Pressure Builds For John Mitchell- The Tyrant within is starting to surface.....

John Mitchell has a tendency to single out players when the pressure is on. Before his Lions tenure came to an end, he was calling out individual players, by saying they are not SuperRugby standard.

He is now starting to do the same with the Bulls. If things do not improve by next season- Loftus will become worse than Kamp Staalstraad....  

This is fine though, as I support winning teams, not happy teams. 

The Loftus faithful should just roll with his approach- and not take the sides of the players.

While defence is many times an attitude, Mitchell is adamant that he is getting a bit thin on depth in certain areas but doesn’t want to use that as an excuse. 

“Ultimately the group at the moment that we are selecting is all that is available. We are very thin and that is what the reality is. It is optimising and becoming cohesive with what we have. 

I think we will definitely be better as a result of playing another game together but it has been a patch-up job. Some guys are actually playing right now when they aren’t where they need to be from a fitness point of view, in my view, but that is just what we have to do. But we have to play them otherwise we wouldn’t have a team.” 

Whip the lazy bulle into shape Mitchell and fire all the lazy oaks who prefer beer and pap to training.

Don't make the same mistake the pampering sharks management made when they fired Ja ke. Where is lardy John Smit today!

Owen M eany no doubt is still talking about die magtige Bulle! hahahahahahahahaha

It's not that he doesn't rate SA players, its that he's just a prick.....as a coach and a person....there is a reason he doesn't coach in NZ...he's not wanted....Giteau didn't say "lock the door.....New Zealand did.

The mighty Mozart has spoken in all his ignorance.   The problem is that the Bulls have been going backwards under both Ludeke and Marais - drastically so.  In that they were on par with what Meyer and Coetzee left iro of the Springboks and the Stormers.

They were using BS props for years and they lost some really good players because of the junk coaches, while they gained some passengers.   To rebuilt a team on that basis is very difficult - especially with unfit players.   

Michell has a lot of cleaning up to do and he has to replace some players.   They have lost their best lock recently and their loosies are not up to standard.   Gelant, Ismaiel and Ulengo are seemingly unfit and their backline defense borders on the non-existent.

He had one season with the Bulls and they played some very good games and had some good wins - eg the Hurricanes, the Sharks and the Stormers  - and was cheated out of a win against the Highlanders by a poor ref,    

That being said - they moved up on the log and by two wins can still be in the play-offs.  Highly unlikely - but the fact that Mozart goes for Mitchell is no surprise.   He has been into Plumtree as well because the latter said his favourite Fat Fransie is not a center at all.  Besides that he hates the idea that NZ coaches are better than the duds he support as coaches in SA and he also dislike any form of rugby other than the 10 man game he calls "traditional SA Rugby"

. 

  .                          

Your starting to find out the tyrant and control freak this guy is. He retired the best fullback in history Christian Cullen early. For Ben Blair who was a flop at the 2003 RWC. The guy creates bad cultures. 

Mitchell of course laid the foundation for the rise of the Lions. He demands fitness and passion and does not tolerate shirkers which as with the sharks in the past have been all to easily accommodated.

Mitchell inherited a squad and he needs to weed out the duds and build as did Meyer some seasons ago. The oaks clearly cant see the wood from the trees as per usual! its far to early in the day to write off Mitchell unless you are some weird bent observer of bulls rugby.

Let all the shirkers leave the bulle but please don't come to the Mighty Stormers!

Ludeke won 2 titles and came close to reaching a finals with a lot of talent gone. I think the guy deserves at least a little respect as the most successful Super rugby coach South Africa has. How do you replace a golden generation of players? That's the problem the Springboks are still trying to answer. The average fan assumes if things aren't going well just throw the team out and get someone better and that's now really how it goes in reality. Part of being a coach is knowing what you have and figuring out a way to use it. The old Lions coach around 2007 found a way to beat the Crusaders in New Zealand. Jake found a way to beat the British Lions without his star players at the Brumbies. Blaming your team openly is not the answer, even if it is true that you have an inferior group of players. Meyer was losing almost every game for the Bulls but he worked through it and created, yes CREATED, a winning culture. Mitch is too good for anyone in his won mind. He has been living off the reputation he had at the Crusaders where he inherited the blueprint and had to just keep it going. He always tries to get his team to do it that way and it isn't  nice fit for other teams abroad. Jake adapted to the culture, Mitch won't do that. He won't bend for the needs of the team. He alienates his players and hangs them out to dry and that's why he has such a short lifespan. 

