More explanation required

Let me bang on my same drum yet again.

I just can't get over the feeling that the Boks are not a better team than the Lions are. Not even close.

Without looking at specific numbers, i am certian that as far as scores go, the Lions have scored more tries and won by bigger margins agsainst the Pumas/Jaguares than the Springboks of the last three years have. And they have both been playing against exactly the same team. One of the Lions losses occuring in an away fixture with a B team.

Commentators like to hype the Pumas over the Jags by saying that when they put their national colours on they become a diferent beast. BS. It's the same players and the same skill tier.

Yes, I understand that the man for man the Boks have better players. At least, i think so. So does everyone else.

But what is the use of picking better players when it doesnt appear possible to get them to a higher collective standard than a team with "no as good" players?

I said this at the start of Coetzee's term and somehow it still holds true.

They should start with the Lions as the base team and slowly over a period of time introduce better man for man players in to the mix.

One thing is for sure, the Lions would trample this present Springbok team, and the Springbok teams from the last two years as well. And that should never be the case.

We should rather build from our best platform and get better than spend years just trying to match what we already have.

Yes, its probably a step up to test level. Fine.

The question is...are the present Boks better able to cope with that next level than a bolstered, or even the standard Lions team would be?

For me, and based on what i've seen, my money is still on the Lions team and style.

The Super rugby model doesn't work at test level. Ask Cheika how it's going in Wallaroo Town. The Lions are a good Super rugby side, but looking at them man for man I personally don't believe they hold the answers. We just have to be patient until we strike a rich vein for talent. Meyer had us playing beyond our limitations. This is what the fans wanted, so they must simply make do. 

Aug

It worked for the Argies on Saturday. Same team, same type of play...different jumpers. And they beat a select combination of generally our best players. 

The point is that the Lions are better than the Boks. So whatever step up is required, the better team is most likely going to have the best chance of doing it. Unless, in taking the step up, less team and more individual skill is required. 

Are we even sure that many of the Lions players aren't actually the best in their position? Take Dreyer, Skosan and Combrink. These guys wreck SA opposition every week. Somehow hardly any Lions players are supposedly good enough to be Boks but in reality they've been slaughtering SA opposition jam packed with "Boks". And they've been beating NZ teams too. Regularly.

I just wanna know how that is possible. Because it's happening. They lost their head coach, some good players, and it's still happening. How?

I mean, I man for man they are so far off the skill cap then how are they regularly obliterating other teams?

I'm not suggesting scrapping everyone else. 

Just that no Bok team since the start of Coetzee's team, despite time etc has reached the Lions level. Far from it. Ligh years from it.

So what are we doing?

What are we trying to build? Are the Boks ever going to say that they can now comfortably beat the Lions?

It's hasn't been the case for three years now and I don't think it will be the case when the WC arrives either.

So we literally sit here in a position with a team that would do better than the Boks yet we won't pick them because there is some idea that the Boks will at some point finally reach a level that is available right now by another local team.

What would the Boks look like now had Coetzee picked a 100% Lions team and then slowly bolstered that with better man for man players. 

Well for one thing, he'd probably still have his job and for another, we'd have a Bok team with strong set piece and a clear and attacking style of play that would probably only struggle against the ABs.

As it stands, we are yet again building. Forever building, never finishing.

Look at Saturday's game and ask yourself if Eben, Am, Malherbe, Beast, Kolisi, Esterhuizen, Pollard or Le Roux performed better than the Lions would have.

The answer is pretty clear.

So, again...

What are we doing?

I'm still not convinced. We were in the same situation in 2009 and 2010 when the Bulls were vastly more powerful than the Boks, I don't think this transfers over very well, particularly the brand of rugby the Lions play.

Combrinck is a smart player, but too slow. I don't like any of their centres. Jantjies is a more erratic, lesser Pretorius. Mostert was a disappointment. I think we've got enough. Faf is better than Cronje.

Just my opinion of course. 

I hear you Aug.

It's just that much too often these BIP players turn in performances which totaly contrtadict their status. And then i'm jsut left wondering if we're not better off making cohesion a priority.

JW should find this conversation that you're having with yourself interesting, Plum

Kolisi throws a spanner in the works. If there was one place I'd say we could tinker, it'd be loose forward. What could arrange around him? Whitely is a Lion. Kwagga and Kolisi is looking for trouble.

I like your thinking though. 

...plump, yr obviously paying yr players too much...the solution is simple.

Tell them they're not getting paid unless they beat Australia....

NZ on the otherhand would just beat the Aussies for the fun of it...it's all about having pride in the jumper....perhaps rugby does not engender the same powerful nationalistic emotions in SA it once did...

