Poor Rassie.....

he alongside of his squad have a lot to learn about playing test rugby. It's not an excuse, it's the reason behind the glaring weaknesses in a team he prepared and selected. And prepare he did, trouble is he was preparing to go to war with a team of substance only to discover that he was preparing a bunch of plodders. He, his gameplan and his team were exposed and laid to rest in one single game. That's all it took even though the signs were there in the tests against England. 

A man's got to know his limitations according to Clint Eastwood and believe me the team is limited. Forget RWC 2019 but start now the preparations for WC2023. That way he'll have seasoned players ready for battle on the big stage not a group of schoolboys. The fact that he didn't pick up on the Belly-Flopper has to be a cause for concern as just about everyone on here did. Rassie needs to take small steps, get the basics solid, start with a solid defence and the set pieces which will give the team shape and confidence going forward. That is the way to build, that is the way forward. 

The Boks next test is going to be a defining moment, not so much for the team as it is for Rassie as a coach.

I don't believe we are as limited as you say. We didn't lose because of structural flaws or because individuals had a total collapse. There's been a gross over-reaction to the Mendoza test. The biggest flaw was that Ledesma out-coached Rassie. He had a game plan we were not ready to deal with. In fact, what Rassie had in mind was far too arrogant, as he actually thought the Boks could just fling it wide and Los Pumas would fold. As it was, we repeatedly ran into the teeth of the defence. They earned the hard yards. In spite of this, the Boks let three tries get away from them. Assuming Pollard made each conversion, that's a final score of 40 points to Argentina's 32 - Even if Pollard missed each conversion, that's a winning margin. That's a hell of a let off! The timing of those incidents was even more costly. When the Boks finally did use their pack to grind Argentina, we had them on the ropes. Sadly, it was too little too late. If any positive can come of this, it should be a lesson learned for Rassie.

If we can get the balance right among the loose forwards we will have a very usable starting XV. Esterhuizen was among the best centres of the weakened, at the very top with New Zealand's Lau. It's not all too and gloom. It must also be noted that Argentina were not a pushover. They played very well. 

One has to realize that some of the reactions of members on the Mendosa test has some merit - others are up to their normal idiocy.

Take for instance  that self-proclaimed expert AO.   He does not realize that what happened really happened on Saturday had nothing to do with coaching at all.   Erasmus made mistakes and was in some cases  as a result injury were forced to select players with limited abilities who would fail under pressure,   All Ledesma did was to identify those players and put pressure on them - in that way he concentrated on the breakdowns where the could neutralize Marx with no support from the other players - especially the loosies.    He also realized that the centers have serious deficiencies as well with  Esterhuizen a crashballer - who in two cases made good meters in carries - but in most carries failed badly.   Both centers have serious defensive deficiencies as well.    

The situation was made easier for Ledesma when Etzebeth was carded,   During the period he as off the field the Pumas faced a six member scrum - with Louw standing with his hand on the back  pf the lock and some of the key players under-performing.   The Pumas scored 27 points in the first half when the problems referred to above was to a major extend eliminated  by replacements - ie Du Toit, Snyman and Willemse, hence the fact  that the Pumas scored  only 5 points in the second half,

How he can hope that a loosie combination including especially Louw could compete is the one reason why things went belly-up at breakdowns and in the case of Louw in defense as well.  

Erasmus was not outcoached as alleged - he was out-manouvered by Ledesma who concentrated on Rassie's selection mistakes of sub-standard players.  Fact is it is unfortunate that Rassie has to build u a team for the WC and some experimentation is necessary.   However, it is time that these should be limited to eliminate real problem cases  like in the case of the lo osies.     

One has only to look at the comments of AO abd Mozart to realize where the real problems are - when they say a player good - just be logical and take an opposing view,

The problems started with the lock combination folding on Saturday in the first half and the loosies being totally defective.   AO said the Springboks tried to take the balls out wide - while the fact  most balls died with Esterhuizen and Am.   Esterhuizen made two good line breaks - his other 12 carries were effectively crashballs where the ball became stagnant or there were turnovers.

In scrumming the situation went bad in the first half when in the absence of Eztebeth - the Bok scrum was effectively made up of 6 players - with Louw standing around with his hand on the back of the lock.  