@Bluebok: Meyer gave a lot of youngsters a chance. He tried over 13 centres. He tried over 6 scrum halves. Over 6 fly halves. Lots of new players all over the field. He started his era without Victor, Smit, Spies, Schalk, Juan, Bakkies, Danie, Fourie, Du Prees, Butch and loads more. I think he struggled to find a balance in the end because of injuries to guys like Thor and Albert's. He built so much of the game around their breakdown and ball carrying ability. We had no passing centres only guys who liked to run and defensive problems. Many youngsters failed because they aren't good enough. It's a lot like 1999 to 2003 when we had the old gen phasing out but the new gen weren't ready. Meyer keep the team competitive but Coetzee predictably exposed how vulnerable our pool of players really were. 

Bulls Team Named for this weekend. A substantial amount of donkeys that need to be discarded by next season.

Many of these players are just not SuperRugby standard- and Mitchell needs to dump them before next season. The loose forwards are pathetic. 

While we can debate the merits of John Mitchell as a coach, I think we can agree that this team on paper is perhaps the worst in SuperRugby. Compared to New Zealand teams, or the Jaguars they are a pub team

It is surprising that they are not giving Adrian Strauss one last run....I have underlined the players that have so far proven they are SuperRugby standard. The remaining donkeys are for the most part pathetic.

15 Warrick Gelant - solid. 

14 Jamba Ulengo- Does not have the pace or finesse to play wing. This was a pick of DirtyMuttCutt.

13 Jesse Kriel- The best of a bad bunch on the outside.

12 Johnny Kotze  Klutz  - a donkey, with no playmaking ability. 

11 Divan Rossouw-  Not SuperRugby standard

10 Handre Pollard (captain)- Excellent but too many clueless people on the outside.

9 Embrose Papier- Has potential

8 Hanro Liebenberg - Crap

7 Jannes Kirsten - Crap

6 Marco van Staden - Crap

5 RG Snyman - Very Good

4 Jason Jenkins - average

3 Conraad van Vuuren - crap

2 Jaco Visagie - crap

1 Pierre Schoeman - average.

Substitutes: 16 Edgar Marutlulle, 

17 Simphiwe Matanzima/Matthys Basson, 

18 Mornay Smit, 

19 Thembelani Bholi, 20 Nick de Jager, 21 Ivan van Zyl, 22 Manie Libbok, 23 Dries Swanepoel

It is amazing that whenever there is a question raised  about coaches of the past – there is always the same refrain –

*   White won  the three-nations and the WC in 2007

*    Ludeke won the Super Rugbby series twice.

There is not a word about de Villiers winning the Three Nations series  and he si constantly condemned as a failed coach.

One can never say anything negative about the other two without a storm of denials  and attacks – especially from the Bulls supporters on site.   So lets leave White out of the discussion – esecilly since he did spoil his copybook with the last two major teams he coached – the Sharks and Montpellier whether members like it or not,  

Meyer is an interesting case and I believe that one should take heed of his comments   made on three occasions:-

2012  -   I selected  players  I am familiar with

This was proven by the fact that he in 2012 picked 14 Bulls players for his squad in that year and Meyer went on and said that he made a mistake about his selections.

However, he never did follow through on that since he was unfamiliar with the playing style and players and in 2015 selected not a single player from that franchise for his WC squad.

2014  -   SA Players do not have the ball skills to play a ball-in-hand game   

 This is the reason why Meyer never factored  anything connected to such play into his game plan.

There are in fact two problems with that statement, namely –

*    why did he select players without ball skills in the first instance; and

*    is it not possible for a coach to endeavour to try and overcome the deficiency through coaching?

Problem is Meyer did not really know what to do with players without the necessary ball skills and kept them in the team.

2015   -   I know what the players I selected for the WC squad is capable of

The thing that is bothersome about that statement – the players who showed those capabilitidi shpu it  near to a decade previously.    However in the main one has to bare in mind that the  Players e selected was not anymore capable in 2015 and they were not a shadow of the players they use to be.

