SA team against Australia - Umprovements and weakening of the team

15 Willie le Roux, 14 Makazole Mapimpi, 13 Jesse Kriel, 12 Damian de Allende, 11 Aphiwe Dyantyi, 10 Elton Jantjies, 9 Faf de Klerk, 8 Warren Whiteley, 7 Pieter-Steph du Toit, 6 Siya Kolisi (c), 5 Franco Mostert, 4 Eben Etzebeth, 3 Frans Malherbe, 2 Bongi Mbonambi, 1 Steven Kitshoff

Replacements  : 16  Malcolm Marx, 17  Beast Mtawarira, 18  Wilco Louw, 19 RG Snyman, 20  Francois Louw, 21  Embrose Papier, 22  Handre Pollard, 23  Cheslin Kolbe

Based on tests thus far in the RC there are a couple of improvements in the team:-

Centers  

When one looks at the performance of all centers in all the tests this year - both frim an attacking and defense perspective - it is clear that the pairing of De Allende and Kriel is the best pairing available at present,

Loosies   

The loosie change is a 100% imptovement with the dropping of Louw - it is disappointing that heis om the bench though.   

The team is weakened by the selection of -

*  Janties ahead of Pollard at flyhalf - this is a seriously disappointing selection; and

*  replacing Marx by Mbonambi.

Other than the Jantjies and Mbonambi selection this is a definite improvement on the team that faced Argnetina in Mendoza  

Oz by 16 points...nou gaan die poppe dans!

I am not saying that ball protection and recovery is not important,   Louw did make one turnover in all matches played which was inadequate - but he was utterly useless for the rest.  His attacking record was a disgrace to put it bluntly. 

I am not predicting the centers will succeed - but they will clearly be better than what we had.   I will not praise them if they come short in the game - they will be assessed on actual performance but I will not manufacture evidence to prove they were inadequate.   That typeof thing I wioll leave to Mozart and AO  -  they are expert in that, 

Pme thing I did not mention is that Du Toit will make a better contruibution to line-out play han Louw did.    

"Dropping Am meant they have to pick Jantjies to make up the numbers"

Rassie will be reminded of next year's 50% objective, as alarmingly, the colour counters notice that the Q % has dropped from 40 to 33%. Instead of progress there's regression..

Pollard & Marx never had a chance at getting the nod .

Seb - I am still weighing up the consequences of the selection - but I hae a feeling the Wallabioes will win by a margin of circa 5 points.

The problem with the selection centers around Jantjies - who never put in acceptable performances in tests,   Matter of fact he routinely was piss-poor in all tests.   I would rather have Willemse as starting flyhalf than Jantjies.  That is to my mind will be the main reason for the expected loss.

Other things that are important are the scrumming and line-outs.   In the case of scrumming the Aussies is not he strongest combination and their starting line-ip is just not strong enough,  On the SA side Beast was good in most games - but poor in the last test,  Kitshof will be better than Beast - both in scrums and all-round playing.     Mozart and co has no proof other than manufacturing BS that Malherbe is a poor scrummager and he is better than Louw in general play outside of scrumming.     .  Fact is the best Wallaby prop is Tupou and he is on the bench - so my guess is that the scrumming is one facet of play where SA will be better.   The same wil apply to line-outs.     

Bluebok

Are you kidding about comparing the mobility of Louw with that of Du Toit.   Du Toit will beat Louw in a 100 meter race by 20 meters.   He made near to three times as many tackles than Louw did in a recent match with Louw missing virtually all tackles he attempted wider out and Du Toit making all the tackles he attem pted wider out as well.. 

My problem with Louw is that he is not the player he used to be and is a low -production player nowadays.   Time for him to be phased out.    

We strengthen the loosehead side ... but keep the flop at 3 ...??

We substantially weaken our scrum set piece with a midget quota and leave Akker completely out of the mix ... ??

Our line outs were an issue awhile back and that's why Mostert's in the mix. I would have preferred Snyman at 5. Can he play as a 5 lock though?

Any side with Kolisi in already finds itself on the backfoot ... especially if he's on the openside.

Rassie is slowly losing the plot. Why would he take our best fetchers out of the run on team?

The useless Louw on the bench in place of van Staden??? He's starting to look and sound more and more like Moffie these days. 

Jantjies is a disaster ... but at least he'll slot a few more kicks over than the over rated Pollard.

Why isn't Willemse in the mix? He should be ahead of Pollard. I would have started with him at 10.

Mapimpi against Folau? Haaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaa!! That's going to be fun to watch. Any bets they pepper him with thumpers??

Well ... at least we have the better midfield players starting. That's probably the only plus regarding this awful side.

I think it's time Rassie takes his "tassie and calls it a day.

Oh and Mike ... please edit your heading.

"Improvements" is the word I think you were looking for.

Never been test standard - too big for 6 too small for 7, not enough skill for 8

Never been test standard, but still managed to make the second most turnovers in WC2015, second only to Pocock, as well the joint most tackles. Still got the blinkers on as ever, Dave.