Plum if you want objective advice...forums are a bad resource in any subject because they are contaminated by biasness from ignoramuses...some do have decent general points but in the more intricate parts and phases of the game are just as lost as the hierachy of the game...the coaches even...to get an apt response is a dice throw... the best method is to use common sense, an overall picture and guided by an overall opinion...this forum has feuds and you won't get any logical integrity here ... work it it out yourself...some know something but others use forums to try and app ease their ignorance.

I am afraid Rassie painted himself into a corner by selecting Kolisi as captain. That probably bought himself a ton of brownie points, but put his team under additional pressure.

We must be more competitive on the loose ball. Will Kwagga provide that? Not sure against Australia and NZ. Kwagga could be manhandled in a similar way as what happened to Brussow.

I like the idea to get Vermeulen into the team to provide cover at the back of the lineouts. Sorry, I have much respect for Whiteley, but he does not have the same grunt as Vermeulen.

Seb., common sense is not so common.

Ok. 

Aug has said that the SR format doesn't work in test rugby. 

Fine. What is the SR format? Why doesn't it translate well?  

What is different about test rugby rugby? That games are tighter with teams approaching it more conservatively? When a SR coach decides to adopt  super conservative grinding style of play, is his team now playing a higher tier of rugby? No, it's still a SR team playing SR quality rugby, right?

It is ultimately just the skill level that makes the difference. Supposedly.

The Boks are not skillful enough to beat lesser teams with better cohesion though. It's why we've been losing to Wales, Japan...fucking Italy. That's what happened on Saturday as well. 

All because Eben is the world's best lock, and Duane is our best 8th man and Pollard is our best 10 and on and on. So they must be in the team. Forget synergy. Never mind the fact that other teams with synergy rape us every other week. We have world beaters. Let's throw them all in the team and keep scratching our heads when we fail.

Really, I've still never gotten a definitive answer to this. It's all talk about step up, more physical, tighter, smaller margins, faster etc etc. But the Lions seem more capable of dealing with all those bigger challenges the what any Bok combination we put together is now or has been since God knows when.

Again, Saturday was yet more evidence of this. This after six games already under Rassie. We were back to square zero. Faf was actually shouting at Flow to get into a ruck. The backing up was poor, defensive patterns abysmal simple attacking plays botched to comic levels.

Bryce, to some degree I concur. When I visit my high old high school on a Saturday morning, the 1st team is just as well supported as it was when I was there. So there's that. There's still pride in the jersey. But maybe it's the requisite arrogance that we're missing. That expectation of  a W or the habit of it.

Blikkies, you're probably right. Putting the odd Lion in the side won't change much. Transplanting the entire psyche and all the players will be a better catalyst for a positive trajectory than anything else I see on the Horizon.

If the Bulls, Sharks or Stormers were as successful while the Boks were as woeful then I'd be saying the same about them.

Maybe I'm thick and there is something I'm missing so please elighten me.

Next year, before the WC, I'm gonna ask you all if you would prefer the Lions or the Boks going. The Lions will have yet gain trounced all SA competition and the Boks will still be building. Building sand castles in Nevernever land.

I liked Moz's comparison to Coetzee's tenure. As far as win percentage goes, Rasssie ain't any better so far. Because his team lacks cohesion just as much as any of Coetzee's sides did.

@ Seb

I disagree. Forums are a great source of information and a nice way to have a detailed conversations.

Sorry, jade is not my shade. Try the next door. There's a widow living there.

plum

In some wat you are correct - so lets look at the reasons why I said that.   

Locks 

On the face of it the best lock in SA is Etzebeth - that is if he fires, but he did not fire on Saturday - maybe he is still not match-fit after a near 10 months lay-off.   It somehow reminds me of race horses - the first race after being gelded they often win races - the second race they are useless.

Mostert is more effective in a fast moving game - on Saturday the game required more than that.  With Etzebeth being off the field for 10 minutes and not firing at all - it required a strong Tight 5 contest - where Mostert could not contribute constructively.   Lets look for example  at the situation in perspective - the previous test Du Toit was the no 5 - he made 18 tackles and missed 1 - on Saturday Mostert made 5 tackles and missed 2.   That was part of the problem on Saturday.

The Argentinians selected three locks - one to play as a blindsider - and they overwhelmed the under-performing Etzebeth and Mostert.   At the end of the first half - the score was 27-7 - and it was only then that Etzebeth was replaced by Du Toit and later on Snyman was brought on.  

That was one of the major problems on Saturday.   The Tight 5 was poor as a result.