It was not wise to select players on the basis of reputation and not proven performance – the wheels came off in the first test in the 2015 WC against Japan.   Meyer  before the test said that he has selected the most experienced team to ever represents the Springboks.  We know by now what happened to the “most experienced “  team against Japan.

Meyer had serious deficiencies –

*     instead of trying to build a squad for the 2015 WC  - he constantly tried  to get the elderly playing rugby again; and

*    he tried to use an out-of-date game plan in the WC

Fact is Coetzee inherited a squad from him whose players were denude of any real  experience  and one can with justification say Meyer was a problem coach from the start and by 2015 was a disaster,            

Peter had a few good months. Steyn, Brussow and Fourie were massive in that Tri Nations and the Lions series nd he didn't want any of the three. He nearly botched the Lions series because he would not give in. Brussow was the man of the year really and he was only there because Plumtree insisted that he be included in the squad. 2008 want good. The Boks tried to play all out running but had no effect at the breakdown at all. They played horribly in the end of year tour apart from the England test, but they had issues of their own. The last two years were bad too and it got so bad that Rasse was coaching the team in the Middle of the Tri Nations to prepare them for the World Cup and he coached them in the World Cup too and they played much much better. Peter had a big mouth that was a huge issue on its own. He was told by ANC members to shut up and do his job. This guy was terrible but you want me to give him credit? No way. He had the ELVs give him a head start on the northern teams twice and inherited a very settled squad that he couldn't grow and played into the ground. He was terrible.

Meyer did not have an outdated game plan. And if you want to mock the game plan that he used you need to be specific about which one you hate because he tried a lot of different things and always adapted his systems to the personnel. In the World Cup he played a different way in almost every game. He used the spearhead defence against Scotland to push their attack outward and stop them building a platform in the Middle of the field. He used switches and a pretty flat attack to attack the inner joint of the defence. Against Wales it was a rush defence cutting them off on the outside and using powerful surges to get over the advantage line. In 2014 Meyer had trouble finding ball carrying forwards but found a way around that but the system wasn't feasible up north and that was the failure of the tour. Injuries to key players robbed the Boks of a forward platform and none of the new kids stepped up like in 2012 when they were easily overcome and full of errors. In 2012 Meyer used a basic game plan of one up runners and simple two man plays to punch it up in the backs. Kicking errors from 9 and 10  cost the Boks early. He changed the game plan dramatically when he went to Goosen. A flatter line with a few more layers and an emphasis on dominating from the middle of the field. A lot of what Meyer was doing was exactly what New Zealand were doing. New Zealand did it better because they had a better kicking game and fielded kicks perfectly. They always win the territory battle.

So I have to say that you are very mixed up. I think Meyer did a lot with what was available to him. He was definitely not outdated in anything he did. But you obviously don't see the game the way it is. If you are going to attack a coach at least be honest or pick out something that actually exists. This is where I said you keep making a mess.

Also, Meyers best squad was the 2013 squad of the November tests. It was also his oldest team. I don't say pick anyone because they are older but 2012 really exposed the teams lack of leadership and experience. They looked much much more settled in 2013. 

You are welcome to believe what you wrote - but if there is one thing Meyer never had is a constructive game plan - he tried things - bit did not continue with those.   So it was one gigantic mess and it remained that throughout the period he was coach.   Exactly  the same game plan he used against Japan - he used against the Welsh and in the semi.

It backfired against Japan - nearly backfired against the Welsh and went sour in the semi.  If you cannot see the basics according to Meyer - then you must be blind,   The first receiver was a loosie in circa 70% of the passes by the SH.   The loosie crashballed and in in a few cases where he did pass the ball it was hospital passes to the 12  It basically destroyed any potential backline play.  

That was a replica of the Meyer game plan he used for the Bulls in 2004 and could never work out 10 years later.

Then  your whole story is about defense and not any part of what would call a game plan - defense is s very small portion of a game plan;   

Lastly - Meyer never realized that reputation selections were BS.   They started to go bad by the end of 2014 and from there it was downhill all the way,   Could not even win a si ngle match on the 2015 RC.          

Mitchell of course laid the foundation for the rise of the Lions. He demands fitness and passion and does not tolerate shirkers which as with the sharks in the past have been all to easily accommodated.

Mitchell inherited a squad and he needs to weed out the duds and build as did Meyer some seasons ago. The oaks clearly cant see the wood from the trees as per usual! its far to early in the day to write off Mitchell unless you are some weird bent observer of bulls rugby.

