Poms play Bok rugby.....and march on

Hardly a phase was played inside their 22.....they kicked to touch. The pack dominated the collisions..... the defence was classic Jake White rush defence, Farrell looked like Jean out there.....and the backs took the ball at pace, no meandering up to the line just to pop a pass for a hospital tackle, fast clean lines. Next week Ireland will be in the mode Wales were this week. It will be a match to defend their victory over the ABs....stop another 18 game streak. To me it's a 50:50 and the most important test since the WC. In the meantime our chaps think they have found the answer playing phases against themselves and weak opponents....that will disappear as surely as the Leicester Leins disappeared against the Jaguares when the opposition improves. Oz appears to be nowhere, also suffering from a poor national coach.and the matches against Aussie teams are flattering us.

 Whenever a NH team wins our local sage claimed they have played Bok rugby as if that is a standard to measure their win.   What exactly is Bok rugby after the demise thereof in 2015 and 2016?      
Suddenly it is all about rush defense and nothing to do with scoring of tries - which became notoriously poor under some of our national coaches.   There was no game plan without kicking the sh!t out of balls and the NH teams definitely do not rely on defense and kicking only.  
They did not stagnate like Springbok rugby did.   And they did change there playing style after 2008 - albeit slower than NZ did.   They used their backline and did not do what White did until he got in Eddie Jones and what the subsequent coaches did as a matter of routine.  
So how did England play Bok rugby - what was produced was vastly different from what he Springboks did over more than a decade.   What  a farce.    
By the way the poor national coach of Australia is a far better coach than Meyer was.  

Aside from that you are the only dolt who comments on matches without having seen the matches.   That being the case you apparently did not realize that the Lions team sent to Argentina did not include many of their top players and that a lot of youngsters were given outings.   So the team was by some distance not the first line lions team.
Ackerman for some unknown reason did the same last year - but you are too stupid to comment on the issue.  

 Eddie Jones is a master coach. What a pity he didn't come to the Stormers. 
But saying England played old type Bok rugby is  a fair comment. The Boks of old had forward domination, sound defence, a flyhalf who knew how to control a game and knew how to attack.. About sums up England right now.

 Beeno
Ever since professionalism came in the Springboks with the rare exception in the late 1900's never played comprehensive rugby - with flyhalfs like Braam van Straaten, Mrne Steyn and Fat Fransie it was just not possible.
The Springboks for most of the time also suffered from inadequate loosies insofar as ball protection and recovery is concerned.   Together these two deficiencies neutralized attacking rugby.
None of those two deficiencies were in evidence yesterday - Jones as you rightly said knocked the nonsense out of he English team and they played comprehensive rugby - not the limited stuff the Springboks produced for years.   He is a top class coach
In that time the coaching was precarious.   White was a reasonable coach - I say reasonable because he had no idea about attacking play and usage of the backline.   When he had strong backline assistance - like he case was in the 2007  WC and at the Brumbies things were OK - when he was without that he was lost like happened at the Sharks.  
The rest included of our present national coach were equally clueless.   It was only the level of cluelessness  which differs from coach to coach with Coetzee - an ardent White surrogate - being the worse,\
So there was no coherent game plan for years and no consistent team selection either.   Up to 2011 the senior players - looking after their own interests - ran the coaching set-up.   From 2012 the team was run based on some vague plan from Meyer's years at the Bulls - so their was also a zero when it comes to backline performances.   Coetzee does not even realize what should be done -.
If the forward dominance was in evidence and if the attacking play was really noticeable I would not have commented on the issue in a negative light.    

 The english make believe rugby project is so rooted in refereeing you must deeply believe the same could come to SA.
Even against Scotland, the english squad strongly relied on favourable calls to push the nail through.

This shows the gap in assessment of  the SA 15 rugby situation. As time passes by, SA rugby will have to win despite refereeing. Turning to a way of playing so entrenched in refereeing reveals an ignorance of the situation.

Tokkie the sea is blue.....and you say?

  So is the sky - but living on cloud 9 you may know that.  

 
He's merely promoting Jake White as the answer to all our woes.

Seems Jean too is still an option as Bok 12 and capt. 

Haaahahahaaaa!!!

This po mpous ass lives his life in yesteryear.