The Pumas scored 27 points in the first half.  Some of the serious deficiencies were reduced when Du Toit, Snyman and Willemse came on and the Pumas only scored 5 points.   The scrium was improved since the Pumas replacmeents were not good enough and the Springboks replacements better than them.   

Unfortunately Erasmus inherited a useless and disorganized squad and there is some players who should not be in the team and he is also faced by the quota policy.  He must not only try to eliminate general failures.  He must also identify players of colour  who after selection to determine whether they can qualify at least partly as merit selections.   For that reason there will be a degree of experimentation going on over the tests leading up to the WC and some players from the Super Rugby series next year may also qualify.   Erasmus will not empty the hospital wards and sele ct  players without any test experience for up to 18 months  in his world cup squad - so there is a lot of work to be done. 

The real issue is that by now the key players should have been identified and the real need is to identify back-ups for those an concentrate on positions - like the loosies and centers - to correct the present deficiencies.  

    .        

.       

Clever Mike, you are speaking absolute nonsense. Esterhuizen got a quick recycle on every carry and well over the advantage line. Job done. His tackling was also good. Am was for the most part solid. Didn't have many opportunities with the ball though, so how him "dying with the ball" could have been a key contributor to the Bok's loss becomes a great mystery.

They targeted the breakdown? They didn't concentrate particularly heavily at the breakdown. They did however try to catch the Boks behind the advantage line. They tried to ensure the Boks were hemmed in, forcing then back in towards their forwards. 

You are so lost it beggars belief. Even worse, it's becoming a tedious bore. 

Saw a interesting bit online between Kevin Ferguson from moneyman SA and that Keohane bloke .Ferguson reckoned that at a 7 point lead to the Argies the Boks were an excellent value bet .And by all the indicators they were ! 

That Keohane bloke had a rather shaky premise for the Boks winning the RCs ,a win in Mendoza would give them momentum against the Wallabies which they could then carry through to give the ABs a touch-up if not an outright win then big wins at home and time for tea and crumpets !

Dunno how the  ABs coming in 3rd place figure in all that but I think he just hates the ABs which is all just groovy with me .

Balls galore here - he made 14 carries of which only two were  really effective and what happened after those carries were  definitely not quick recovery.   I referred in the main to Esterhuizen crashballing resulting in Am only getting a limited number of balls to carry because he was starved of the ball by Esterhuizen who passed or off-loaded only 36% of the balls he carried.   In those cases he was ineffective as well.

Anyway that was never the main point raised by me and you are effectively too stupid to realize what I wrote.   It had nothing to do with Ledesma outcoaching Erasmus - it was everything to do with  some substandard selections and the Pumas concentrated  on those players with deficiencies that could be exploited,   That represents out-maneuvering and not out-coaching.

One cannot discuss rugby performance with a  person who do not understand what happened on the field of play and come up with totally dreamt up  BS.   The real target of the better Puma loosies were evident throughout the game and that was to target the weakest links in the Springbok team - the loosies and the cen ters .   Best advice watch the games in future and do not dream up non-existent situations during games.         

The plastic fans are quite irritating Wardad. They beat their chests the loudest when the Boks win, howl the loudest when they lose. Worse still, they were always pandered to. I loved the way Jake stood his ground and made them eat their words. It burns them to this day! 

Very sensible post Organhuffer. The test as you point out could very well have been won comfortably by the Boks. Need to sort loose trio and center combo and we are in business.

Ou dense denise has always hated Rassie and is hoping he will fail. Ou dense denise doubtless dotes on the Wobblies and is hoping they will win. Come out of the wobblies closet dense!

Dr Moz of course Rassie is experimenting and giving guys in the running a chance to prove themselves. Now is the time to do it NOT just before the RWC.

Already the Rassie bashers are looking at win/loss ratios in glee. The guy h as hardly started for Petes sake.

Expect these some duffers to go ballistic if the Boks lose down under. But never mind Beeno will do his best to wipe away all the crocodile tears! Remember the Rassie bashers are hoping the Boks fail. just keep an eye on how dense denise reacts to any losses.

in summary give Rassie a decent chance and do take into account the situation here in good ol racist SA!

