New Squad players....with a chance to be long term Boks

Many of these guys will get a game or two, precious few will survive as established Boks. 

I wish I could say Willie will be one of them. But for Willie to be Willie he has to take chances. That's not the Bok style. This guy is a Campese , a Joe Cool....he would have been great in the 2000 Aussie team. But the first mistake he makes, the Boks will reject him, and given how he plays, mistakes go with the territory.

Serfontein, however, will make it. All great centres show young....Horan, O Driscoll, Jean de Villiers. They compete from the outset. That also describes Serfontein....fast, strong, with a good rugby brain. He will be a fixture. I'd play him at 13 outside Jean to start.

Arno Botha has a very good chance of making it......strong, with a real physical presence that's lacking in the Coetzees and Labuschagnes. But he has a very quick rugby brain....a complete contrast to last year's Bools offering Jacques Potgieter. 

Coenie Oosthuizen will make it if he stays healthy. Again it's not so much his great physical assets that sets him apart. It's how he reads the game, his passing and handling and the way he gets around the park. Potentially a great like his mentor Os.

Steph du Toit has all the physical assets in a process position....so he is almost bound to succeed. But don't be surprised if he flames out this year. He is not as developed as many think, or as Etzebeth was last year. It will take time, but he'll get there.

JJ has a chance, but I have my doubts. He is fast, but really only came into his own after Serfontein started for the Bools. A finisher, not a creator, I suspect his two year apprenticeship to become S15 ready, may be repeated at test level. And slow starters at centre tend to be shown the door.

That's a decent crop, probably better than in most years. But the ravages of form and injury will probably reduce even that list. If an established Bok is in the team  for 7 years .....two positions turn over every year.

Mozart

It is very difficult to forecast who will succeed and who not - especially when you yourself has not seen all the games the players mentioned played in this year.  

However - there is one mathematical problem here - the Squad consist of 22 players - a turnover rate of at least 3 players per year is necessary - since the playing life of players at  top level - without too many inury and related problems are probably 7 - 8 years.   Since 2008  there were minimal changes in the Springbok team until 2011 - but performance levels plummted in that time and the team became progressively poorer.

Replacement of players in the Springbok squad should not be on a number per year basis - but on a basis of actual needs and performance.   I subscribe to the norm "Class is permenant - form is temporary"  -  but serious questions can be asked if for a year the class is absent from actual performances.  So the number per changes per year is a very limited issue in this case and we must xpect younger players in larger numbers to come through over the next 18 months  

So your hypothesis is young players in " large numbers" will come through in the next 18 months. Hmmmm. Who is pushing the playing age before the next RWC. Well Jean for sure, probably Jannie and Habana.....nobody else really. So there is no compelling need, absent form loss.

But you may say,not enough young blood has been brought in since 2008. Well Lambie has emerged, Strauss, Etzebeth, Vermeulen and Louw. Add to that,  the above players Willie, Serfontein, Coenie, Steph, and Arno.....and we get 10 players in 5 years, which is about par. And then there is Goosen who is injured.

We have also seen a number of failures go by the wayside....Jaque Potgieter, Daniels, Greyling, Hougaard (at scrummie) Jantjies, Mvovo, Taute etc. This is part of the Darwinian process. It's not as if youngsters haven't had chances. 

As for your point about 22 players.....piffle. We would be batting 1000 if we had 15 players in the team, all of whom are 7 year incumbent types. It only happened in the 2007 RWC, in my memory. The remaining positions are usually taken by  decent performers like Coetzee, Kruger, Pienaar etc, who can do the job without being a point of competitive advantage.

So no, I don't expect an influx of newbies before the RWC.

Mozart

What you think is not my theory at all.   My theory says that over time you have to work on replacement of at least 3 to four players per year - not the two that you mentioned,   Because there were virtually no changes a period after 2008 and most team members preceeded that date from circa 2004 - 05 - a vacum developed by 2012 and the initia leffort was to keep as many players as possible around - even though they were in decline performance wise.

Add Alberts and Kirchner to your replacement list as well - and Bekker too - since he is off to Japan  

The vacuum still exits - because quite a few of the few players brought in after 2008 - for example Alberts and De Jongh - was last year and is this year not up to standard.   I can see at least five new players that would be Springboks in years to come making their debut this year and there could be three more next year. 

Don't you have a bench to cater for - piffle?  The bench is extremely importatnt and the team exists of 22 members - 7 of whom are on the bench.   Unfortunately - you have not come up to date with modern rugby - have you now? 

 Some player seem that we can never get rid of them. I.e. zane kirchner and Juanine de Jongh 

The Bench is important, but rarely composed of permanent fixtures in the Bok team....by definition. The Bench in practice turns over far more quickly than the team. I hope that's not too hard.