Ou maaaaaikie when I refer to Bok rugby of old I refer to the decades prior to isolation. Nobody can dispute with any logi c what I am saying

 Beeno
What you say is true - but after re-admission the Boks did not play rugby based on more comprehensive rugby.   They never used to neglect backline play that became the norm since 2000, while their forward selections also were not always up to standard.
The funny part is when I questioned Mozart about dominance by the Tight 5 and in particular the locks he came up with Matfield being a "dominant lock".   With that level or argument one must come to the conclusion that the idiots reign supreme in this case.       
 

Wow since when did the Boks run the ball like that and create space as was created for Joseph for instance.....Moz stop speaking kak man.....the Poms are playing the Kiwi game

Nonsense. Look at where the Poms kept ball in hand. Not in their 22....Youngs banged the ball into touch every time. They ran from 60 metres out. As for creating space, look at the tries we scored against the Lions, the tries Habana scored in the 2007 WC. The Pom backline was made to look very good by inept defence from Dunbar....just as Francois Venter made them look good for Mays' try against the Boks. But it's nice to see backlines running at pace vs the shuffle up to the gain line and pop pass.

 Dave whenever an NH team wins - Mozart claims they play Bok rugby - and that makes a serious joke about the issue.   He is still stuck on the idea of kicking the Sh!t out of balls and to proscribe the scoring of tries as rugby sins.
One has to have sympathy with him - he has never accepted that it is not 2007 anymore and still think that Morne Steyn as a flyhalf is on par with Carter and that the AB scrummies are worse ball kickers than Du Preez and Pienaar because he failed to look at quality of kicks - for him the latter issue does not count.     

Hell I'd take our 2007 team over your 2016 team any day. All that great talent just waiting to burst out and er....flop. But then again, I told you so.

Oh what utter crap no side at test level attacks in their 22 the Poms are playing an expansive game. With 10 and 12 putting players into space thanks to good decoy runners and loop arounds all done at pace. Blaming Dunbar is laughable as is blaming Venter....joke is Venter had nothing to do with Mays try that was Youngs exposing our donkey loosies. The Pom model is so far removed from the Bok one it's laughable. Their model is the Kiwi one - the winning one

Oh what utter crap no side at test level attacks in their 22 the Poms are playing an expansive game. With 10 and 12 putting players into space thanks to good decoy runners and loop arounds all done at pace. Blaming Dunbar is laughable as is blaming Venter....joke is Venter had nothing to do with Mays try that was Youngs exposing our donkey loosies. The Pom model is so far removed from the Bok one it's laughable. Their model is the Kiwi one - the winning one

 Yes well you may think so....this is what SARugbymag thinks: .... To paraphrase the coach himself, England have gone back to the past so they can go to the future. Not since the early 2000s has an England pack commanded such fear and respect. The current side has worked to develop its defence and kicking game. On the back of such dominance, England have endeavoured to make their counter-attacking opportunities count, often to spectacular effect. That said, they haven’t made the same mistake as Australia and South Africa. While England have spoken at length about their desire to surpass the All Blacks at the top of the World Rugby rankings, they have not tried to replicate the All Blacks’ style of play.

 Just as a reminder - this is 2017 and not 2007.  Living in the past is always a dangerous way to do anything and learning from the past Is something entirely different.
You are welcome to try and play the 2007 team today and see how they would fare. 
Remember they tried that stunt in 2011 and the Springboks came home early from that WC.

 
We know you favour the 2007 team over most sides ... we know you rate them even at their current age.

We know that they're your go to side (coach included) for the up and coming French tour. You've said so on many occassion so there really isn't any reason to repeate yourself ... again.

We get it.

That's some idiot writer who apart from stating the obvious...for a start England have always had a good pack and their tries were not scored on the counter they were created from phased play....their model is as close to the Kiwi one as can be. Eddie has empowered the very same players who were no hopers under Lancaster. They play with confidence and self belief - the work of the coach There is no better model than the Eddie vs Lancaster one......no change in players just a change on coach who knows what he is doing. Imagine what an Eddie could do with the Bok side. Hell there are so few stars in that England squad but Eddie has done an Ackerman and Swys on the Lions.

Ah the three barking dogs in full voice. ..... But here is what Barking dog Dave said about Eddie: '... 'Was surprised to see his international record as Oz coach was pretty poor 57.8% win record. The Boks had it over him - won 4 lost 7' ....... And here is the 4th barking dog Urinal ..... 'Wehe . . . the hopelessly overrated Eddie Jones to coach the equally overrated Hapless Stompies? A match made in heaven! Please let this happen! LMAO!' ....... You have to love these fools who are now suddenly pro Eddie.