The problem is that it WASN'T won comfortably.

Why use excuses to console ourselves when in reality we were thrashed by three scores.

What could have happened, didn't. What should have happened, didn't. It's like saying that if that kid hadn't crossed the road at that time he would not have been hit by the car. The thing is, he did cross the road, and he was hit by the car.

We were warned that they would target the breakdown. We were warned that they were looking for more ball to play with. We did nothing about it. 

Let's stop deluding ourselves.

We are in trouble.

Dragon

Welcome back

I agree with your overall assessment.   There is an effort to escape from the fact that some players were deficient because they are favoured by some members resulting in a situation of distorted postings trying to get away from fact.

Lets face fact - breakdown ball protection and recovery was one aspect of play where the Springboks were poor.   Fact is that even when they did recover balls the process was slowed down by the Argentinians.  .The said problem is that is part of the play where the loosies should be prominent in.   However, some of our members in the past stated that that component is not a function of loosies and it has been a failure or years.  

The game on Saturday fell flat in two important combinations - namely the loosies and centers.   Esterhuizen made two very good line breaks - but what ensued from those line-breaks?   Really nothing.     I do not look at one or two incident in games - I look at overall performance by players,   Two incidents do not reflect the full impact of player performances.  - so we have to look at the overall situation.  

I believe that there were bad performances by top players - and not necessarily the players some members love to criticize.   .The reason for the latter is the result of prejudice by members against certain players - I call them the pet hate players in respect of which there are constant falsification by some as to what happened in matches. 

It happened again on Saturday and will keep o n happening until selection based on real performance is achieved.    

Dragon no need to breath fire doom and gloom. Organhuffer makes a valid point and you should know the scoreboard doesn't always reflect the rugby played. The Boks dominated the second half and that is indeed a genuine positive not moonshine. One try the Argi es got was a result of obstruction and Organ Huffer argues a second Argies try was questionable.

Time for all the bleating oaks to get real.

Dragon saying it like it is.....stop the BS and face up to reality, the Boks, a powerhouse rugby nation were embarrassed by a soccer playing nation.

Beeno is speechless, progress at last.

Has his brain farts finally reach acceptance that he knows shit?

One can only hope that enlightenment has finally pierced his clouded brain cells and accepted the fact he is mentally challenged

If we didn't get caught behind the advantage line so often, our breakdown effort would have been better. It takes two to make it work, forwards and backs. I didn't see us get out muscled on Saturday. 

Another AO classic that  can be summarized as follows:-

I did not see what I did not want to see and I have all the right to dream up things that did not happen as really happening .

No gems of your own? How about, "the Boks ran from every angle so they attacked good". If ever there was a classic Freifrau quote, that's it! 

How many times did it happen - fool?

Whiteley has been no powder puff, but I agree with you, Mostert was a definite step down from Steph. I have to disagree about Kolisis. He went missing for most of the first test and had a few spurts in the second. His leadership is nonexistent. Kolisi should be the first one to go. Louw had a good first test, but was less impactful in the second. 

Kitshoff and Thomas were good coming off the bench. However, Kits is so slow. He has the momentum of a helium filled balloon going into contact. 

Whiteley has been no powder puff

Disagre e. He makes no impact with ball in hand or in a tackle. He is not of test standard.

Mozart old chap I can only presume the irony of your statement is lost on you.

You would have to the most persistant person on here attacking people while confusing us with your inept knowledge of rugby.

I think i will need to add you to the list of Beenshit of knobs

By the way I am 190cm and a 110kgs so little doesnt come into it and neither am I sorry. Now go flap your gums in your mums basement while wearing your tin foil hat 

Whiteley has been pretty good as a carrier. He always gets over the gain line. Very strong cleaning rucks and has yet to particularly stand out as a weak defender. I've logged every ruck and set piece, if there's any problem area we can look at it.

You would have to the most persistant person on here attacking people while confusing us with your inept knowledge of rugby.

Are you not talking about Clever Mike? You must be a little confused. 

The only ones that confuse me are beenshit and mozart.

Mike is at least consistant s o you know where he is coming from.

Beenshit is just a straight loon so everyone just ignores his drivel