Kingkorn I agree with you but who else is there really? Mozart that is true but also untrue. If you put them on 10 minutes to go then you should get nothing but subs turning balls over.   My thought is that you play every game in the here-and-now. Don’t worry about developing players for the future. Instead, play the game as 18 or 20 players, with some players starting but not finishing the game. Injuries will decide some of the substitutions, but it must be rare that a player “replaces” someone for less than a third of the game. 

Mozart

As much as you don't grasp it - bench players must fit into the game plan of the team and cnanot be changed more than others - sure there are changes but those are also influenced by for instance injuries.   When a starting team member is off with injury - he is normally replaced by the bench player and another bench player comes into the squad.   Like Spoooner is saying - game specific conditions determine when players come on.   There is one certainty though and that is that a prop replacement will happen some time after half time - but not ater than 60 minutes into the game.   However, even this more or less accepted can change like the position was with Steenkamp in the Murayfield test last year - because he ran out of steam after 20 minutes and was kept on the field for another 15 minutes.

Another problem is that the bencg player can be so weak that the coach will never bring them on in a tifgt fame and even in other games very late in the game.    However, to imply that a coach will change bench players more often than starters are really not on.  

The bench changes more often than the established team. That's why it's an established team. Bench players often change.....by way of starting for example. Which, with a simple understanding of numbers, proves the bench changes relatively more than the team. Honestly it's truly pathetic to even have to discuss something so obvious.

Let me sum up. The established players are starters. The bench is comprised of the next best and aspirant starters. Based on their play they tend to move up or move out. When somebody like Chiliboy spends just one year on the bench, there is massive pressure to give him some starts.

The bench is a volatile place....get with it

So Oom I just did a little look, and found the following. We used 27 different players on the bench last year and 32 different players in the team. Pretty definitive hey? On that basis the bench turns approximately 4 times in a season and the team turns approximately twice. The bench is twice as volatile as the starting team. Honestly facts just aren't your strong point.

Mozart

Bad example last year.  Meyer tried virtually every Bulls player last year in the team or on the bench and there was no stability in selections.   Most of them were dropped like hot potatoes - since they were not really selectable in the first place.   That was part of the prevailing Meyer revolving door mechanism situation that never worked.   Under normal circumstances that type of thing would never happen given a reasonable selection scenario,   It does not happen in other countries - why should it happen here?

In any event - Meyer admitted he made serious selection mistakes last year and hopefully it would not happen again. 

As to determination of player suitability and long term selectability of players are concerned I would rather trust what experts say about players than your prejudiced view on players - so I do believe that you are wrong about players most of the time.   Your view of bench players last year was as wrong as it is in this case.   

Another thing that is amazing is your absolute disbelief in statistics - yet your use of it when it fits you and even then your concentration of what fits your argument in part of stats and you rignoring of the rest of it.   I can mention a lot of such instances - so lets leave it at that.

In previous comments you mentioned De Villiers, Jannie Du Plessis and Habana (the latter had a horrible Super 15 this year in any event) as possible replacement requirements by 2015,   I then asked you about Bekker, Kirschner and Alberts (the latter since his performances since 2011 deteriorated and he at present is not a major contributor to the game anymore taking also into consideration his age and increasing injury absences).  You never commente on that one yet - so accept that you think those three players will remain according to you in contention for the WC?  

Labuschagne is 24 and weighs in at 105 kg. Unlike marcell though he is a mulitdimentsional palyer .

So yes Moz I do hav esome concerns about his ability to mix it at test level but certainly in a fast match played at Altitude he would be worth considering. Perhaps not so on a rainy day at twicks.

I think we  could by next year be fielding a very powerful tight five. Add in Louw a big lad and Arno Botha then perhaps we can play Labuschagne. While we had pap matfield at lock we also needed to bolster the physicality of the pack as we had a tight forward missing.

labbers like the other youngsters should play in the forcoming series with the experienced players on the bench etc.

I would lik to see the following pack in action:

Coenie, Strauss/Bissie, Malherbe

Du Toit, Etzebeth

Louw, Arno and Labuschagne.

Seems like a very well balanced pack to me. We can always add a bruiser like Vermuelen, Elstadt  or Alberts at 7 if needs be. Here is where we can tweak the pack. Just by subbing Labbers for a bruiser.

 South Africa never had the best bench since 1997 at their disposal. It was alway made up with couple of quotas to make the politiician feel a bit better. They like to see black faces singing the national Anthem but are not worried about who is on the field as they don't really watch the game. South Africa has a long history in putting z grade players on the bench, Shimangi, Nduganes etc. I fear the same will happen to Kolisi, Ralepele and Nyakana. That leaves us with only 4 / 5 real impact players that can help lift the team.