... and yet with all that skill, he still contributed greatly to our loss against the Japanese.

Puzzling?

Flab Malherbe what a joke

Glen Jackson is the ref.

Oz side not the best but I see no improvement in SA side as well...forwards generally passable but without Marx is like shooting themselves in the foot...the SA backline, well I predict a disaster...lets see whose right...might well, put this debate on De Allende/Kriel versus Esterhuizen/Am and Jantjies/Pollard to bed for good...I hope so...having said that I suspect Rassie is keeping what he rates as best for the AB's...perhaps as some say experimenting.

My call is Australia to eclipse us by 16...I'm prepared to eat crow for that.

Saw the Oz team on 365 :

Australia: 15 Israel Folau, 14 Dane Haylett-Petty, 13 Reece Hodge, 12 Matt Toomua, 11 Marika Koroibete, 10 Kurtley Beale, 9 Will Genia, 8 David Pocock, 7 Michael Hooper (captain), 6 Lukhan Tui, 5 Adam Coleman, 4 Rory Arnold, 3 Allan Alaalatoa, 2 Tatafu Polota-Nau, 1 Scott Sio.
Replacements: 16 Folau Fainga’a, 17 Tom Robertson, 18 Taniela Tupou, 19 Izack Rodda, 20 Ned Hanigan, 21 Joe Powell, 22 Bernard Foley, 23 Jack Maddocks.

CC

I agree with you about the issue of Willemse being a better flyhalf than Jantjies and if Erasmus wanted to use Pollard - also hugely better than Jantjies - on the bench - why is Willemse not starting.

I do not fully agree about Louw - he had a series of questionable games in Super Rugby and I think that he may be viewed as a better bench player coming up against the second sting opposition scrumming like happened in the second Argentinian test. 

Snyman did play at 5 for the Bulls when De Jager was not available - but essentially it is not the position in which he normally plays.

In any event my loosies would be entirely different.  I would have played Kriel at 6 and would have preferred Du Toit at 8 - with a player good at breakdown points at 7.   However, the disregard for breakdown ball protection and recovery has been neglected by the SA coaches for years - at least since 2012 and even earlier in some cases - the situation is poor and there is a serious neglect on lower level to sharpen up new players to compete with opposing teams in that component to the game.  

By the way Marcell Coetzee is back playing for Ulster and he should be drafted into the squad way ahead of Louw and can be used at 8 as well.        

Pakie - try again. 

I was a supporter of Louw for years - but he never really was an opensider - because of pace deficiency,   I would have said that he should have played at 7.   However, in the last here years Louw performance-wise went back fast.

At this stage he has become a passenger in the team and no amount of giving him mythical credit for situations at breakdowns would change that.  

Mike ... you can't really select Jaco Kriel into your mix as he's not part of the squad at the moment. I hope that changes soon. Heaven knows we can do with a little class in our backrow.

I would love to see Du Toit playing at 8. He would be a much better option than Flo in my opinion. I think his style would go well with the 8 jersey.

Malherbe doesn't do it for me. Sorry but I just can't sink my teeth into the pointless selection. 

... and yet with all that skill, he still contributed greatly to our loss against the Japanese.

What, by scoring a try?

That is not the only requirement of a loosie,   In that game De Jager also scored a try - but the latter was denigrated by Mozart and co for years,   

By the way here are the stats of Louw for that game:-

Was he in fact playing that day other than the try being scored?   With those figures he actually played for 20 minute and was on holiday during he other 6o minutes of the game.  Sorry - I support Dave in what hew rote about a major role played by Louw in losing that game.   

Haaaaaaaaahahahahahaaa!! I thought, you'd go there.

He hung onto the ball and was carried over the line by his team mates in a maul. Wow!!! The skill it took to do that. Mind blowing stuff ... against the Japanese ... currently ranked where ... 12 ... 14th ... only to find himself defending a Japanese maul shortly thereafter ... unable to keep them out ... resulting in a try to the lowly ranked, 3rd tier rugby nation.

Truly a champion among fetchers on the planet.

Sure, there was nothing to it, he happened to be the carrier. But that's what I recall from the game. What do you recall to back up your claim that he carries a major responsibility for the loss? A little less Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha!!!! and a little more substance will go a long way, CC.

Mike, if you want to say he made a major contribution to the loss, then bring me some specific action or actions in the game to back it up. Don't throw a line of numbers at me and pretend you know what went on. You clearly don't.

After 80 minutes the Boks were leading. What lost the game first and foremost was a missed tackle by Jesse Kriel with no time left on the clock. That's what lost the game, plain and simple. From that point you can branch out and look for additional moments, like Jean's poor handling of the Japanese set move to begin with.

Then you can look at who conceded kickable penalties with mostly unforced errors:

I think his disappearing act speaks for itself. One would think that a "world beater" such as Louw would be able to sustain the full 80 against a lowly ranked side like Japan and come away victorious.   