Although in fairness barking dog Carbuncle did say this: ........ 'Jake is not the answer. Eddie Jones is what we need. Leave Acker alone. He needs a lot more exposure to coaching than a few seasons of Super rugby. Give me a break!! You're lost the plot Dave. Just like Kriel being the next best thing at 13 or Lood being a world class lock. It's all a little premature as usual and yesterday's match against the All Blacks exposed them as average. Besides, I thought you said that JJ was the best 13 since Gerber. What happened to change your mind?' '

Hmmm so what exactly did I say Moz...that I was surprised his record as Oz coach was that poor given how he saved useless Jake how he turned Japan into a side that beat us and how he had turned England into champs? I was voicing my surprise at his early record....so what exactly is your worthless point huh?

And until Eddie succeeded big Dave thought little of him..... .... 'I'd prefer one of the Kiwi S15 coaches over Eddie Jones'

And Urinal says this hahaha: ......... I hope Joke goes off to join the equally inept Eddie Jones in Japan or wherever and people can finally see for themselves that both are actually very ordinary coaches who made their reputations on one RWC where a few surprise results and the vagaries of the draw worked out almost miraculously for the Springboks who sailed through an entire RWC without having to play either of their traditional Southern Hemisphere rivals or the hosts France

 Eddie knows more of rugby in his little toe nail than Mozart will ever know.   He is nott stupid and knows how to get  team to perform.  
Mozart has suddenly discovered a kicking norm - kick at all costs when you are in your 22 - but then the kicks must be out and the opposition not capable to make a quick throw-in and counter-attack.   Stiil don't understand the issue of quality of kicks,   '
That is because he idolizes Morne Steyn and Fat Fransie with their inaccurate and aimless donkey kicking.   Both will be jobless soon -  Morne bcause of the Stade Francais and Racing Metro merger abd Fat Fransie when White leaves Montperllier.   I can see you starting a crusade about them to be selected as Springboks.         
I never said Eddie was a poor coach - always that he is 10 times the coach White will ever be.   Jones has a comprehensive knowledge of ruby - White is clueless about backline play.     

Moz now you are simply lying....I only voiced surprise at his early record with Oz Would I prefer a Kiwi coach - yes as their records as coaches speak for themselves Kiwis lead the way in rugby - if I was in charge of SA rugby a Kiwi would be our coach right now

 No now I'm simply quoting.....I never lie.....you guys change your minds as the facts change.

Here's another: RE: Will heyneke meyer be the Best Bok Coach since re-admission to Internationals June 12, 2012, 10:09:01 There is no doubting he will be better than Jake and PDV, he is in a different league

Face it Dave your views are full of contradictions.....your only consistent quality for a great coach is choosing young players. Hell you even loooved Jake when he chose a few youngsters as in this post of your's: ............. Jake gets it spot on March 20, 2014, 12:23:51 I am fast becoming a Jake fan. He was average in his days as a Bok coach, mainly because he failed to get his selections right.......however he has learnt from his mistakes, evidenced with his time at the Brumbies and is now making the same good selections at the Sharks. .......... Jake shows investment in the youngsters, we don't see washed up has beens dominating his side........he has built his side around the experience of Ndungane, Frans, Beast, Bismark, Jannie, Alberts and Kankowski..........with only Jannie and Ndungane in their 30's........for the rest, its about the quality youngsters in his side........which this week gets even better given the introduction of class acts Tim Swiel and centre Esterhuizen to the bench.

But my quotes say nothing about my view on Eddie as a coach. I prefer Meyer over Jake and stand by that. Never rated Jake....the only reason he has a WC is thanks to Eddie...I at least recognise that

It's fair to say you preferred Eddie to Jake....or more accurately you found it convenient to give Jake's WC to Eddie. But I never found one post which suggested you thought Eddie was the man, until after he started succeeding with the Poms.

So the argument is what Dave wrote or may have not written in the past?   It is only duds who cannot change their minds when circumstances change.
By the way your misrepresentation of facts - basically lies - are covered by statements that you are just expressing opinions and those do not represent lying.   So what have we got here?   

He's as blind as he can be . Just sees what he wants to see . Nowhere man, can you see me at all . Nowhere man don't worry . Take your time, don't hurry . Leave it all till somebody else . Lends you a hand

The board lunatic is trying to his possession fitting him like a glove to me and Dave.   What a far ce.