FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  News24 - Interview with Kobus Wiese

News24 - Interview with Kobus Wiese

Started by clevermike25 REPLIES464 VIEWS· 23 Jul 2015, 15:18
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
23 Jul 2015, 15:18
#1
23 Jul 2015, 15:18#1
The following represents the interview particulars:-
" In an exclusive interview, former Springbok lock and SuperSport pundit KOBUS WIESE on strange substitutions, why Victor Matfield is past his prime and the Springbok-All Black Test match on Saturday.

Sport24 asked: Having won the Rugby World Cup in 1995, what does it take to win the title?

Kobus Wiese: In order to win a World Cup, you naturally have to possess a God-given talent. However, talent alone is not enough and won’t guarantee you victory.I believe attitude plays a major part in winning rugby’s greatest prize. I have always held the view that if you train, live and play by the four Ds – dedication, determination, discipline and desire, you will ultimately prove successful. If you put your mind to something in life, there is nothing you can’t achieve.


Sport24 asked: 20 years later, your reflections on the 15-12 win over the All Blacks in the final?

Kobus Wiese: I noticed New Zealand panic in extra-time, and we managed to win the title because we were able to maintain our composure. The final worked exactly the way we had planned it. I was extremely fortunate and feel truly blessed to have been a member of a team that was willing to sacrifice their time, effort and train exceptionally hard to achieve one common goal and dream.


Sport24 asked: The Springboks and All Blacks clash for the 90th time at Emirates Airline Park on Saturday. Why is the rivalry between the two best sides in the world held in such high esteem?

Kobus Wiese: No disrespect to any of the other top rugby nations in the world, but the Springbok-All Black Test has always been very special because both nations are highly competitive and sports-mad countries. Playing against the old enemy was always memorable, and even more so in front of a partisan home crowd of 63 000 fans. As a former Springbok, I know for a fact it’s the ultimate Test match you want to compete in. It draws a lot of people’s attention and evokes plenty of emotion.


Sport24 asked: You stepped forward to the haka in the ‘95 final. Why is it such a special tradition?

Kobus Wiese: I love the haka. It is part of world rugby and should be respected whether you are a Kiwi or not. The haka is synonymous with All Black rugby and is a rich part of their history. I have seen some teams in the past not facing the famous war dance, and I believe that is disrespectful. Teams should use the haka to their benefit by feeding off its energy. I faced the Haka four times and always enjoyed the moment. When I stepped in front of James Small, with Jonah Lomu bearing down before the final, all I can say is my teammate paid me a lot of money to do so (Laughs).


Sport24 asked: Heyneke Meyer made premeditated substitutions against Australia. Your verdict?

Kobus Wiese: We don’t want to criticise a coach all the time after a match, but Heyneke made a mistake. The timing of the substitutions was wrong. Firstly, I can never understand why a coach would want to change a player that is performing really well – let him play the full 80 minutes because he has got momentum and the other players will feed off that. Secondly, why do you change a front row with a five metre scrum on defence, and a lineout jumper plus a hooker on a defending lineout? In my opinion, it adds to the pressure and does not make any sense whatsoever.


Sport24 asked: What are the essential qualities every lock forward should have in their arsenal?

Kobus Wiese: The late Doc Craven once famously said that if you gave him two good locks, he would build the team around them, and that is so true. The locks are the heart of the scrum and pack of forwards. The locks are the two players on the field who control the line-out ball, the kick-offs, get the driving mauls going and who enforce their physical presence. Taking nothing away from any other position, if you struggle in the lock department, you will have problems in your team at large.


Sport24 asked: Victor Matfield is absent due to injury. Is Lood de Jager an able deputy at No 5?

Kobus Wiese: No disrespect to Matfield, but I don’t believe his injured-enforced absence will prove a major loss. He is still a world-class lineout forward, but his physical presence at this stage is not that big of a factor. In terms of loose play, Matfield is definitely past his best. We lose his experienced lineout ability, but a player like De Jager offers more of a physical presence. The 22-year-old will add something to the pack in that regard. We have enough talent in the lock department, so I’m not worried. Matfield’s experience does count, but I would now look to invest in the future.


