No fetching of note in the Sharks/Stormers clash.

I have to agree with the Muncher on fetching. The fetcher is part of a two man demolition pack. Your big heavy tackler like Schalk knocks the carrier over and the fetcher is right over the top. Schalk made Watson when they were both on the park for the Stormers.

And much as I agree with Ek that Bismarck is a fine fetcher....he will be immersed in the scrum or ruck while most of this "programmed" fetching is taking place. We will find the need for a fetcher.....or guys like Pocock will make running phases very difficult. Daniel turned over some ball on Saturday......but it was not programmed, not a threat on every phase like  Pocock and Brussouw at their best.

But a fetcher on his own can't do it in modern rugby. In offensive fetching you need a big tackler like Schalk to lay the table. In defensive fetching....protecting your own ball....the pack has to get there soon enough so your fetcher is not blown off the ball.

So I believe we will still find the need for a Brussouw type,   a Schalk type who should double as the hard yards ball carrier......and a wide ranging number 8 who plays a lineout role, and provides cover defence.

Right now, in spite of all the chest beating about our loosies....I'm not sure we have fully fit players who meet any of these criteria.  If Pocock played for either side on Saturday, I believe he would have tilted the game. A fit Brussouw ala 2009 would have done the same. Add a fully fit Brussouw playing next to a fully fit Schalk....and you have demolition pack potent enough to let a Kankoski type provide wide cover.....the absence of which always hurts us against NZ.

 that is a good analysis Moz. However you fail to note that there is a different gameplan bieng implemented by alot of teams these days, that don't really utilise the fetcher type of player. This utilises Pacy powerfull loose forwards that domintate the tackle point and ruck over it. This is not neceserily the type of style i like, as i like there to be a place for every body type and size on a rugby field as tht is the essence of the game. and a good Scrounger type flank is usefull. This does not however mean that this is the only way to approach the ruck. Speed and power to the tackle point to clear it is looking like the way the south African sides are going if you look at the players Heynecke picked for the England tour it also looks like the way he sees it. Now i am not saying he is right or wrong. I am only saying that we should not look at a Faetcher purely as a flank firstly. and secondly also not look at the Breakdown as purely the domain of the Ground Scrounger. There are a few different approaches. And the term fetcher does not refer to a position, but rather a role.

I agree with your analysis up to a point Ek. Bismarck is our best fetcher in many games....in the past de Wet Barry could have made the claim. But I'm referring to the "fetching frenzy" that Pocock produced against us in the RWCQF. We lay that all at Brice's door, but many , if not most, of Pocock's turnovers were legitimate. Attack after attack got stopped by Pocock's fetching.

And I'm sure our heavies tried to get there to knock him off the ball.....but they were too late.

Jake also had the "no fetcher" theory.......big forwards pounding over the ball....but I see the Brumbies have just signed Pocock!

We have been hurt by fetchers more than any other nation.....Pocock, McCaw, George Smith and his blond compadre whose name escapes me.....they have allhad field days against fetcherless Bok teams.

With Meyer's approach it will happen again.

 I thought Daniels was the best fetcher on the park in the semi final. He made a decent amount of turnovers and looks as good as most. Not sure what has happened to Brussouw- but when he has played well, it has been very well. 

spot on moz spot on. of the most part the bigger flanker can be used as pillars to shutdown the ruck as well but in order to do that you will require more men at the breakdown point itself and that will require a lot of effort and will in effect pull out more players that the

a smaller fetcher performs rolls in both defence and attack. shutting down rucks on attack and defence creates quick ball for attack and slows down ball while on defence. that is were the game for the most part is won or lost. depending on conditions of course. i do agree that its a role but in terms of balance i dont think its smart for asking your hooker to do that role. none the less if you have the luxury use it. as the most rugby bundits will let you know the really great hookers act like a 4th loosie. that also being said what do you do in the case that bismarck is not on the pitch ???? that in it self will disrupt the cohesion and will also render more men useless seeing that you have them tied up in rucks rather than in attack or waiting a defense line. that cant be measured in stats seeing that is the donkey work. just analise the RWC 2011 game against the aussies and have  look at the game pattern and how the boks forwards did not commit to the rucks because we were dominated that area (only to be conned by pocock and brycy) because of brussows low center of gravity if makes it even a harder task clearing him off the ball so that will suck even more opposing players into the ruck leaving more space on the ptich for us to attack to. the pack needs balance just like the backs does. can have a all big ball runners it they dont have the ball then there ablitys means nothing. i do agree its a role but that role is meant for a open sider flanker and if one has a hooker that can perform that role to then it just means you have 200% chance of effecting a turnover. if bismarck leaves the field then the cohesion is not affected seeing that the workload at the breakdown is covered by the fecther.

the rest of the world thinks like this so we need to follow suite. NZ and the aussies are effective in just doing that

It's an activity, like kicking, anybody can play.....but it's also the prime activity of your open flanker, and therefore, in effect a position.

