Players facing the Chop

There is an article in the News24 - which in a way is a clear indication of players facing the chop:-

Springbok coach Rassie Erasmus, perhaps for the first time since taking the national job at the start of the 2018 season, showed his angry side on Saturday. 

The Boks had just slipped to a 32-19 defeat to Argentina in Mendoza, and Erasmus labelled the performance as "embarrassing". 

It is a result that has brought the Boks crashing back down to earth after an impressive 2-1 series win over England and then victory in their Rugby Championship opener against the Pumas in Durban. 

All of a sudden, the upcoming trips to Australia and New Zealand have become even more daunting than they originally were. 

"Whatever the consequences are for this, if it's players getting dropped, we must look at ourselves … we can't play like this," were Eramsus's words.

They suggest that there will be changes in personnel when the Boks line up to face the Wallabies in Brisbane next weekend. 

Here, we look at the FIVE players who should be most worried"

The five players are -

*    Francois Louw

*    Warren Whiteley

*    Handre Pollard

*    Andre Esterhuizen

*    Lukhanjo Am

Funny how many players I said is likely to get the chop compared to what is in the article.

I do not believe Pollard should get the chop as yet - we have no ready replacement.  I would like to see more of Wilemse on test level before I would co mment on that.  

No Kolisi? No Mostert? Mapimpi was worse than the centres when he was on. Esterhuizen was arguably the best performing 12 on the weekend. Am has been quiet, but a big step up from the likes of Kriel. Pollard? Who will replace him? Jantjies? Willemse? Both would be suicidal going into the final four games. 

This article's suggestions are ignorant. If Rassie goes this route, he'll be out of a job. 

I covered their tries in another thread. One was through a burst on the ruck fringe. P2 obstructed Mostert as P10 engaged Louw and put P15 through. 

Another was from a scrum. This one was well worked by Argentina. We were just exposed with too much space. Louw covered as well as one could expect. I had hoped for deeper discussion on this one.

Another was after they had us in our own 22. Faf pressured the ball carrier and dislodged the ball. A series of scrambles led to the Pumas losing ground rapidly. Mapoe dives on one of their backs but slides off and the Puma offloads from the ground. We have Sanchez with space against forwards. Mismatch.

They had another after Eben caught the carrier for a loss. He offloaded and their back made alot of ground. It was a mess after that break.

Stupid errors cost us. Three of those tries should never have happened. 

I actually had Mostert as well = with the ball hogging by the centers Mapimpi had very little to play with/ .

Whitely doesn't have the attributes of a top test match rugby player. Especially not as an 8th man.

He's a wonderful captain and has inspired the Lions to great things but in my opinion will never amount to much more than a good solid Super Rugby player.

He shouldn't be in the mix.

Pollard has struggled to find the form he had at junior level. He's been tested and found wanting. I would say he's on par with Jantjies. Both are poor under pressure. Why persist with him? In fact, may I be so bold as to suggest that Jantjies could very well be the more talented of the two?!

Juan Smith played on the blind side while Spies tried his best at 8. Two totally different positions with two totally different roles. Not really a fair comparison. Let's rather compare apples with apples.

So you think that Pollard should continue as our premier 10 because of what he did years ago?

That's crazy.

I'd rather pick a player based on his current form.

The only reason I'd include him is if we had nothing better and to be honest it's a toss up between him and Jantjies at the moment. They're both poor.

I want Pollard because of what he can do now. No other South African can match him. It's not even remotely close. Pollard shows no signs of nerves. 

MOLE ALLERT!!!!

This turned into another distortion.    I can see the point as to the retention of Pollard    He was good in the English tests when playing next to De Allende- bu t not so good when his inside center was Esterhuizen - does not know why, but that is factual.

Mozart as per normal showed his ignorance about Barrett,  In 2016 the choice for AB flyjalf was between  Cruden and Barrett - who in fact was the bench flyhalf when  Carter played,   He was a much better a player than Cruden and was chosen.   It was only in 2017  that  Mo'anga started coming  to the fore on Super Rugby level    This year he had a long injury lay-off and there was no need to replace Barrett who keep on playing well on test level.   Whatever you indicated elsewhere is as per normal pure Mozart BS.        