The Loosies 

On Saturday the Springboks had the worst loosie combination I have seen for years, while the Lions always played as a unit.  The unit help each other to perform, together - which hides the deficiencies of individuals and the unit as a whole is very good.  

So lets look at the Springboks loosies - there was no unit complementing each other - with the result that all three loosies misfired,

Louw was sub-standard in the first Argentine test and worse on Saturday - he obnviously is not match-fit and to slow to play in SH conditions.   As an individual his performance on Saturday was worse than the previous test and very  poor.   Kolisi had two great runs and then vanished from sight - at breakdowns he was nowhere to be seen and as a member of the unit the contribution was minimal.   Whiteley tried - but without support his contribution was also nullified. 

The centers   

The center combination misfired as well.   Esterhuizen had two great carries - but his passing and off-loading game was seriously defective - he only passed or off-loaded - 36% of the balls he had available to play and his carries normally end with zero to show for it.  Am with linted ball availability was also ineffective. 

However, as a defensive unit hey were totally ineffective and the Argentinians ran circles around them.   They often did not even attempt tackles and the lack of pace caused Esterhuizen to misfire completely.   Am has a serious defect in defense and always had that problem in the tests he played in.

So I am still firm in my proven believe that the three combinations misfired on Saturday and that it ends the period of experimentation by Erasmus.   That could mean that Mostert and Whiteley most likely will not be in the Australasian leg of the RC and I m sure Louw had his last test for the Springboks = he is just not test standard anymore.

Personally I was quite negative about the team selection on Saturday and said so on site.   I also thought the Springboks chances of winning the game was near to zero and said the game would be a draw - should have given the game to the Pumas in the Superbru comp.                .

Super XV rugby is step towards the Aussie vision of union becoming league. Depower set pieces, decreased competition for the ball at the breakdown, more uniform style of playing across the teams. You can take liberties that you cannot take at test level. It's not merely skill level that increases, physicality and a need for accuracy. Line integrity is more important. Even Cheika, with his successful wide pattern had to concede in a short time that he needed to make adjustments. The expectation was that the very successful Waratahs game transfer over to test rugby and the Wallabies would begin a new era of dominance. I was once lambasted for my skepticism, but I was proven right.

The Waratahs game was more compete and transferable to test rugby then that of the Lions, who have always been about mobility rather than power. Against the Saders, we saw the limitation of the Lion's game as they were quite easily overpowered. In the opening period where they had the most dominance, and were most dangerous, they were like a small child being kept at arms length. Then, the Saders returned fire and ploughed into them. 

Of the Lions players, I don't rate most of them. They are a team who is greater than the sum of their parts, which works quite well for Super rugby with the game plan they have. They are built well for the kind of rugby played Super level. 

As far as Rassie is concerned, we just have to to see his tenure through. He is as smart as way one we are going to have for a long time. I thought he was out coached by Ledesma, who clearly has the Pumas playing very well. What a change. Australia and New Zealand should not underestimate them or they too will lose!

As per Freifrau Mike von Klugscheißer, pay him little attention, he is fishing for Damian to be made Bok captain. 

Listen dofdoos - no one needs your personal attacks on site and  what I want have nothing to do with individual players - that I look at differently from the lies and misrepresentations Mozart and you specialize in.  

You are totally clueless about Super Rugby - as clueless as you are on other rugby.   Despite all your theorizing and dreams you have no idea what is actually required on the field of pla y - hence your constant BS about coaches, game plans and essentially plan implementation and constant support of sub-standard players.

Clean up your act and stop personal attacks iro which you are equally idiotic to the despicable Mozart.      

Clever Mike, I am extremely mild in my dealings with you. Were I to truly respond in kind you would have been decimated long ago. Be thankful for small mercies.

I am clueless about Super rugby? So clueless that when we last discussed defence you omitted missed tackles from the data you presented and tried to pass that off as irrefutable proof that I was a stupid, BSer liar. Oh the tragedy of it all, as you were quickly found out. Then we discussed defence for tests and you inadvertently stepped over your own toes and disproved your Super rugby claims. It was all very amusing, though I felt very embarrassed for you. It gets worse, Willie comes out and says exactly what I have been saying all along.

As per personal attacks. Clever Mike, a playful little word is a very far cry from months of calling someone a useless and worthless fckr, c*nt, dckhead, azzhole, bastard who needs to be gotten rid of (murdered). If there is a person who needs to clean their act up he can be found in a reflective surface. You'll probably accuse said reflective surface of being a gross fabrication of the truth. 