Sport24 asked: De Jager and Etzebeth will face James Broadhurst and Brodie Retallick. Your take?

Kobus Wiese: It promises to be an explosive battle. De Jager and Eben Etzebeth would be my first two lock choices for World Cup selection. They are precisely the type of players we need to take to not only the next World Cup, but the one after that. It’s wise to play them as much as possible. For the All Blacks, Retallick is a lock that has proved surprising. He doesn’t appear the most physical forward, but gets stuck in. He is very competitive, plays with aggression and motors around the park. He gets the fire in the All Blacks’ belly going. Meanwhile, Broadhurst has been in very good form.


Sport24 asked: Who was your Springbok roommate and what is the funniest tale you can recall?

Kobus Wiese: I roomed with Balie Swart since my standard six year and he is like a brother to me. I remember when the two of us pranked team manager Morné du Plessis on the bus during the 1995 World Cup. We must have done a pretty decent impression because he believed it was Archbishop Desmond Tutu on the line. We phoned him from the back of the bus and said we wanted some tickets for the final. After a while, he got annoyed and said the match was sold out and there was nothing he could do. Later that evening, the real Arch called Morné to wish the team well. Thinking it was Balie and I once more, after we had revealed our ruse to him, he was fed up and said abruptly, “Why don’t you guys bugger off and go to bed.” Needless to say Morné was very embarrassed.


Sport24 asked: What impact will Heinrich Brussow have, and where will the game be won or lost?

Kobus Wiese: I don’t want to sound like a typical forward, but there is no doubt that the contest will be won upfront. The reality is that 99.9 percent of games are won in the forward exchanges. The team that can control the scrums and breakdown point will have a 60 percent chance of winning. Heinrich Brussow will absolutely add a presence at the breakdown. He is probably one of the best loose forwards in the world playing close to the ground. Brussow and Francois Louw are seen as two out-and-out fetchers. While Louw can play close to the breakdown point, he has cross-over appeal because one of his strengths is his ability to play wide. As usual against the All Blacks, the breakdown will prove a massive competition point, and it might just swing the game either way. I am rooting for the men in Green and Gold, but there won’t be more than seven points between the two sides.


Wiese was very clear on two issues, namely -


*   that Matfield is past his best and his absence from the test on Saturday is not a major loss;


*   that Matfield's physical  presence is deficient - even though he is still of value in line-outs (that is if he calls line-outs to come to him which is decreasing); and


*   that Etzebeth and De Jager is his first choice lock pairing because De jager bring the required physicality into the lock partnership.


Mozart and the Disaster will hate to see that - for them Matfield is the ideal lock selection required.   I wonder whether Meyer would note it as well.   Mozart is going to moan about it stating his old mantra that Wiese is jealous of Matfield - hence his remarks about the latter .


MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
23 Jul 2015, 15:33
#2
23 Jul 2015, 15:33#2

Hahahahahaa.....out comes another Matfield enemy knife in hand, enabled by the demented Tokkie.

sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,282 posts
23 Jul 2015, 15:37
#3
23 Jul 2015, 15:37#3
Kobus Wiese is like speaking to a broken record cliche

Sport24 asked: What impact will Heinrich Brussow have, and where will the game be won or lost?


Kobus Wiese: I don’t want to sound like a typical forward, but there is no doubt that the contest will be won upfront. The reality is that 99.9 percent of games are won in the forward exchanges. 


Does he watch SuperXV rugby- where New Zealand teams often win even though their forwards gets dominated- the same with the All Blacks forwards who often get bullied but still win.

