No grey areas for Bok scrum; by Rugby 365

Springbok scrum coach Pieter de Villiers said the challenge against the Wallabies this weekend will be to eliminate 'grey areas'. Australia may not have the strongest scrum in world rugby, but they were able to frustrate the vaunted Pumas scrum in their last game, with more than a few calls going their way. According to former French international tightead De Villiers, the challenge for the Springboks at Newlands will be to make the referee's job as easy as possible at scrum-time by staying within the laws and eliminating any grey areas. "It is up to us to be within the laws and make things easier for the referee as well, because the moment you are under pressure and not within the laws that makes the calls very difficult and then we move into grey areas which are very difficult to manage for referees. "We try and identify things that are in the grey areas and try and find answers ourselves first before relying on the referee because you never know how calls might go and how fatigue might influence those calls," he said. De Villiers is fairly pragmatic about the role of referees in the scrums, pointing out that they cannot be expected to get every call right. "Refereeing scrums has always been difficult and it still is difficult, as much as laws have changed they are still difficult to manage. "There are many things to look at and the referee can't see all of them at once, so I do understand that refereeing is difficult," he said. Instead, the Bok scrum coach believes that it is up to the players to make the referee's job easier by establishing dominance within the laws. "We try and work very hard to stick within the laws and work straight through the middle, but very often you will come up against a scrum that work around the angle or come around the corner. "The more we dominate in the front with all three players, the more we can out pressure on the referee to make an easy call. The moment one of your players in the front row is under pressure and coming a bit backwards it makes the call difficult for the referee. "We all try and work towards getting the basics right and giving the referee an easy call for dominance," he explained. After a horror start to the Rugby Championship in the two games against Argentina, South Africa's scrum was far more impressive in Australasia which De Villiers put down to better basics. "There have been a couple of difficulties in terms of set-up where some teams prefer to set up with shoulders touching and other teams prefer as the law says to set up ear-to-ear. "As a team we didn't manage that as well against Argentina in those first two games, but managed to adapt to it in the two games following. "We also revisited some of our basics and went over certain principles in terms of height and  sinking our hips to the front which worked well for us," he said. Whilst the Springbok scrum was impressive against the Wallabies in Perth, De Villiers is expecting a tough examination at Newlands and stressed the need to get their mindset right. "Australia has also adapted their scrums, they are quite solid, they have got a very good engagement and they seem to set their scrum to the front very well as well so we are expecting a strong challenge there. "As much as we are happy with the way things went in Perth, they actually fared quite nicely against Argentina. So there will be a strong reaction from their side but we think if we can do the same things we did to them in Perth we can get a good set-piece base which will be very important. "Scrummaging is about attitude and mindset, it is a combat sport and you always scrum against another pack who also want to be physical and obtain penalties. The day you are not on your game and not on the top level in terms of mindset you will be under pressure," he said. Whilst some may spend a lot of energy worrying about the wily Wallabies front row and the role of the referee at scrum-time, the Bok scrum coach's attitude is quite different.  He prefers to look at his own team and what they can do to ensure a fair contest up front, which also means being able to adapt if things are not going their way. By Michael de Vries

I see, it was the refs fault, lolBut seriously these days you never know what is going on & who is in the right in terms of the scrum.

 Some more things ex de Villiers (Ex Supersport)

The high-fiving that had gone on between backs and forwards when the scrum shoved the Wallabies backwards in the third quarter was forgotten with the immediate post-match reality that the team had lost the game.

And it would have been a similar story a week later, when massive turn-around scrum a few minutes from full time against New Zealand in Wellington failed to bridge the narrow divide in the end scoreline.

But De Villiers and the big men haven’t completely forgotten those key moments, and the Wellington turnaround scrum disproved the theory that the good Bok scrumming against Australia had been down to the weakness of the opposition unit.

The memory of the destruction wreaked on the All Black pack in that moment is being used as a source of confidence for the team as they await the challenge they face in the return matches against the Wallabies and All Blacks on South African soil over the next two Saturdays.

