.

To claim that Meyer had problems in 2012 and Erasmus had less in 2018 is totally unrealistic and misleading.

Changes through injury?   There were very few exceptions where Meyer did not bring in new players other than as a result of injury.  The one exception was Morne Steyn.   He dropped Morne Steyn once in 2012 and twice in 2014 because of atrocious performance in tests - FACT.   He never afterwards pick Morne Steyn I any starting team - FACT.   

AO has a habit of seeping statements like  -  "the fact of the matter is, Meyer's model of Bok rugby was better".   Why was the model better and why did it not show better results in 2012 and culminated in total collapse in the 2014 EOYT and in period of 9 tests played - why was there only 3 wins.

SO cannot just make statements - he must produce hard evidence to substantiate his statements.   No amount of vagu e waffling will meet the evidence requirement. 

Well said Sharkbok.....you are spot-on.

Sharkbok is wrong. Lügnerin is even worse then that. In fact, it's embarrassing. 

Embarrassing for you obviously.   Its is easy to have verbal diarrhea spouting unproven tales - but not so easy when fats are put to counter the diarrhea attack.  That is where hard answers must be given and there is none forthcoming in this case.

Try again.  

Sharkbok is wrong.

There are times I find you hilarious....this is one of them

Let's summarize the anti-Meyer groupie bleatings:

1. Meyer always selected old has-beens ahead of youth. I just debunked this myth in my opening post. 
2. Meyer had the most experienced starting XV in Bok history against Japan. This is also a myth. As the Bok side against Australia in 2011 had no player under 20 caps, Lambie aside. Most were over 40 caps in established combinations. 
3. Meyer had an old team. Several players with over 100 caps would spike the total amount under Meyer, players who were surrounded by much less experienced players. The average age of Meyer's side in 2012 was lower than that of what Rassie has fielded this year. The average age would increase by a little over 2 years by 2015.
4. Meyer adopted a kick chase game. This is very untrue. The Boks would never kick enough. There was one test which was dominated by the boot of Pienaar and that was never repeated again. This is is stark contrast to Rassie's Boks who have kicked more ball away aimlessly than any period of Meyer's tenure.
5. Schalk played flyhalf. This was a notion peddled by a few journalists and repeatedly bleated by the plastics. It reflected a complete lack of understanding of the structure of the modern game. What did we see under Rassie? Yes, a front line of forward pods with backs underneath. Mini units with play makers directing play. This identical to what Meyer was doing, though more rigid. Where are the calls for Steph being in the flyhalf position? Nowhere? Is that because the plastics need a journalist to point it out for them? 
6. Meyer only made selections because of injuries. Of all the new caps, I can't think of one that was due to an injury. We saw Damian replace Jean. It didn't work. Coetzee replaced Alberts in 2014. It didn't work. What were the other big injury enforced changes? Schalk starting at 7? It did work. He also played 8 in Duane's absence.

AO

1    I cannot understand your logic if there is in fact any.   The old ahs beens fact is true.   Meyer pleaded with retired players to come back to test rugby.   Lets look at the list he used:-

Steenkamp, Bakkies Botha, Van der Merwe (prop), Matfield, Du Preez, Jacques Fourie, Juan Smith.   

2    The Japan test squad had more caps than any previous bok side had - that statement was made by Meyer himself before the match and was splashed all over the media.   Are you implying that Meyer lied?

3.   I am not even going to try to work out the average age of Meyer's teams in 2012 - compared to Erasmus's teams in 2018, since it is really an exercise in futility.   If it is done you will come back with airy fairy comments again - like happened in the case of the Japan 2015 test.

4.   I have done many analysis in the past,  As long as Morne was at flyhalf the kick percentages were over 55% of the balls he handled.   Passing and carrying was a much lower percentage,   Box kicking by the scrummies was anytime as high as that of De Klerk.     Remember the Meyer quote referred to above - it limited the passing game drastically.   The problem was that with More at flyhalf the kicking game was very poorly executed.   The other flyhalfs also suffered from the way the game was played under Meyer.   

5    The fact is that it is not the only replacements made by Meyer - Serfontein came on Board because of injury to Fat Fransie, De Allende was another injury replacement player - so was Kriel, The injury to Spies caused his replacement by Vermeulen.   Willie le Roux only came on board really to replace the injured Kirchner.   Your comments on what worked and what did not work is totally flawed by a complete inability to del with issues objectively,  You have a hate-campaign against certain players whose assessment by you was totally flawed and the joke of the century.  

Fact is that if you want others not to say anything about Meyer - then you and Mozart should stop your attacks on Erasmus.   

Reading comprehension Lügnerin. I know you are still smarting from Rassie's gaff and are fueled with adrenaline. Stay calm and let it all sink in. 

1.The statement, which you made dozens of times the past couple of months, was that Meyer went for older players first. This has been proven to be incorrect. Meyer went to youth first.

2.Reread what I wrote. I explained everything the first time around. 

3.Every word I have spoken about the age of the teams was true. I did work out the average age of teams. Meyer's was younger. You were thus wrong again, just as you wrong about the Bok side for Japan.

4.Actually, with Morné, t he backs saw more ball. Morné was even with regards to kicking. Which is normal. Carter et al kicked more. As always we depend more on our 9s for tactical kicking. We never saw anywhere near as many box kicks under Meyer. The Bok game under Rassie has a simple ingredient: Any slow ball in our half is to be kicked. How do you feel about this? Many of these kicks resulted in tries. Why are you so quiet about this? Instead you have repeatedly harped on about Meyer.

5.Willie started at 15 to open the 2013 season. Kirchner replaced him, then on the EOYT Willie came in for Zane. Damian opened the 2014 RC at 13. Not an injury enforced selection. Spies only played the England series in 2012, Duane replaced Keegan Daniels, who made his debut in 2010. Serfontein and Frans were being trialed by Meyer. He already stayed he wanted to see both of them ahead of the 2014 RC. You were wrong on all counts.

Attacks on Rassie? I have done no such thing. I have accurately assessed his work. I give credit where it is due. You on the otherhand relished any problems the Boks suffered under Meyer and lied the rest of the time. You exonerate your pet favourites from blame, but blamed the coach for the product of their failures.

The fact that you let all of Rassie's aimless kicking, which resulted in several tries, off the hook suggests to me that you are not objective in your critique. This thread alone is full of your bias. 

Try again AO -- your assessments are biased and contains zero of substance.

By the way - you have no facts to prove about Meyer's selections when it comes to his own statement  I quoted.  It related entirely to his game plan for backline players.

The one I did NOT quote was his justification for selection of the world cup squad players obviously aimed against criticism of selection of poor over-the-hill players.   He said inter alia that :he "knows what the selected are capable of".    Porblem is -- he forgot when they did show capabilities near to a decade ago and it had nothing to do with what they were capable of in 2014 and 2015.

Accusing me of bias is a joke - the most biased members are you. Mozart, Pakie and Ceradunce and it comnes through in posting after posting whether on this thread or any other thread by player performance assessments are under discussion.  

You have been soundly beaten in this thread Lügnerin, retire and let your bruised head heal. 

Beaten by what?  Airy-fairy statements dreamt up by you does not represent anything.