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
23 Jul 2015, 16:02
#4
23 Jul 2015, 16:02#4
Kobus is a fine fellow and a worthy Bok, but he has spent more time at the dinner table than on the playing field in recent times. If we are looking for physical why not bring Kobus out of retirement.....just standing still  he closes two gaps and nothing but an elephant in musth is going to move him. 
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
23 Jul 2015, 16:06
#5
23 Jul 2015, 16:06#5
 I don't need to search for words from someone else to justify what I say. In other words, I don't need a daddy figure to hold my hand and tell me what to think. I am quite able to ascertain truth myself and I don't need group acceptance to make me feel validated. What I have said has stood the test of time and any kind of scrutiny and ultimately is backed up by video. The amount of times these "experts" get it wrong is shameful, it's so pot luck that you may as well be telling me what your magic 8 ball said. I'll never forget how Naas fell for Russell, Pretorius, Lambie, Goosen and Jantjies. These are supposed to be experts! Then Mallett, who took the one competitive advantage Italy had against a powerful pack and put him at scrumhalf. It doesn't stop folks quoting these people as if their words are gold. You see, most people scower the interwebs for info that confirms what they already think, not necessarily the truth. There is always something out there for both sides of the argument, but only one truth. And ironically, the same people who are quoted one day are ignored the next when they same something a would be truther doesn't like. So my advice is to stop trying to hide behind some authority figure, grow some testicalz and start thinkin g for yourselves.
BL
bluebokPro3,977 posts
23 Jul 2015, 16:18
#6
23 Jul 2015, 16:18#6
LOL Moz! "Nothin but an elephant in musth is going to move him" I thought Wiesse was a type of elephant!! 
Shark, I think you have misunderstood the big guy, he goes on to say "The team that can control the scrums and breakdown point will have a 60 percent chance of winning." The success of the backs does hinge on the performance of the forwards. Looking at it another way, if your forwards only secure 20% possession, the game is lost, regardless of what the backs can do.  
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
23 Jul 2015, 16:31
#7
23 Jul 2015, 16:31#7
 Interest point, in 2004, with something like 14% possession, the Boks outscored NZ in tries. But yes, a beaten pack makes it all the difficult.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
23 Jul 2015, 16:49
#8
23 Jul 2015, 16:49#8
Mozart and Desert Disaster
 So what Wiese said is ignored - namely that Matfield does not bring anything to Tight 5 play.  Do you think he is wrong in stating that?
He went on to say that to win the WC a team need forward domination.   I think most people agree on that - but then because Matfield by himself turns the Tight 5 into a Tight 4 - how would we dominate in the WC or even be competitive?
Have you not seen how much better - also physically - De Jager was than Matfield had been last Saturday?       
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
23 Jul 2015, 16:55
#9
23 Jul 2015, 16:55#9
All I remember is a bunch of process tackling....vastly overdone with no real effect on play....but feel free to demonstrate where any of those tackles even led to a turnover. While Lomp was pushing a man who no longer had the ball....Victor would have been moving to the next phase.
Then Lomp was dummied to begin our slide.

Look we heard all this BS after the Welsh test last year and then the Bargies took Lomp apart. He has a chance Saturday to finally make a mark....let's hope he does.
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
23 Jul 2015, 17:07
#10
23 Jul 2015, 17:07#10
 Important note, Lood only tackled what approached him. What mobility does he have? Does he go looking for work? He didn't last Saturday. These are important. Victor roves around the field, in the loose and in the tight. The amount of work he goes through is phenomenal. We lost thgat for a kid who ius strong, so ling as you are in front of his face. Against a team that liks to shift the point of contact, players like that become a non-factor. Who knows, he might have a blinder, but given his track record... not very likely!
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
23 Jul 2015, 17:14
#11
23 Jul 2015, 17:14#11
Mozart 
The story about process tackles interest me.  Is a process tackle a weak or a strong tackle?  Is it only used in the case of players you dislike so as to criticize their efforts during game?  Does Matfield make process tackles?   
How would you classify Matfield's present tackles - is it strong enough and does it stop the players going forward in tackles?  Is Matfield a stronger tackler than De Jager?
    