Let all the shirkers leave the bulle but please don't come to the Mighty Stormers!

Meyer never copied the Bulls gamelan from 2004. Nobody played like his Bok post-ELVs. Boks were much more like the All Black's than any of the Bull sides. A forward at first receiver is nothing new. New Zealand do it all the time. New Zealand have the ball in their forwards hands more than 50% the time South Africans. Forwards in the line creates numbers and adds layers to the attack. If the pod are in one channel the midfield can attack further out and create more. One of New Zealand's most common plays from a line out is a box formation with forwards and their 10 in the Middle of the field. The defining aspect of New Zealand rugby is how much they use their forwards ball in hand, they don't run exclusively through the backs. Meyer was doing something very similar when he used the forwards as a screen for the backs to work from. It creates space because the defence has to account for the pod. There was a game where the defence thought we were bluffing and going to go wide. It may have been against England. Albert's ran over the first defender and we went something like 40 meters and we got a try eventually. Meyer liked to use wings at first receiver too. He had JP, Damian and Kriel as one attacking uni taking the ball flat and Pollard, Kriel and Willie further out. A nice switch or dummy switch to release Pollard and Kriel and Willie running a blocker line to release Willie. It created one on one match ups on attack and sometimes extra men. That's the thing Meyers gamelans created options. Better decision makers would have thrived more in his teams. It was tactically sound and modern. Clever Mike you don't know a damn thing about Meyers Bok, Jake Boks, a Peter's Boks or anyone else's. Heck you must hate the All Black's because only a dummy uses their forwards. Having a 10 at first receiver alone is so archaic that any team thinking like that should wear some queer little Shakespeare type clothing. Or maybe just cavemen sabertooth skinned buttflaps. 

NZ forwards ever get the ball more than 60% of the  time as first receiver and none of  them replace the flyhalf as playmaker  as Lurker alleges above,   It was BS dished up by Meyer and it is non-viable as a strategy used for winning rugby.  That is why the Springboks beat the AB's inly once in 8 games played,   Fact is to even compare the strategy or lack of any strategy forming part of a game part of Meyer is a joke in bad taste/

Mozart

You would not recognize excellent points if it hit you in the face/    Lurker writes a load of make up jargon that never happens and you are stupid enough to believe it was good points - what a joke!!!!!          

There is no make up jargon. It's called rugby jargon. If you want to look pretty you can watch To Foo Wang you old fruit. 

It is make-believe jargon since it never happened in reality.    

Which terms are make-believe?

Thank you Bluebok. I think Peter is a sad case. He had a good understanding of basic fundamentals but was too egotistical to learn anything more. Jake gets a lot of flack but in 2005 he took responsibility for his mistakes, and again in 2006. He didn't turn on his assistants or turn on his players. If Peter wasn't bitter or proud he could have grown into the position. A lesson for us all I suppose. I have to say that I think 2008 was disappointing. We beat New Zealand but looked patchy in the first test. We got blown away 0-18 at home and never looked like putting a dent on Australia in Wallaroo country. They stuffed us at home in a really ugly Bok performance. We got a big win in the last game which paved over the cracks but Australia were awful. Passes flying over head and bouncing off the ground and absolutely no defence out wide. The Boks walked in 5 tries unopposed. Very un-Aussie like. The Northern tour was pretty shocking until the England test. The home tests against Wales were patchy again and they really made us look very ordinary in the second. For a World Championship team it was bad, especially because we played a much more rounded game pre-ELVs under Jake. For a coach that prided himself on running rugby it was handed to him on a plate with the law changes. Remember how for 40 minutes los Pumas led us until their fatigue under the new laws cost them in the second? Peter really should have done better. His assistants were not much either. Dick distorted the Lions and has done nothing ever since. 

Mozart

Strategy may go over my head - but you are worse - RUGBY GOES OVER YOUR HEAD

My understanding is that PDV never coached the team, they apparently coached themselves. He served as an embarrassment everytime he spoke.

Singling out players is part of the SA rugby culture. This man acclimated fast. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Thing is that SA coaches do not part with their habits when abroad. This man might reform.

If this man has singled out quota players as the root of the lack of performances, then even better. SA rugby through and through.

Should be given the title of honourary SA white man as it is goes by SA ways.