The candidates are Elton Jantjies, Serfontein, JJ Engelbrecht, Lood de Jäger.
And the winner for receiving the most hyperbolic hype has to be that paragon of the tackle JJ Engelbrecht. Never have so many been missed by so few! This sieve, this valve, this chiropractic passage....this England er Engelbrecht!
Mozart
Sure - in the last two tests Fourie defended well - but what about his other function - namely how to attack? Somebody better provide him some notes on that one.
And Fury provided the perfect example of what is not required from an attacking perspective for the Boks. He was insulting. 13m in 3 tests, no defenders or clean breaks made - it was a joke.
If JJ has an issue with his defence, then Jean has more of an issue given JJ's defensive stats against Oz and NZ were better than Jean's
Sharkbok
It comes from two problems - namely first f all the hype - and secondly playing a player out of position on national level. Taute played for 2 years as full back for the Lions and did very well in that position. Because of injuries he was moved to 13 and after during the 4th match in that position got injured. Without another game and as a result of media hype e got selected at 13 and messed up big time. His career was damaged badly since he is not a center and never will be. When he went to the Cape Jantjies at flyhalf buggered up so badly inn kicking at goal - that the Stormers was forced in playing Joel Pietersen at full back to take care of the goal kicking - and Taute had very little playing time after another inkury.
It was to my mind unfair to select him at center for the Springboks - he is no center and never will be one. I would really like to see how he shaped up next year as full back for the Stormers - that is if the dolt coach allows him enough playing team.
Spot on Nuke, its funny how every Kiwi on this board feels the same about the impressive JJ.
It says a lot about the difference in rugby outlook and true analysis between Kiwi's and SA'ns.
SA'ns have long laboured under the pathetic conservative tag and for good reason. The selection of Fourie over JJ confirms just that and the negatives thrown JJ's way smack of rugby ignorance. Much like the complete rubbish written about his defence on this site. A player who makes 23 tackles and only misses 3 in 4 tests against Oz and NZ does not have a defensive problem. But my fellow countrymen, see one missed tackle on Barrett and naively define his tackling based on one miss, where no less than 3 players missed Barrett.
Conservatism is no more evidenced in the blind faith shown in the ponderous Morne at 10. Imagine you guys selecting such a sad excuse for a 10 and we wonder why we keep coming second.
I just don't get how these rugby men miss the blatantly obvious. How on earth can you possibly begin to find favour in such an ordinary rugby player? Talk about low standards.
Saffex
With all due respect - in the case of hype Mozart has got it wrong. It is not the players we discuss on this site that represents real hype - real hype stems from comments of commentators and journalists - who saw one incident on the field of play and then generalize it into a player's contribution throughout the game.
If you then watch the game again and write down a much-hyped player's contribution in detail reflecting the actual performance of he player concerned - a completely different picture emerges.
After the CC final - the newspapers and commentators comments indicate that Alberts had a huge game. When analysed it turned out that he missed more tackles than he actually made; he had four ball carries beating no defenders (ie tackled by the first defender) and during mauls he was standing around behind the mauls making no contribution at all. I then wrote a report on this site after all the praise-singing here and challenged anybody to find any substantial mistake in the said report - offering to pay anybody R500 if they could fault what I wrote - there were no takers.
The above serves as an example when the praise singing is started by commentators and journalists and then become true facts. That is when I become wary of the hype attached to players. If the hype is worthy and the player's performance is really outstanding I have no problem with hype - it is when the hype is about players who factually produce average performances, is found wanting in incidents and contribute to loss of points - that is when I really think that players have their own public relations structure who pays commentators to write skyscrapers about them and the public is gullible enough to fall for it.
That is why I question the performances of some players relentlessly - and is often enough attacked on this site by people who think I am mad - because I do not fall for the hype.
Unfortunately - in his loyalty to players - Meyer praises player's contributions after tests - and adds fuel to the fire that way. An example is the Scotland test - where Bakkies Botha did nothing of note - yet Meyer told the media he had an outstanding game. The same happened in the case of Fourie.