WITH DAMIAN 

Pollard vs England 1

Pass: 19

Run: 8

Metres Run: 32

Clean Breaks: 1

Defenders Beaten: 1

Offloads: 1

Tackles: 4/3

Turnovers: 0

Pollard vs England 2

Pass: 19

Run: 2

Metres Run: 1

Clean Breaks: 0

Defenders Beaten: 0

Offloads: 0

Tackles: 5/0

Turnovers: 2

WITH ESTERHUIZEN 

Pollard vs Argentina 1

Pass: 22

Run: 7

Metres Run: 22

Clean Breaks: 1

Defenders Beaten: 4

Offloads: 2 

Tackles: 9/1

Turnovers: 0

Pollard vs Argentina 2

Pass: 15

Run: 15

Metres Run: 59

Clean Breaks: 1

Defenders Beaten: 3

Offloads: 1

Tackles: 5/0

Turnovers: 0

I said it prior to the last test and I'll say it again, hard working Mostert is not test standard neither is Whiteley, it must have been one of the worst loose trio combinations in Bok history. Kolisi is no captain, word is Whiteley did most of the talking when the Boks were imploding. I guess we'll never know why a proven player like Pollard is suddenly out of form but if I were Rassie then I'd show him the hand of faith and allow him to find his form. The in form belly flopper has to go, better still he should be kicked off the squad, likewise Fracious Louw, a nothing player these days. I'd back Rassie if he continues to build the squad with youth and a gameplan based on defence.

With a wide enough net I'd like to see JD Schickerling and Ruhan Nel given a run with the former playing alongside Etzebeth and Nel starting in the 13 jumper.

What do you do when the players you've selected aren't up to the task?

Surely you aren't going to persist with them? No, of course not. You have to change personnel.

Esterhuizen has been poor, as have many others. I don't understand why he's still in the mix. How many more times must he fail before we replace him?

Defense wins matches. We've seen that over and over. Look how the Crusaders kept the Lions out and ended up winning the match easily because of it.

Pollard has lost his mojo and by his recent performances should at least be benched for the coming test against Oz.

I agree with Denny. The Boks need to get their defense sorted out before anything else, and that means getting rid of the weak links, which includes Francois Louw.

Nienaber and Rassie together fixed the Boks very quickly in 2011. However, they had an established core to work with. What we have now is a team of very new combinations. Some of those defensive situations, I thought to myself, if only he trusted his teammate to make that tackle we could have stopped that from happening. Overall, this is not the defensive nightmare we've seen in the past. We can work with this. Of course, Australia will present another challenge, but I highly doubt they have a midfield of the quality of Los Pumas. It was very cohesive and fluid. Very reliable. 

Why are you still looking for excuses? The Pumas do not have a world class side. They do not have top of the line centres.

The Boks were beaten by a team that's barely ranked in the top 10.

Don't make them out to be more than they are. We were thrashed by a bunch of nobodies. It's time you accepted that.

Beale is a very dangerous player and as far as I know, he'll come in at 12 again, and that puts him up against the sieve Esterhuizen. His outside man could be anyone of a number of very good players and if we don't get our defense sorted we'll be in for another hiding.

We need to get rid of Esterhuizen and his useless sidekick Am. Neither are up to scratch.

The issue of defense is very important in this case as mentioned by Bluebok and also referred to by Dragon.   I think the situation goes a lot wider than the last test and started in the Wales test and went through the resultant tests.   So what went wrong insofar as defense is concerned and why did it happen?

In all tests played there were some serious question marks as to the functioning of the defense system and capacity.   Looking at what happened in virtually all games I have to state that the main problems started with -

*   the loosies;

*   the halfbacks; and

*   the centers  and outside backs   

The loosies

One of the weakest links in the team is the loosie situation is the loosie situation.   In defense the loosies have to -

*   make tackles where opposing teams attack through the channel;

*   play a major role in ball protection and recovery;

*   protect the scrummie and flyhalf from being placed under pressure.

The present loosie set-up failed in all aspects of the game.   Compared to other teams they played against the other teams,  the tackle count was low and of defective quality.  There has been variations in players which could affect the tackle count compared to other loosies playing test rugby.     Fact is the defense of  the present loosies - other than Whiteley - comprise of  tackles made in the channel -  virtually nothing wider out.

Even in the channel the defense was seriously defective - the worst failure was on the part of Louw - who in the two tests made 15 tackles and missed 6.   Although a lesser problem in the case of the other two loosies - it also happened in their case.

The fact is that Du Toit playing at lock  in the Durban test made 19 tests missing 1  - that is more tackles than made by Louw plus any one of the other two loosies.   It emonstrate how a lock had to make up for the loosie deficiency.    The lock assistance was not replicated in the latest test where Mostert only made 8 tackles missing 3. 

The loosies were seriously defective in ball protection and recovery - not a strong suit of Whitley and Kolisi - but supposed to be the special ability of Louw.   There were very few signs of that in fact happening - in the case due to pace deficiency. 

