SA rugby woes? Blame SA's super second-rate coaches

Lurker

There are obviously  an extreme point of view on your part and I am not an extreme person.   The fact is that Morne was utterly and extremely predictable - which made him useless from a decision-making point of view.   

A flyhalf should be a  decision- maker which Morne never could do.  Any decision-maker at flyhalf will tell you that unpredictability on a limited basis in fact entails variation in play and there was really none in the case of Morne - his first decision was to kick the shit out of the ball - mainly poorly-directed  and aimless kicks with no real intent to put pressure on the opposition.

If the coach wants him to pass the ball in games he had to tell him ion advance and he would then passed the ball where a kick was in fact required (Ellis Park test - 2013). 

The third option was to pass the ball - but by the time he got that far the poor recipient was facing a near-hospital situation.  

The whole problem is that you accept the rubbish dished out by Morne as ideal - virtually all spectators do not.  If what he produced was acceptable - why did he go from Loftus Versfeld - where his adoring fans did not want to see how he buggered up games to Stade Francais - where he became the bench flyhalf for his club.   They quickly enough found out that he was not a decent flyhalf's backside.

He has the worst try scoring record any flyhalf could have - 8 tries scored in 66 test matches  played - again confirming his inability to attack the gain line.

Morne was a dead loss as flyhalf - even worst than Jantjies and that remains a fact. . A 10 standing dead still way to deep in the pocket to catch the ball is not what is required.   Variation in play is possible and is not a gimmick as you say it is,    Hell rugby players are not preprogrammed robots - But Morne came very n ear to being one.  

"He has the worst try scoring record any flyhalf could have - 8 tries scored in 66 test matches  played - again confirming his inability to attack the gain line."

Player - Tries (Tests) - Tries per test

Morne Steyn - 8 (66) - 0.121212
Butch James - 3 (42) - 0.071428
Naas Botha - 2 (28) - 0.071428
Henry Honiball - 1 (35) - 0.028571
Handre Pollard 3 (29) - 0.103448
Elton Jantjies 2 (26) - 0.076923
Pat Lambie 2 (56) - 0.035714

LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He has the worst try scoring record any flyhalf could have - 8 tries scored in 66 test matches  played - again confirming his inability to attack the gain line.

Then I guess Jonny Wilkinson with 7 tries in 97 tests had no ability to attack the gain line either. Handre Pollard is not looking too good either with only 3 tries in 29 tests. Irish playmaker Johnny Sexton - 10 tries in 82 tests. Henri Honiball - 35 tests, 1 try. Elton Jantjies, 26 tests, 2 tries.

Dan Carter and Stephen Larkham are the only two regular flyhalves of the modern era with a high try scoring strike rate, along with, of course, the phenomenon that is Beauden Barrett, whose strike rate puts most backs to shame - including the former two.

Pakie 

One should give you a medal for rank stupidity -  Morne had too many negatives to being a really acceptable flyhalf,      

ouMaalk, don't forget to remember that he was born in Bellville

Morne wasn't the problem. Our centre play was a problem. Play flat. Okay. What next? Too bad the fans never though further than run. But wait, the fans want a 10 who scores tries and runs it on his own. What use is a backline when your 10 will score on his own. They contradict themselves all the time. Morne was a great 10, but his time time humbly ended with Pollard. During his time, I though Potgieter was a real gem. Never got a shot though. That was the real alternative to Morne. Lambie was always a like for like change but not as good. Have a bench 10 who offers an alternative.

Also, tell me when Morne threw one hospital pass. Name one. I challenge you. 

"There are obviously  an extreme point of view on your part and I am not an extreme person.   The fact is that Morne was utterly and extremely predictable"

Oh the irony.

Why is it either hate or love? Morne was very good at certain aspects of rugby, his pole kicking was excellent, his kicking out of hand and tactical kicking were very good, but not great. He was a decent distributor of the ball, but not a running flyhalf. His defense was not bad, and got better as his career progressed, but he certainly wasn't the defensive liability some make him out to be. The most important thing to remember, is that his strong points very much suited our game plan for much of his career, hence his numerous records for a Springbok flyhalf. To say he was useless, or the worst 10 ever or other such outlandish comments is just stupid. In short, he was a little one dimensional, but for most of his career, and for most of the teams he played for, that fact did not contribute much to his effectiveness. One last thing, when commenting on him standing too deep, please please please try to remember, he was told to do that by his coaches. If he was ignoring coaching instructions you can rest assured he would not have been played. In other words, that was the team tactic. 