The Japanese enjoyed more ball than they had a right to. If Louw had actually done the job he was tasked with, we would easily have nullified their attack and walked our opening match.

He didn't. The end result ... a loss. That to me is reason enough to avoid this retreaded blindside geriatric as best we can.

Substance enough, Pakie?

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaaa!!! 

So, you got nothing except thinly veiled sarcasm? Thought so.

Bluebok, here's the difference: If the centres have a good game, I'll say so. Clever Mike has a predefined rating before the game even starts.

This was a wonderful opportunity to notch up a win. We have no physicality from the midfield. We have no stopping power at midfield. Jantjies and Damian both concede turnovers when  they try to take the ball into contact. Which is further compounded by our terrible loose trio and single lock. We effectively play with three men down. Kolisi has had an abysmal work rate, Mostert has done absolutely nothing. Steph at flank? Why? Malherbe can't scrum and has only produced one adequate half of rugby in all the tests I have seen him play. Australia will feast on us with their loose forwards. They probably compete at scrum time and edge us in the lineouts. We won't have a maul to speak of. Their runners will be able to pick and choose where to strike as we have passive defenders who can't follow play very well. Jantjies is severely disadvantaged by Damian and Kriel. I know we usually run play through Willie, but we will need our centres at some point. The selection of Jantjies tells me that Rassie wants to open up and run at Australia. This is a suicidal team. We will need Australia to have an off day to win. That would only do us a disservice, as it'll confirm to Rassie this team can beat New Zealand.

It just shocks me that Rassie will reward players for producing nothing. Damian was terrible all year. Malherbe, Mostert, Kolisi have been passengers. Bongi isn't bad, but not enough to compensate for the passengers in the team. 

I was about to say Rassie did the obvious by selecting Kitshoff but then going through the team again it's noticeable that he didn't continue doing the obvious by selecting Flabberherbe instead of Wilco and Bongi instead of Marx. Mostert as I've previously stated is a tireless worker not of test standard. Jantjies...ag Foeitog…..asseblief mense, the serial failure.

There isn't a selection in the team to counter the Ozzie fetching juggernaut meaning Rassie has lost the plot. The Boks need a miracle, Ozzies by 12 .

The scoreboard is more than enough evidence for me thank you ... and the stats that Mike's produced confirms the sad story that is Franscois Louw.

The thinly veiled sarcasm is just an added extra, Pakie Poof!!

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaa!!!

I agree with a lot of this but it is not really worth it, we'll see soon enough and back to the drawing board...panic will set in and we know from past experience what this means...I've seen it all too often.

The only way to get our rugby going again is remain calm, build slowly, reward the deserving players only and balance our game. There is no room for band-aid jobs and quick fixes, this we must get into our thick skulls.We must accept reality or else we will slip further down.

Pakie

Not generalization  and sarcasm - the situation is that Louw did his absolute minimum that day and that is clear.   I know the generalization is that stats does not prove anything.   What stats does prove is whether the productive level of a player is sufficient or not,   In Louw's case it was totally insufficient,   A loosie making 6 tackles in the whole game is a joke - he also missed 2 tackles and why the total silence by you on the penalty he gave away? 

The childish argument that the missed tackle of Kriel was the only reason for the loss of the game - is basically spurious and a joke in bad taste.  Fact is the team failed as a whole with  some players being much w eaker than others,  Bismarck was a farce in that game and players like Louw, Burger, Matfield, De Villiers and, Pienaar (to name but a few non-productive players) were no better.

Pakie

Not generalization  and sarcasm - the situation is that Louw did his absolute minimum that day and that is clear.   I know the generalization is that stats does not prove anything.   What stats does prove is whether the productive level of a player is sufficient or not,   In Louw's case it was totally insufficient,   A loosie making 6 tackles in the whole game is a joke - he also missed 2 tackles and why the total silence by you on the penalty he gave away? 

The childish argument that the missed tackle of Kriel was the only reason for the loss of the game - is basically spurious and a joke in bad taste.  Fact is the team failed as a whole with  some players being much w eaker than others,  Bismarck was a farce in that game and players like Louw, Burger, Matfield, De Villiers and, Pienaar (to name but a few non-productive players) were no better.

Victor and Schalk were two of the most productive players that day. The worst players Were Lambie, Pienaar, Steph, Coenie, Lood, Bissie and Mvovo.

You lost the Japan argument because you were straining to blame Victor and Schalk. You were trying to deceive everyone. I should actually review that game once and for all to end this discussion. 

Apologies, I did miss the penalty.

Nothing childish about the Kriel argument. With time gone on the clock, that tackle directly saves the winning try and gives the Boks a chance to regroup their scattered defensive line.

The scoreboard is more than enough evidence for me thank you ..

True CC but is this always so?...PDV once told the press after game we lost (cannot remember which, I a Tri- Nations game)...

"Ja, it was close but we won on the field and not the scoreboard"LOL

Bahahahahahahahahahaha

That takes the cake...a classic clown.