If Bismark was fit then Struass is the next obvious bench warmer. The same can be said that Kitshoff is a better lose head than Nyakane as he still has some way to go. 

I can't see the above players ever starting and that puts a lot of strain on the team, as other team can bring fresh players on where as we have in theory only play with 4 subs. 

I'm not against Nyakan, chilli or kolisi as I think they can learn their trade and one day represent SA but it is to early. We need compitition in the team as the lack there of creates complacency in starting team. You want your subs to push the man they replace and let him know that if the sub plays better then he wont start the next week.

Bluebok we certainly start the test season without an established fullback or scrumhalf. I also think our loosies are more scrambled than I can recall. Not that there isn't talent, but the June tests are key in sussing this all out. And I agree that scrummie is our weakest position currently.....a lot of near test talent, but no F du Preez or Joost.

 Excellent crop of players. If they get their chances and take them then this could be the last hurrah for players like Kirchner, JDJ, Spies who have been playing like place-holders instead of must-starts.

Disappointed to learn Steyn will be unavailable for Rugby Championship - missed that update and I think the Boks will sorely miss him as Lambie is going through the funk that Steyn was in last year. Lambie's kicking was excellent until that dismal Rebels game where he couldn't get anything over and since then has not really got back to the same consistency and confidence level. The Boks HAVE to have a goal kicker who is on form (+90%) to expect success in the Rugby Championship. I think based on Steyn's unavailability in August that Lambie should be starting so his form can be adequately judged.

Pienaar / Louw / Lambie in many ways rescued the Bok season last year providing consistency at the base of the ruck, competition on the ground and accurate goal kicking - I hope that they are rewarded with game time and not just a spot in the squad. Pienaar and Louw both need to be told and / or convinced to come back to SA as well.

I like Morne, but if he is unavailable for the RC, I can't see why he is in the squad. Surely Bekker could have played these June tests as well and he wasn't selected.....or is there a further technicality? In any case, as opposed to last year, we have an opportunity to fine tune our side against weak opposition. Players who are not available beyond June don't fit that objective.

Maybe Bekker is out of consideration due to injury still?

Will be good to have Pienaar on the field and in the squad come Rugby Championship just to have another goal kicking option in case Lambie isn't right.

Good call there Moz. Its just a pity the Bok way will not embrace the Willie way. Chances are Meyer has selected Willie as a consequence of public pressure. He wont select him in the match 22. We will see the washed up Kirchner at 15.

Of the other youngsters, I think Labascagne has what it takes but his size may count against him. He only seems to play 7 and is not big enough for a test 7. I think he would make a better 8. Same applies to Coetzee.

Kolisi has the physical attributes to make the grade, he just needs to refine his skills.

I'm surprised v/Zyl has not made the squad at 9, he looks a good prospect.

I think a player like Nkanyane could get better with age. The lad is huge and does not budge in the scrums. His general play is pretty good as well. At 23 he has time on his side.

Saffex

If size and weight is an issue here - then your argument as to no 8 is flawed.   The statsin respect of Arno Botha and Labuschagne is as follows:-

Botha              -     1,90 meters   -    102 kgs

Labuschagne  -     1,89 meters  -     105 kgs

Just as a matter of fact I also checked the stats on the other 7's that played this year:-

Willem Alberts  -    1.92 meters   -    119 kgs

Rynhardt Elstadt -  1.98 meters   -    115 kgs

John Deysel       -   1,90 meters  -     111 kgs

Talking about the latter three - I looked up performance data on Alberts and he was very good in 2011 - with a moderate to poor performance record in 2012.   Especially in the tests against New Zealand and Australia - as well as at Twickenham he did very little of note in ball carrying, in line outs and in tackling.   I think the problem with him is speed and general athletism - he is just too heavt to be a loosie from a defence and attack perspective.   He has a massive reputation - but his carries in the tests mentioned average 1,8 meters per carry - which really means he makes no real progress when carrying balls anymore.   Real question - is there any space for a under-performing player in the Springbok side- especialyl as a loosie -since his tackle stats is comparatively low and hemissed circa 20% of attempted tackles because of the latter probem.

I rate Elstadt very highly - he is at present twice the player Alberts is - but he is going to France and I think Meyer is not interested in him.   Really a massive loss to SA Rugby

That leaves us with Deysel - definitely not Springbok material/

Taking the above into account I would love to see Arno Botha at 8 and Labuschagne at 7 and they remain my preferred choices for those two positions. 

Saffex

Yes it is outdated stats - his latest weight is given as 103 kgs - where do you get the 109 kgs from?

Look at that buffalo Heynecke. That is your players big and fucking stupid! 

Saffex

Incidentally - I also checked the stats of CJ Stander.   He is 1,89 meters and weigh 114 kgs.   Botha is at least 9kgs lighter than Stander - so again - where did you get your weights from or is it guessing?