He was a very good flyhalf, that was better than world class in certain areas of fly half play, but he also had some weaknesses. There you go, some reality for some of those living in the clouds. 

@Blue

Be very careful.

You know what happens when we think rationally.

Every pass he made to the inside center was a hospital pass.because he stood too deep in the poclet and his reactions were slow.   Morne was not a flyhalf's backside - but I accept that you think he was because - he neutralized backline play of any form - through kicking balls away - which totally fits into your theoretical game plan and reduced the backline players to tackling dummies.   His personal defense4 was piss poor - end of story.   

You called me an extremist, but you tell me that every pass was a hospital pass. I'll lay it on the line and say that he never threw one hospital pass in his entire test career. I can't even think of one at Super level (I didn't see all his games, but I saw dozens and dozens of games). He had a near 50/50 split between passing and kicking Clever Mike. How me a game where he "kicked all balls away". 

And you keep trying to put words in other people's mouths, which is pretty childish and insulting. My preferred style of play has nothing to do with "kicking everything away". I have never said that and I never will. Kicking is a very important phase of the game though. Modern rugby is about playing in the opposition half. It's tactically sound and pretty obvious.

Morné's defence was excellent. After Pakie's thorough statistical analysis, I'd say exceptional. Ende. 

Mike, please enlighten us, with the team strategy at the time and the rules as they were and the team at the time, who would you have played at 10 that was so much better than Steyn? 

Bluebok and Lurker

You tell me something - why was Morne dropped from the team once in 2012 and twice in 2014 if he was as perfect as Lurker says he was.

Lurker - you apparently watch games with blinkers on and I will stay with what Hansen  said about Morne at 10.   Morne was the most predictable flyhalf I have ever seen playing and my comments were 100% correct - since he never attacked the gain line and stood too deep in the pocket and received the ball standing still - by the time he did pass the defenders was on top of the recipients.   

I know since you dislike any role of the backline - other than defense - Morne may be viewed by you as ideal.   There is one thing clear from what happened in France to Morne - not a single of the top 6 countries in world rugby would have selected him as test flyhalf - so we got him because he was ideal to prevent "netball" rugby.  

Morne was not in the starting line-up from the Perth disaster in 2014 - he played from the bench for about 10 minutes in 2015 WC - and was subsequently brought back by Coetzee to start in two tests with disastrous consequences for the Springboks in those two tests.   

Not a shining record from your Kn ight in armour?????????.        

Since 2012 when Steyn was dropped and replaced by Goosen and Lambie - Morne played in all 12 tests in 2013 and after that he has a disaster in 2014 playing only in 4 tests. 

He played in the following number of tests since 2013:-

2012    =    7  tests - 2 wins 3 losses and 2 draws

2013    =    12 tests -  10 wins and 2 losses

2014   =       4 tests - 2 wins and 2 losses

I would not call the above an established record by a top class player  

He was replaced by Goosen in 2012 and because of injury - the latter was out and then made a really problematic decision to move to France - where he was the player of the year in 2016.    When fit to play I would have picked him ahead of Morne all the time.   In fact he was replaced by either Pollard or Lambie for the rest.    

Incidentally I watched a match between Stade Francais and Racing Metro - where the match was a draw until Goosen replaced Carter at flyhalf.   Raciing thereafter scored 3 tries to win by 21 points,   One of the tries was by Goosen himself - on the day Goosen played the fool with Morne like it is unbelievable..        

Running past Morne to score his try confirms my opinion.- end of story. 

For any one of Goosen add 10 for Morne 

Playing chess with a pigeon again, guys...

You talk about record as Bok 10 as if he achieved nothing. He is the most highly decorated Bok 10 of all time and the most successful. I don't necessarily think he is the most talented (Butch was), but it's a very big stretch to say he has the record of a nobody. How many 10s in all of rugby history can match his CV? I'd say probably a handful at best.

My ideal brand of rugby is to impose extreme physical dominance and tear open the opponent quickly and exploit it quickly. I don't like overly convoluted plays and I definitely don't like one up predictable punch runners. Though, those forward carries are very important. It's all a matter of emphasis. When South Africa are playing badly, they are unbalanced in their approach and then they try to go the opposite extreme but exacerbate the problem (don't kick any balls - Harry Viljoen). Learn to use the ball in hand properly before you increase the volume of those runs on the ground. More won't compensate for inadequate implementation. Strike early in phase play high up the field is what I like. I don't like repetitive side to side Wallaroo ball. I like direct and oppressive rugby. Suffocate the opposition and hit the hard. Cut open the defence and flood in behind with speed. That's my preferred game. I particularly love deceptive angles of running. Fourie was amazing at this.