Front row depth:

De Villiers confirmed that the late scrum against the All Blacks that nearly swung the game the Boks’ way was a big moment for the team.

“The players that had come off bench did really well. It created a points scoring possibility for us and gave everyone a lot of confidence. It proved that two games of difficulty in the scrums does not suddenly make you a bad scrum,” said the scrum coach.

There has been some pessimism about lack of front-row depth available to the Boks, but that is not shared by De Villiers.

“Jannie (du Plessis) is still going really well for us at tighthead(Agree but not too well outside the scrum), and Marcel van der Merwe showed against the All Blacks what potential he has (Please note Dr Moz!!). He was part of that big scrum. For Marcel it is just a case of gaining experience by playing. We’ve just got to let him get the game time that will enable him to grow.

“Frans Malherbe also proved when he was playing, before he was injured, that he can walk a future path with the team (Please note Dr Moz - Pieter de Villiers shouild know and he agrees with Beeno as an extar confirmation!! Bwahhahahaha) . The chances don’t come around that often because we have established and experienced props, but when they do, the players who come in must take them.”

Piffle....Malherbe was lying on his face and Marcel was standing straight up with his head out of the scrum....clearly scrumming up. When we had the next scrum, he ended flat on his face in a Malherbesque pose. The guy who did make a difference is Nyakane....I have never seen him struggle at scrum time.

 Allow yourself to be schooled on the front row by Pieter De Viulliers who is in exact agreement with Beeno.

 Bwhaaahaaaaa, we all know Malherbe saved our faces after the Jannie and Steenkamp disgrace.....funny thing is Moffie you were mouthing off to Mike on how you never have been caught lying on a board....well you are lying about Malherbe as you are Marcel v/d Merwe who in his last Bok cameo ripped the AB scrum to shreds.

There is one massive grey spot in the Bok scrum and that is geriatric Matfield. For as long as he remains we will keep losing.

 Mozart
TGhe guy that scrums well for two or three scrums ia Jannie - he cannot ast more than 20 to 25 minutes before running out of steam.  Because you are against Malherbe he is in the Nalherbe pose.  He is not in the full Jannie retreat pose after he ran otu of steam.  Mozart lies about every player he does not like and give false descriptions to hide the tructh about others if it ias negative in respect of his favoured players.   The one about Malherbe is a lie and has been proven as such.  You can nevr rely on anything Mozart wreites about ruby players - that is unfortunately a fact of life.   
Dave
That grey spor does not contribute to scrumming at all.  His legs are not at an angle behind him when enterering a scrum they are straight down - so no anchor in trying to pusfh forward in scrumming,  Have a look again when he goes down to scrum.  His back is slightly bent and with no real anchor in using his legs - he provides no back up for the prop unfortunate enough to have him behind him.     
What can one expect from a lock who as 106kgs is way lighter in weight than the average loosie is nowadays?
As long as if we have him in the team - we will be in reverse gear in scrumming.     

Oh I agree with Pieters comments on Jannie....his comments on Malherbe, based on one scrum, I'll just wait on. Personally I don't see it...but time is a ruthless judge in the front row. 
As for your pathetically ignorant comment Sapp, our scrum has never got worse when Victor is at lock.  
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zydrunas_Savickas_2010.JPG
That's a link to the Worlds strongest man....age 39. Victors age may effect his flexibility, although their is no evidence of that... But he has lost no strength ....zero, none.

Mozart
Our scrum was a disaster against the World 15 - with Victor and Bakkies at lock - It was stagnant to por against the Welsh and a disaster against the Argentinians.   Was resaonable against the Aussies and then went backwards again after halftime.  Same with the All Blacks.
We never had such poor scrumming since 2012 as we had this year - basically disgracefully poor.   The props were the same - although Jannie should be phased out - he goes absent after an initial effort.  The only difference in the Tight 5 was Matfield  - so he was the one common factor that made scrumming this year worse than before.  
The world's strongest man may be 39 years old - but he is not a rugby player - who is grossly below the weight of his competitors.   He is 14 kgs lighter than his competiors and there is not enough strength to help in scrumming situations.    