First. Thanks for the discussion. Have read through some and look forward to cotinuing the discusson later on today when i have time.

PLEASE

Don't turn this into another handbags affair.

Lets see if we can just have a normal conversation like adults. I'm not blaming anyone.

Lets jus t try, this one time to leave dislikes for each other out of it and actually talk about something.

Please guys.

plum

I tried to make a reasonable contribution without reference to any contribution of other posters and kept to how I view the issue.   On the part of the response by AO the main attack was personal and had nothing to do with the issues I raised.   I am sorry about my response - but the attitude of some posters is that they do not want objective comment and use personal attacks to def lect attention away from what is really discussed.       

Ceradyne, we live in the age of the unholy trinity of Me, My and I. You see it most in football. To fight for something outside yourself, to make a personal sacrifice. It's a very foreign thing in our parts. 

", international rugby is on a different level to Super Rugby."

"There is a big step up to international rugby, and some guys just don't have the mentality to handle it."

"You can take liberties that you cannot take at test level. It's not merely skill level that increases, physicality and a need for accuracy. Line integrity is more important."

Ok.

And what I am saying is that the Lions are better equipped to front up to the Test challenge than seemingly any combination of BIP players that are picked for the Boks.

Aug, as to your comment about Dreyer. How did he do against the Jags? The same front row that our Boks couldn't handle on Saturday.

Backs? You rate the Lions backs would have defended worse and scored less tries? 

Overall it's very hard to imagine the Lions putting in worse performances than the Boks have against Wales, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Australia, Scotland and more.

That's the point I'm making.

Why have the Lions not been used as a platform for building. 

I'll repeat this because it seems I'm not being understood.

I'm not imagining a Lions Bok team into eternity. What I am saying is that there is no reason why their style cannot dominate test matches, at least against the lesser teams at first. Why can we not implement their style and slowly bring the right players in to compliment that style and build a stronger team...So that our national team is actually better than the Lions. Because right now it isn't.

Wasn't that what happened or close to what happened when we last won the WC? As I recall, it wasn't too far off.

So here are some players that I think are test quality and would fit into the Lions style ergo make it stronger.

Willemse, Snyman, Nkosi, JLDP, DDP, Esterhuizen, Willie, Kitshoff, Roelof, Wilco.

The Boks are forever searching for how they want to play. But the blueprint is right there. 

Aug, you suggest that the Lions style is suited only to SR. But here's why I think you are wrong.

Yes the margins are tight and more accuracy is needed. In the end, the margins are not that much bigger and accuracy remains accuracy. Take a successful lower tier formulae, bolster it with higher tier skill and that formulae should show similar results on the step up.

There is continued and seemingly never ending discussion around picks, plans, coaches, refs and rules. In the end, the thing  that trumps all of that is a team that plays as a unit. 

That holds true for just about every situation where one group has to compete against another. Be it sport, business or war.

And the proof is right there. Rassie isn't a fool and his team on Saturday were not poor players. Man for man, most of them are far superior to Argentina's lot. Saturday was the same movie we've seen reruns of since forever. 

The same thing went wrong on Saturday as always goes wrong, even when we have a clear game plan. The synergy is totally absent and bemused faces look back at us from the screen as tries are run in for the opposition. 

It's clear as daylight that there is little no no cohesion in the Boks. And it's even clearer that it's been missing for a long time. It's also pretty obvious that no amount of indabas, coaches, plans, money, rules or isangoma muti is gonna bring them that cohesion. For me, easily the most missing and crucially vital aspect to anything which they seek to achieve.

So why not take what is on offer and do your best with it? 

Plum

I am sure some of us will be happy and some not with the squad Erasmus selects for the Australasian  matches and I think there may even be some surprises in the squad even though he may not want to make too many experiments in future.

These could well be with the perennial under-performers some needed changes required and I believe some players in the present squad may be dropped from the second squad. 

I think that there will be some repair work needed and I think the lock combination will be Etzebeth and Snyman - with Du Toit at 7 and Kolisi will be moved to 6.   I think the 8 position is up in the air until Vermeulen returns.

One can only hope Erasmus does  not fall down in selecting players like Fransie Steyn -  he is no center at all and not fit to play in any other position.

A think which bothers me is why Pollard regressed in the test on Saturday.    He was much better in the other three tests he played in.   Saying that - I do not believe that a player should be assessed in one test - a series of tests is required .                

When it comes to breakdowns and set pieces - we will have to start afresh - since none of our loosies can be regarded as competent in that - Louw is to slow to breakdowns and a dead loss anyway -   Kolisi is worthless and  -  Whiteley is not really up to standard in that facet of play/