Muncher your point about the effect on the other forwards is key.......force the heavies to get to every breakdown to protect the ball....and you are sapping a lot of their energy.

100% moz that is right. its position specific in view due do the way the game is played. the open sider is always on the open side of the scrum so i can really see how a hooker that is just involved in scrum can some how magicly be at the first phase/ruck after the scrum affecting a turnover. it cant be done. anyone that knows the game coaching or playing will know this. so that is they the open sider/fetcher is a specialist position. if he is affective then the rest of the pack's job of securing balls at the ruck is much much easier. give the big heavies less work makes them less fatiqued and releases then to just contrate on there own strong points of running with the ball ext. as you rightly said its energy sapping for forwards to be on it at each ruck. if the pace of the game is high then that will only compound the problem in my view.

if the pace of the game is slow then that effect is less. so that is why i think we were very lucky at the breakdown against the poms. no mercy will be spared then we face the aussies or nz come rucktime. its a massive ask to have your pack run one side of the pitch to the other all game long. they cant keep that tempo going for 80 mins long. that is impossible.

 All Valid and good points guys. And i agree i love to see a good Scrounger playing to the ball. I was just pointing out that there are many ways to skin a cat. and just as i can make my psimary kicker a Scrumhalf or Fullback or inside centre, thus i can make my Fetcher anythin else. It is also nice to see the loose trio work in combo and clear the ruck then get the hooker and locks there the clear the ball. The main issue is not with what style you choose to employ. The main issue is with the excecution of said style. A Fetcher flank for instance that is taken out the game by a cleaner, is innefective tothe maximum and quite useless to his team's advances. so it plays both ways. you play to your strenthgs and if you have one good fetcher flanks in a hundred you don't have a backup plan and have to adjust your gameplan accordingly if he gets hurt. So maybe sticking to your streths is just as well.

Just saying and trying to open up the viewpoint, As I said not the way i like to see the loosies play. but I am a pragmatists.

fair enough point ek...the point that i am making is that the fecther does a lot of work in both defence and attack. the cleaners that you talk about are the same players that you really dont want in a defence line or attacking you because they are being sucked into a ruck. less players playing the better for you. the quicker the pace of the game the more the fecther becomes important in my view. i can sit here all day long and show the the pros of having a fecther. the only area that a fetcher generally loses out are at the set pieces but that being said if you weigh up the fact that on general there are about 10 times more rucks than scrums and lineouts then the cons are very less. i know they tend to play the rules but that is were the management needs to decide how and when the relevant player can effect the game. i for one will concede 3 points any day before letting a try through.

if one wants to play a quick game where your ruck ball is quick and you remove players from the defence line and make attacking easier then the fecther is paramount in creating that enviroment in both defence and attack. he allows the other players not to commit to the ruck and that in it self warrants a fecthers selection above any other type of player.

fair enough point ek...the point that i am making is that the fecther does a lot of work in both defence and attack. the cleaners that you talk about are the same players that you really dont want in a defence line or attacking you because they are being sucked into a ruck. less players playing the better for you. the quicker the pace of the game the more the fecther becomes important in my view. i can sit here all day long and show the the pros of having a fecther. the only area that a fetcher generally loses out are at the set pieces but that being said if you weigh up the fact that on general there are about 10 times more rucks than scrums and lineouts then the cons are very less. i know they tend to play the rules but that is were the management needs to decide how and when the relevant player can effect the game. i for one will concede 3 points any day before letting a try through.

if one wants to play a quick game where your ruck ball is quick and you remove players from the defence line and make attacking easier then the fecther is paramount in creating that enviroment in both defence and attack. he allows the other players not to commit to the ruck and that in it self warrants a fecthers selection above any other type of player.

to me its all about securing ruck balls. AB and the AUSSIES target those areas always because off the playing pattern and style to disrupt them of to beat them you need to compete and disrupt them at the ruck and on attack generate quick go forward ball. logic and common sense tells me that to have a player that just concentrates on that area will give a massive benefit to the team more and above else. gives also much needed speed and range to lose trio that might be a tadd heavy with ball carriers so a lighter shorter fecther will compliment a big burlyball carrier like alberts and vermeulen much more than just another big ball cariier. it will just free them up to be what they are meant to do and its to carry the ball up