 Oh I thought at first it said "no grey matter for Bok scrum".....

I have just given you a link showing the worlds strongest man winner is 39.... And you go right back and bang on about how Victor is only about  10 years younger than you Sapp. What a broken record you are...a closed minded impervious klip kop.

Mozart 
What has the worlds strongest man to do with rugby?   He s not a rugby player and that is a fact.  You cannot see that a comparatively weak 106 kgs person is inadequate as a lock in scrumming - just is unbelievable stupid to use this as a diversion tactic.
You stated above that -  "As for your pathetically ignorant comment Sapp, our scrum has never got worse when Victor is at lock. "  
Why then  is our scrumming  comparative to 2012 and 2013 so much worse?   The only real change in the Tight  5 was Matfield - or does that not mean anything?

 

 We don't keep  on losing to the best sides, only to the best side. We beat the rest way more often than not. A few close shaves and 2 draws, but no continious losses. Get abreast of the facts please.

Draad ill help you a little, we lost our last game against oz as we will do again on sat, for the simple reason Meyer does not know how to select a winning side.
He has regressed this year in terms of selections and that marks the difference between beating them last year and losing to them this year

Dumbass Mike.....twin Dumbass Dave. Your contention is that Matfield isn't strong enough because he is 37. So the fact that the Worlds strongest man is 39 is totally relevant. It shows strength carries into the late thirties. There is plenty of evidence of this.
What there is no evidence of is that Matfield weakens the Bok scrum. The big scrum at the end of the NZ test had Vixtor riight there supporting the loosehead . Get real! 

 Dave 
We aare stuk in a whirlpool here and can only go down.   Lets look at the squad of 26 and see why:-
*   We still have Gurthro  Steenkamp. Britz, Bakkies Botha and , Morne Steyn in the squad;
*    Then we have the chrconically out of form Jean der Villiers and Jannie du Plessis as well as the physical-deficient Matfield added. 
How the hell can anyone select a winning team of 23 players - sitting with only 19 functional players effectively in the squad.   So we end up with 4 passengers in the side to play Australia.
The starting team is made up of 12 players and three out of form or physically-deficient players - well over the age where they can play themsleves  back into form or develop physical competitveness.   That is handicap 1.
Handicap two is we have 7 players on the bench - because of the passenngers - Meyer's benchis weaker than it should be.   By fiddling around with eklderly repputation players - Meyer is weakening th side considerably.  
The shock may set in when we klose the next two matches.  As a matter of fact I said in June that we will lose four matches this year in the RC - ie both the away and home games against the Assies and the Wallabies - basically because of geriatric selection.  
If that happens I wonder whether meyer would have learnt anything about the problems related to the selection of reputation players who cannot produce the goods anymore.?  

 No you dumb prick Matfield was never about strength....read you old man. He was never a strength physically but had other assets which have now disappeared with age....so my point is what is the point of Matfield as now he is both a physical liability and adds nothing else to the game.
The strong man trains to be strong, Matfield does not do the same. Matfield is weaker now than when he was on his prime, you can tell that by his lack of conditioning....He looks all of 37.
He is crap these days

Dumbass Dave, nobody is saying Matfield is about strength....he is about other assets. But you fools keep saying he isnt physical enough in the scrums. As for the other assets, he is every bit as agile in the lineouts, regularly makes more tackles than  any other tight forward and is a brilliant passer. Nuff  said.

Mozart - the thickest plank on the site.
Your point is meaningless and ididotic.   Nobody denies that bodily strength can be maintained - but in a contact sport like rugby - it just does not happen.   The issue is not about the age of Matfield - it is what he is capabe of delivering at present.   Age does have an effect on performance of sportsmen and all contact sport players decline in performance after reaching the 30.   
Matfield was never a physically-strentgth player - he was athletic but not of much use in scrummaging or tight play.  Being only 106kgs in weight he has to compete against much heavier and stronger players - whixch he fails to do.   His tackling is weak and he misses enough tackles as well.  Players push him out of the way and his ball carries disappeared completely.   Those are all signs that he is way past it.       