Saffex

Guessing at best.  I checked three different websites to see what Botha's profile is.  One of them gave his weight at 102 kjs - two others at 103 kgs.   Why should all three be out of date? 

One site gave CJ Stander's weight as 114 kgs.   I do find it hard to believe - because he is not built like a prop.  There is a height - weight ratio for top sportsmen.  The ideal weight for such playes of 1,90 meters is somewhere in the vicinity of 105-106 kgs.   When they are two far over that weight it affects their speed - and I do not think the 114 kgs is correct.   

You will remember that Plumtree - when discussing Francois Steyn said they are aiming to get his weight down to 105-106 kgs - he is the same height as he players we are discussing.     

Remember fat weighs more than muscles - and Francois Steyn was carrying fat - not muscles.  Wonder how he is doing - there is no further news on him. 

Mike your stupidity and ignorance is legendary. Wake the fuck up. Etzebeth weighs 123kg, find a site that has him at that weight and you work out the rest. Your stupidity irritates the shit out of me. Do you think these websites sit there and update their stats every year? I contacted the Sharks website to inform them their stats were stupid. They did not even have Jandre Marais in their squad and they had Bresler at 106kg. I was surprised to get a response from their webmaster thanking me and they changed some of the stats.

Rely on your bloody eyes. Just fucking look at Arno Botha, the guy is 1.9m and muscle bound. If he still weighs 103kg, I weigh 20kg. As for CJ Stander weighing 114kg that is just pathetic. Do a google image search of Arno Botha and tell me he weighs 103kg you stupid idiot

105kg getting closer to reality......two sites have this weight, the other being a Kiwi S15 site for 2012

http://www.supersport.com/rugby/content.aspx?Id=2244&view=full

 Typical Oom Maaik stuff. Stubborn  (this guy invented the word) adherence to his own delusions. Botha doesn't have an ounce of flab. If he had the body fat of Luke Watson, the kid would probably weigh 115 kgs. The point is he has a large powerful frame and undoubtedly tips the scales at 105kgs plus.

Mozart aand Saffex

You really are pathetic - one can hardly believe what you write.   Where did I say that Botha has flap on him?  You are making wild statements of Botha weighing all kind of weight without any iota of evidence - the latest site Saffex came up - still put him at 105 kgs.  Just like the two of you - absolute rubbish when it comes to usage of info - if it not there you manufacture it.  

It really is not possible to have any discussion of value with the two of you in any event.   I rate Botha very highly - without the need to manufacture additional issues not really based on fact.

So lets get back to Labuschagne - he is small and fat I assume.   Mozart is seeing flap all over the show so Labuschagne must be fat - since he is 1,89 meters and if indeed he weighs 105 kgs - the man must carry a considerable amount of flap since he is unbelievably weak acording to Mozart.is too small for that.  

Mozart - your take on Jacques Engelbrecht?

Personlly I think we have a bit of an issue at 8th man. I do not rate Spies at all and find Vermeulen rather ordinary ... nothing special like Read or Parisse.

We need to look toward bringing in the likes of  Stander or my personal favourite ... Engelbrecht.

Your comments?

Bluebok, if you think two guys arguing over 2kgs is pathetic you should have seen how Moffie got all purple-faced and lost the plot because Saffex claimed he was 6ft after the two of them met while Moffie alleged he was 5ft 11.5 inches!

I'm not even joking. Moffie went absolutely mental and he must have made over a hundred tearful and very angry posts on the subject of Saffex's height . . . over what was apparently half an inch!

I agree with you . . . 103kg or 105kg . . . who seriously gives a shit and whose weight doesn't fluctuate one or two kilograms every week?

but, but, but ... I thought Fat Dave said he was 5ft 8 and came in at a whopping 98kg.

I guess the lack of using his brain has rotted it and left the poor dear all confused!!

Mozart

I did not start arguments about the weight of players - I merely quoted the stats -- because you implies that Labuschagne is a comparative weakling as a lightweight.    When I posted the profile info - you and Saffex stareted your manipulative arguments.  Now suddenly Botha has the following and in come the normal deceptive argument of Watson (what he has to do with th discussion is indeed a miracle):-

" To me Botha looks like he has a much, much bigger frame than Luke Watson for example....who is also listed at about that weight. He also plays like a strong guy....physically a presence."

Obviously Botha has a bigger frame than Watson - but Watson is NOT in the picture at all.  Does Labuschagne have a smaller frame than Watson then - or the same question can be asked of Coetzee.   Have you seen any evidence of the bigger frame story - or is it another Mozart myth.

I prefer to be dom - at least I am not deceptive and guilty of manipulating things like you do.      

Twist and turns as much as you like - what has Luke Watson got to do with the dicussion.