The halfbacks  

The fact also is that loosie deficiency resulted in the scrummie and flyhalf have too often  to make tackles  on forwards - a task where the Springboks forwards, especially the loosies - caused the  halfbacks having to tackle too many forwards and has a negative impact on the tackle stats of the flyhalf.  

In that case the whole defensive strategy is put under pressure and it leaves to gaps wider out.

The Centers and Outside backs

The problems started with Esterhuizen and from there to the players outside of him.  Esterhuizen himself has pace-deficiency problems - he is not a very sound defender.   Outside of him the position gets ugly - the deficiencies inside I dealt with caused major problems wider out and the actually situation is that most of the tries resulted from problems further to their inside causing major overlaps outside.

The problem also complicated the defensive lines - which failed badly far too frequently.  

I think there is a defensive problem - but the solution is to start with correction of be the selection problems.      Thereafter the issue of defense can really be taken forward.   

Duplicate

The Puma midfield is better than that of Australia. Much, much more cohesive. Beale missed 6 tackles in that game, and is patchy ball in hand. It says alot that he is bounced around so many positions, because he can't make anything stick. Esterhuizen missed one tackle in the past two tests. He was very secure on defence making a range of tackles. He is very strong in contact, which is a stark contrast to Damian (I've just reviewed his England tests). Esterhuizen is a better 12 than Beale. 

The Puma centres were much more elusive than Australia, and the way they played seamlessly off 10, 15, each other or the wings and forwards was very impressive. The transition game was slick, the way they reacted to opportunities was equally slick. No, ranking does not tell the whole story. Los Pumas were very impressive. 

And lastly, no excuses. I do try to assess what the facts of the matter are, and I particularly don't lean towards emotional over-reactions. 

Esterhuizen and Am are the most stable centre pair we've had in quite a while. Of course, if you disagree we can look at any point in the past two games and see where they erred. That's no problem at all. 

Clever Mike, you make statements but never do you actually cite any examples in game. It's fruitless to keep forcing assertions without any references. You say that Esterhuizen and Am are defensively weak, give me an example. We can then look at these references and maybe learn something. Until then, it's just conjecture. 

Esterhuizen and Am were in Sharks side.

I agree with Augenoffer, they are the best there is and the Dragon is talking rubbish.

Although the Sharks were a little erratic they did well in Supers.

Sharks 24 Waratahs 24

Sharks 50 Sunwoves 10

Sharks 63 Blues 40 (away)

Sharks 37 Canes 38 (away)

Sharks 24 Stormers 17

Sharks 38 Landers 12

Sharks 28 Chiefs 24

Sharks 31 Lions 24

Sharks 20 Jags 10

Remove all quota players, call up players from the North, win everything. Or decease.

As straight as that.

You have a big weakness at centre. Combrinck is a good player, but too slow. I'd go Beast for Kits. I like the locks. Interesting loose trio. I'm not interested in Kolisi though. 

Dave - we can have our own squad - but I would rather wait to see which players are in the tour squad.   We all have out favourites - but that will not help

The one lock you left out is De Jager/  Latest news is that De Jager is likely to feature in the final rounds of the CC - so he mat be available for the EOYT, 

My problem is that any team without the high productivity Du Toit is weakened.   I do not think Vermeulen would make it through to the WC next y ear and I think Du Toit would develop into a top class 8. 

Dave, I like most of your selections, but what about Duane Vermeulen? Surely he should be included.

Mike, if Os could make it through a WC, then there is no reason why Vermeulen can't do the same.

Duh Allende? Oh sorry, he's the revolving door.

Good to see you back.

Xavi

Lets look at the revolving door story objectively.  In his last four tests De Allende made 34 tackles missing 5.   In his frst four tests Esterhuizen made 22 tackles missing 5.   Which center is the revolving door?

I am sure that De Allende had three tests where he was above the norm of 15% insofar as tackle misses are concerned,   One of those were the 2015 Aussie test where he missed 6 tackles.   The disinformation was started by Mozart and Pakie who changed the said info to twelve tackles made and 8 missed and since then that story has been emphasized by Mozart and co endlessly.   They distorted situation to an alarming extent where they lied about what happened.   Aside from the Aussie test there were two other tests where the missed tackle ratio were above 25%  and those are also listed as unsatisfactory.   For the rest the situation was a missed tackle ratio of circa 15 to 17% which is entirely satisfactory.

JJ ripped the crap out of Smith? Conrad Smith?