 What bullshit he is no different to any other lock out there in the line outs, his tackling is feeble mixed with many misses. You never see him dominate in contact, adds no value with ball in hand and is a liability in the engine room.
Brilliant passer bwhaaahaaaaa just what we want from a test lock, not that his passing is any better than the next player. 
His inclusion in the Bok side is insulting and a prime reason we will keep losing and why we will exit the WC early.
Matfield is a passenger, a washed up has been. He is no longer even solid he is just plain kak.
Come Sat evening it will be another case of I told you so.....you are so fucking rugby ignorant old man.
Imagine being stupid enough to select Matfield over Lood or Willemse...just imagine it

 I'll tell you who is a passenger Defattie, your lock pick of the year....Lomp. Matfield made 17 tackles and missed three in his last test. Lomp made 6 and missed 6 against the Bargies, one for a try. And when he was brought on against the ABs he killed our last chance by running sideways and being dumped into touch like a wet noodle. You want to see useless....look at Lomp.

Yeah yeah Moffie, Lood was the best lock in the S15 had an outstanding debut test off the bench. ...his strength is his physicality in defence and with ball in hand. At least he is a real lock at 125kg.
He is better than Matfield was aged 21.
As for the Argie 9 scoring you seem to conveniently ignore the fact that the 9 slipped under both Loods and Bismark s grasp....much like you pathetically continue to ignore Jean and Morne s misses on Barrett try. It's all selective bullshit but thankfully I know the truth.
As for the last play against the AB s, Lood was ushered into touch by a handful of defenders you idiot ....let me guess Matfield would have run through the defenders and scored....you are a joke.
Lood is twice the player Matfield is now and I mean twice the player. Just like Willemse is......old Vic is selling us down the river.....He is a joke these days just like Bakkies and Steenkamp are and have been exposed and discarded as a result. Matfield is worse than Bakkies but we still see him insulting the Bok jersey. It's a bloody disgrace 

 Mozart
You are dim and prejudiced.  What killed ourt last chance for forminga rolling maul was Matfield when he fumbled that ball in the line out - making it impossible to set up a rolling maul - which was the objective of taking a penalty kick to the corner.   
And that stiory about De Jager is utter BS.   He was two meters away from the sideline - he did not run sideways - as you said - can't you stop lieing?   The ball should not have been passed to De Jager at all - it should have  gone to an inside player,  You previously blamed Hoyugaard for that oe - now suddenly De Jager is blamed.  
By the way De Jager missed - for a change -  too many tackles inthe last game against Argentina  - but he is a strong tckler - and when he tackles somebody that player does not go forward in tackles - he goes down and mostly backwards.   Matfield may have made more tackles - but he tackles are so weak players go forward and the team retais possession.
You don't want to accept that Matfield is a handicap in the Tight  5 - so you see nothing at all.   If you want to see uselessness  - look at granddaddy Matfield.  
 

 Don't worry Mike, Vic is a great passer of the ball.....bwhaaahaaaaa

He ran sideways got dumped into touch. You two fools have gone for this lazy youngster based on nothing. He wasn't the best lock in the S15....we have covered that. In fact he was only good against weak teams. Much as he was good against a thrashed Scotland but intimidated against the Bargies. And you have the gall to compare him to Matfield....that shows how little grasp you both have. Two planks knocking around together.

Dave 
Sure accordingto mozard he is a great passer and ball carrier.   Could have bluffed me - here is the stats for his last two games;_
Australia 
Matfield0/000/2/21000113/45/010/0
New Zealand
Matfield0/000/1/21000017/37/220/0
Amazing passer of the ball and ball carrier.    He passed the ball 3 timnes in two matches to fellow forwards and his ball carries were earth-shattering.    What a massive performance!!!!!!!!

Don't lie Moffie, Lood was good ALL s15 you liar.
Lood did not run side ways you liar
Lood is twice the player useless Matfield is....but at least Vic can pass.
Weak Vic is going to be our downfall on Sat.....A physical liability once again....watch this space old man.

Lood ran sideways and got dumped into touch...he got the ball at least three metres from touch....a weak sister.