Oom Rugby makes some very interesting points

He struggles to find a gameplan because he doesn't know anything about rugby. Remember, he told me that switch passes, loops, unders and overs lines, blockers and sliders and wide-wide patterns were make-believe terms. Well, those are the building blocks for attacking movements. How can he possibly see a gameplan if he cannot see those? Then the structure of the attacking units in each phase, he couldn't see them. He told me the forwards always play behind the backs, that the idea of backs behind a layer of forwards was "idiot speak". When I pointed out the similarities between the positioning of Schalk and Steph in these structures, he was adamant that Schalk was a flyhalf, and that Steph was doing something very different, at first receiver! I could go on and on with these gaffs. Yet we are the stupid ones. I particularly love his gameplan in 2015, the Welsh test. Run into the teeth of the defence out wide, throw offloads. Damian attacks wide in the very first wide attack by the Boks, gets turned over and they run it back within inches of the try line. Yet, he is the genius rugby guru. So many poor selections, so many tactical blunders from the self-titled clever man. What a joke. 

So what was the famous game plan - Ceradyne?   Just do not repeat the BS that AO came up with - anything proven in games though would enlighten even me.   

Ceradyne

The one thing AO came up with was effective flat backline attacks when Mayer was coach,  In more than 50% of the tests Morne was the flyhalf and he was always standing too deep in the pocket to launch "flat attacks", especially since he virtually only when forced to do so rarely attack the gain line himself.  

The only test when that happened was the Aussie test in 2012 when Goosen was the flyhalf - when he was injured subsequently there was some sign of it happening in the EOYT in only two of he four tests - in the other tests there were no sign of it at all.   In 2O14 Pollard became the flyhalf and in the Johannesburg test it was obvious.   Then in the EOYT it happened only on one test.

After that it totally disappeared from sight.   In 2015 there was no sign of "flat backline attacks" and  in the WC Pollard went off the boil totally and only started recovery in 2018.

Proof - the flat backline attack story was never a real description - it was a dreamed up version by AO.       

Thanks for admitting I am right.   AO dreamed up a game plan that never was when Morne played at flyhalf and only rarely when Goosen, Lambie or Pollard played at flyhalf.  In the case of Lambie and Pollard the so-called Meyer plan were used to kill of their natural instincts in performance and it was back to kicking only and no real backline attacks.    

"Nov 16, 2019, 14:57

Thanks for admitting I am right"

As I always say, English comprehension is not your strong suit .  

And rugby is definitely not yours at all - your adherence to BS is supreme. 

AO

Another classic I have to quote:-

"Scoring of tries by backs and forwards doesn't indicate style of play Lügnerin. In fact, a lack of participation by the forwards would tend to indicate a lack of involvement or inadequacy of those forwards. 

You are from a bygone era, a time when rugby was played in such black and white terms. The structures you think of don't exist today. The game has changed a lot. It's best you try and catch-up."

First of all - how many of those tries scored involved both forwards and backline players - something which under Meyer was non-existent,   He even publicly stated that SA backline players do not have the skills to play a ball-in-hand game after he made sure in the WC games it did not happen.  He selected forwards without ball skills and  incapable of participating in backline attacking moves because of deficient pace and ball sense.   Erasmus selected ball skill players - that is why a dud like Esterhuizen did not make the grade.   He also allows them freedom to use their natural skills in games and that is why the team won the WC.  

Telling me I live in the past is a bad joke on your part - are you referring to yourself by any chance?  I see how Erasmus coaches players to play the modern game with all it implies - and you criticized him and praised the stodgy game plans - if they ever existed - of Meyer as the real deal.   That is weird coming from somebody who really dreams about rugby and read coaching manuals and then come up with imagined game plans.

Are you still claiming the failed Springboks in 2015 played better rugby than the 2019 team who win the RC as well as the  WC?    Are you still forecasting that under Erasmus as you claimed are going to self-destruct?