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
23 Jul 2015, 17:22
#12
23 Jul 2015, 17:22#12
 Disaster
You wrote the following:-
"These are important. Victor roves around the field, in the loose and in the tight. The amount of work he goes through is phenomenal. We lost that for a kid who is strong, so long as you are in front of his face. Against a team that likes to shift the point of contact, players like that become a non-factor."

You are a top comedian  That first sentence is a contradiction of fact - if you say "the loose" and leave out "the tight"  your sentence make some sense.  Matfield's contribution to Tight 5 play is zero-minus - so why take away real value  in your statement.  
Second question is Australia not a team "that likes to shift the point of contact"?     
 
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
23 Jul 2015, 17:23
#13
23 Jul 2015, 17:23#13

A process tackle is the response to phase play.....a lot of nothing runs designed to recycle the ball.....evoking a lot of nothing tackles. Those tackles can be made by anybody. It's the tackles that require intelligence, a reading of the play, that bamboozle Lomp. As we saw to our great cost on Saturday....and as we saw with the Bargie scrumhalf last year.

 

 

Take another look at Matfield's try saving tackle under our poles against Wales ....which caused the usually biased Welshman to say " great tackle". Then look at the confused Lomp tackling the man without the ball while Hooper belly flopped over....intelligence, you can't bake cake without it.

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
23 Jul 2015, 17:35
#14
23 Jul 2015, 17:35#14
Let me make it simple. Driving back a player who no longer has the ball doesn't help. Stopping a player and taking yourself out of play doesn't help. Moving laterally off the tackled player and being in a position to make the next tackle ....helps. In the last  phases of the test our forwards were over committing where we needed to be spreading. That's why the gaps opened.Matfield would never have done that, and he would have organized the defence.
The foolish fans see the futile physical commitment and totally miss the consequences.
Please, please.....try to understand the basics. Otherwise refrain. 
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
23 Jul 2015, 17:52
#15
23 Jul 2015, 17:52#15
 So you reserve the right to you to determine when a tackle is a process tackle or not and who make process tackles.   Incidentally the ball went to Simmons - De Jager stopped him in his tracks - holding him up and he slipped the ball to Hooper who scored the try.  If Matfield with his lack of physicality was involved - Simmons would not slip the ball back to Hooper - he would just push him aside and scored himself.    Reason - Matfield cannot hold a ball carrier up and in all tackles the ball carrier went forward in tackles - because he is a weak tackler.  So your comment on that tackle is a funny one - it is different from what you wrote originally about the issue and now change after your lie about the issue was exposed.
Now let me put it straight - your story about what a "process tackles" is is absolute BS.  Process tackles are substandard/weak tackles with no or even a negative impact on the team of the tackler's team.   When a tackler make strong tackle it has a positive impact for the team the tackler is playing for.   The term can be used to deal with the quality of tackles and not anything else.   90% of the recent tackles of Matfield were weak and ineffective tackles - so he is the real process tackler in the team.
It is unfortunate that I could not find a video on the Matfield tackle you keep harping on.  I would like to see that one with my own eyes since there is overwhelming reason not to trust your word/description about it.  You have just too often falsify match info before to result in serious reservations about your description of what actually happened.    
If you want to let me deal further with that Welsh test story of yours - please advise me where to find the site or get Ceradunce to help finding it.   Disaster is too stupid to be of any help in this case.  

 
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
23 Jul 2015, 18:35
#16
23 Jul 2015, 18:35#16
 If you want to see over commitment, what of the Lambie tackle that lost th e Aussie test last year? LMAO!!!!
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
23 Jul 2015, 18:55
#17
23 Jul 2015, 18:55#17
 Desert Disaster
It as Morne's BS that lost that test - nobody else.   Your weird bird brain tried to blame Lambie for a balls-up made by Morne Steyn - really funny.  However, that raises a question how can anybody be as twisted as you are? .
BL
BlikkiesPro1,526 posts
23 Jul 2015, 19:26
#18
23 Jul 2015, 19:26#18

How long before Pieter Steph du Toit will be back and play again?