The game you call for has never been played by New Zealand or Australia. It has no record of success and is too contradictory to be of any use to actual players. 

The above explanation is real BS/  The world has changed since the 1930's insofar as physical development - both from a nutritional and physical development point of view is concerned.   In virtually all countries players are developed on a scientific basis and physically pl;ayers are basically even strong physically.  

So how are you going to smash them up - no way is that possible anymore.   The only way to beat the opposition nowadays is being cleverer in play with better balls skills and pace.   It obviously also require good defense - but the key remains  the above two.  

The kind of play you like will never win tests anymore -  it is the type of rugby Georgia plays and they do not get very far with it.   Argentina tried to use that' stunt too and did not get very far with it - yet they developed beyond dumb rugby and in the end was a match for most countries - they even were in the play-offs in Super rugby and there recent record against th dumb Springboks you think is ideal was not shabby at all.

Anyway NZ has a brand of rugby way y\beyond your comprehension and the Aussies are copying them.   NZ routinely lead the way with the Aussies copying them.   Even the NH teams are catching on and their clubs are trying to het skilled SH players in their teams.  When they find a dud like Morne - they routinely put him on the bench. 

I wonder where you get that brand of non-rugby you so admire from ?           

Players are better conditioned now than before, I wouldn't necessarily say stronger, particularly post ELVs. Rugby is a game of collisions. A very basic element of the game is imposing oneself physically. Teams who are clearly beaten physically don't win very many games, if any. Being clever. You need to be more specific. I like players who are mentally proactive, switched on. Guys who can figure things out on the pitch. Either way, it's very, very difficult for an inferior athlete to reach the heights of any sport. 

The kind of game I like is what's been played by New Zealand. They have a farming heritage and have added Polynesian grunt to that. Forward power, speed on the outside to beat you. That's been a staple of All Black rugby for decades upon decades. 

New Zealand has a game far beyond your comprehension. Not mine. But, you don't even know what running lines are, or any of the basic patterns, or how any of them are used. You think players must match up with their opposite number and actually believe you see it in game. Only the 9 can pass to 10, who is always first receiver. I wish you could understand how hilarious this stuff is. Here's what I gleaned from you over the past few weeks, the very extent of your rugby acumen:

1.A kick can never land in opposition hands

2.South Africa attacked from all angles (tactical analysis) 

3.South Africa didn't pass the ball to the losses forwards so it wasn't a defensive game. 

Nice post Lurker!!!

By the end of Morne and Pienaar's international careers I was one of many who was happy to see the back of them.

Same with Matfield and JDV.

One is allowed to admire parts of a players career and dislike other parts.

It's strange to me how people refuse to accept that one can have more than just one very polarized opinion of a player.

It's impossible to not give Morne the credit he deserves. 

Anyway, nice post man.

Lurker

I have also concluded that you are not a rugby fan - rather a bulldozer one. m  Youi now suddenly a NZ fan - bit in the main you said you do not like their style of play and that we must not become "net-ball" rugby by copying them .

You are hopelessly misrepresenting what I wrote about a thousand times om this site and lets look at the facts about some issues:-

Kicking

There is no doubt that kicking is an essential part of the game and there are two aspects of importance here, namely -

*    strategic kicking which is part of an attacking strategy; and

*    relieve kicking when under attack

Predictable kicking where the recipients are not under pressure is a hopeless situation where the ball possession is just handed over to the opposition.   This was where players like the Steyns were hopeless iro their kicking game.   Kicks were too far ahead so players can recover it easily and counter-attack  with a hopelessly inefficient defensive line is out of gear,

Insofar as relieving kicks are concerned - they should be effective and try as far as possible to prevent quick throw-ins - which has the same effect as an aimless kick leading to counter-attacks.  

An unforgiveable is where penalty line kicks lands in the field of play - although it has happened to many kickers - this was another More specialty -mussed to find touch 7 times in 9 tests.

Attacking

I never make wild statements on attacking play - I leave that entirely to you and Pakie.   I said repeatedly rugby is a 15 man game - and pointing out that comprehensive rugby entails proper usage of all 15 players.   That does imply variations in play and requires skilled and thinking players both in attack and defense.

What you say I favour is absolute BS. .  I never implied it and never advocated it - you are obviously a 10 man team supporter = so what other people in opposition to your theory is saying is then misrepresented.   

Third issue 

What the hell does that junk mean?