I think Mozart has got it wrong here - there was no real hype about JJ Engelbrecht in the media and on this site there were real differences of opinion on him . That does not make him a hyped player - far from it. I would say he was near to the least hyped -up player in the team. There are others that has been hyped up by commentators and journalists to unbelievable heights and those are the players that should be evaluated under this category.
Mopzart
With respect - it is not one missed tackle that cost the Springboks the RC - it was a series of mishaps in both tests that caused it.
Eden Park
Lets start with the test in Eden Park. We all agree that the ref buggered up the game and that it was made virtually an impossibility for the Springboks to win that game - at best they could hope for a loss without giving away a bonus point. Why was that bonus point given away? There were two tries scored a result of the poor play of one player - Morne Steyn. Lets deal with those two tries in particular:-
* The first try stemmed from an attack by the All Blacks ending up in the Springboks 22 - where an AB player hung onto the ball and a penalty was awarded to the Springboks. Morne kicked - but did not find touch. The All Blacks counter-attacked and the counter-attack ended up in a try for the All Blacks.
* The second try had much the same impact. The Springboks is on the halfway line and a penalty is awarded to them. Morne kicked for touch - missed it badly and the ball went over the dead ball line. Result a scrum from where the kick was made. The All Blacks got the ball from the scrum and an attack followed - ending up in a try.
The question is - were those two tries inevitable and the answer is NO. It was caused by poor play and in the specific two cases by Morne Steyn. He is an experienced flyhalf - yet in those two cases he made schoolboy errors. End result - the All Blacks got a bonus point from the match that could have been avoided by proper play.
Ellis Park
In the Ellis Park test the All Blacks scored 5 tries. Lets analyse those 5 tries:-
* The first try resulted from a missed tackle by Alberts on Read - followed by a miss tackle by Morne Steyn on Ben Smith after the latter got the ball from Read. Both were serious tackle deficiencies and they are indeed to blame for the try.
* The second try - scored by Messam was another mishap. Aaron Smith got the ball and tried to get through the defence. He is tackled and Alberts is a meter away when it happened. Being the nearest player to the tackled player he is supposed to go for the ball recovery - but he failed to do so because of clumsiness - he fell over his own feet. The long and short of the story is - Alberts should have recovered the ball from that breakdown as the nearest player to the point of breakdown - he did not and the end result was a try by Messam.
* The third try was a mess. The siren for halftime is about to go off. The AB's are in the Springboks 22 - when there is a turnover in possession. Instead of doing the obvious - namely kick the ball out of touch - Morne Steyn passed the ball to De Villiers - who passed the ball to Engelbrecht - he got tackled and there is a turnover in possession and Messam scored his second try. That sequence should - according to Naas Botha - never have happened and it would not have happened if Morne Steyn did what a normal flyhalf would have done - kicked the ball out of touch.
* The fourth try was the result of two missed tackles - after De Villiers went out of the defence line - the first one a feeble attempt by Morne Steyn - the second one an equally feeble attempt by JJ Engelbrecht.
* The fifth try also followed upon a missed tackle by Morne Steyn - or rather to put it in perspective - Read passed within 2 meters from him and he made no attempt whatsoever to try and tackle him.
Summary
It is rather simplistic to blame one player for the loss of the RC. If there is to be blame assigned then the players involved are -
* Morne Steyn - his name is mentioned adversely in the case of six of the nine tries scored by the All Blacks in both tests;
* Willem Alberts - his poor play resulted in two of the tries score in the Ellis Park test; and
* JJ Engelbrecht - he messed up in the case of the try scored by Barrett.
In the whole process Engelbrecht is a rather small cog in the wheel of misfortune - Morne Steyn a major cog and the second biggest cog is Willem Alberts. I am sorry to differ from you - but the above is a true reflection of what really happened in the two tests lost by the Springboks.
