Paul Willemse finally comes of age

This massive man in a rational world should have been our number 4 lock (yes I know he plays 5 for France) with Etzebeth at 5. That would have given us the explosive, blocky power we saw in Willemse’s try and the incredible athleticism of Etzebeth.

Willemse has  always suffered from a lack of aggress ion.  But apparently the new French coaching set up has  extracted that from the big fellow. Huge tackles, winning every collision and no doubt powering the French scrum. Nineteen tackles, many of them dominant and none missed.

Along with his fellow South African Le Roux they dominated Lose Jones and Ball.

Mozart

Willemse was always aggressive - but his problem was he gave away too many penalties and cardings.  However, he seems to have his aggression under p roper control and  that is a huge plus in his favour,  

I have always rated the guy and was sorry to see him not rewarded with a Springbok cap.

But true to form he has performed for his adopted county with honor.

Also, that last play in the dying moments against Wales sure appeared to be a knock-on but both the ref and the line ref ruled it to be legal.

Any opinions on that play?

I tend to agree AJ.

Willemse illustrates our vulnerability. We have not found a way to keep great players leaving. 

Beenz, Willemse illustrates that we have an abundance of test quality players and that some will inevitably try(and succeed) and play for other countries if they deem their chances slim to crack the Bok side. We simply can't accommodate everybody with potential. 

Good on Willemse for succeeding in France...not easy for us Boertjies in Die Noorde.

Willemse would have been a nice to have, but he wasn't a necessity...to cap a player for one test, just to prevent him from playing for another country is spiteful and not in the spirit of the game. Only players deemed to be good enough to have a test career should be capped. 

I'm glad players like WP Nel, Josh Straus, CJ Stander and Willemse got to play test rugby for high tier teams. Let's face it, we got by fine without them.

Draad we are talking about a dominant lock combination. We have several athletic type locks....Etzebeth and Snyman being the pick of the crop. We really had only one blocky powerhouse....Willemse. When we gave up on Willemse we gave up on that attribute.

Think Mark Andrews and Krynauw Otto.

There's a reason Eben plays at 4. I'm sure Meyer, Coetzee, Fleck and Rassie all stuck to the formula...and by extension Proudfoot, Van Graan and Pieter de Villiers (not Peter).

I liked the idea of Eben at 5 too, but somehow it was never entertained...there's a reason for that I'm  sure.

As for Willemse...yes he could have been a great Bok, but it wasn't to be...and things turned out OK.

PS, and I'm sure that there's more to playing 4 or 5 than athleticism and calling line outs...or being a breker.

ATM I favour Eben and Snyman...with Mostert and Lood filling the gaps...and there's stuff plenty of young talent too....we don't have to work about the T5 at all!