Yes, I have to agree that Matfield has lost his mojo in the open field of play, but to replace him with Lood can only be an interim solution. Once PSdT is gamefit again, there is in my mind no doubt that he should team up with Eben.

Lood can move to the bench.

 

DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
23 Jul 2015, 19:45
#19
23 Jul 2015, 19:45#19
 Blik,  they said the first or second Argie test.  First halve of August.  Lets hope he makes it. 
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
23 Jul 2015, 19:46
#20
23 Jul 2015, 19:46#20
 Blikkies
All I read about Du Toit was that he returned to the Springbok squad for a medical check-up on Monday, but since then there has been no further news about him.  If he was sent back to the Sharks for further rehabilitation it would have been in the papers, so it could be assumed that he is training with the Springbok squad now.   That means he could possibly be on the bench in one of the upcoming Argentine tests   
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
23 Jul 2015, 20:08
#21
23 Jul 2015, 20:08#21
 Mike,  better not make assumptions,  but they did say 2 weeks ago that he should play a bit in one of the two Argie tests. I  think it would be a mistake and would have prefered if he started playing in the Currie Cup like Jean,  gradually until he's properly match fit. 
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
24 Jul 2015, 01:37
#22
24 Jul 2015, 01:37#22
 Draad
The CC really start on 7 August 2015 and I do think that he would play in CC after that date in a few matches to really get him match-fit.   What De Villiers is playing now in is pre-season practice matches and that is not of any real value.        
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
24 Jul 2015, 01:51
#23
24 Jul 2015, 01:51#23
The Bargies might break this over grown kid in half...fortunately I seriously doubt he will play then, or in the WC. This is the Goosen of locks.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
24 Jul 2015, 02:01
#24
24 Jul 2015, 02:01#24
 Once again - you are being caught in your own net of foolishness.   Let me explain.  Players who does a lot of hard work in games are more subject to injuries, then those who does some weak tackles and shy away from doing the hard yards.  There are two typical examples.   Matfield loafs around in the backline and make some weak tackles in the process - but is never involved otherwise, so he is not subject to injury dangers.  Morne Steyn NEVER attacks the gain line and gets run over in tackles in the channel - so he is not subject to injuries either.
So I do not judge players  on whether they get injured - I judge them on what they do on the field of play.   Better have a hard worker on the field, than an injury-free loafer not performing his job in the team and in the process destroying our Tight 5.   
    
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
24 Jul 2015, 04:28
#25
24 Jul 2015, 04:28#25
 Never? Did I not post videos of Victor in tight phases of the game? I did. Does he not routinely notch high tackle counts? He does. Victor is everywhere. And be certain, Lood does not throw his body around ala Bakkies, Schalk or Eben. His movement is very limited. And I don't see much from him in the netherworld regions where Bakkies reigned with a fist of iron. Once more you have to create a lie to have something to talk about.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
24 Jul 2015, 05:11
#26
24 Jul 2015, 05:11#26
 Like his line-out takes his tackle counts this year has dwindled sharply.  You can post 50 videos on Matfield Tight 5 performance and they will all come out negative.  He has zero grunt and that is a fact.  Nobody has ever rated Matfield as a player with grunt - that is why ex-Springbok locks does not rate him as a lock.   Even positive comments on their part relates to line-outs only - the rest are all negative.  
Matfield is everywhere, but where his main function should be - namely as a lock in the Tight 5.  Since his return to rugby our Tight 5 has been in constant decline and Nass and others have referred to the fact that we now have a Tight 4 - not a Tight 5.   The reason - Matfield is physically-defective.  At 105 kgs he is no match for the present locks in world rugby.         
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news