SA Teram selkection for Saturday

Reading what Erasmus said to the media on Monday - the following is likely to happen during the first to matches:-

Tests against Argentina

The center pairing in both Argentine tests seems to be Esterhuizen and Am - but it may happen that Kriel will probably feature on the bench.   It is clear that De Allende is likely to be favoured at 12 by Erasmus, but he is likely to be fit only in early September.

As to the locks the selection is likely to be Etzebeth and Du Toit - with Mostert on the bench.   That situation will to my mind remain in place until the return of De Jager.   Once that happen it is likely that Du Toit will likely be moved to 8 - especially since Vermeulen is questionable for the WC next year.

What is clear is that Pollard will not be moved to inside center and he will e the flyhalf on Saturday.   However, what is not clear yet is the intention of Erasmus insofar as Willemse is concerned.   I have a feeling he will be on the bench for the Argentina tests and may even start at full back for the away test against Argentina.

insofar as the loosies are concerned - I think Louw at 6 would be a dead loss as per normal.   He is too pace-deficient to last at 6.   Kolisi - a poor selection at present - to start at 7 and Whiteley will be the 8 for the first two tests.  However, I think that Marco van Staden would be the bench loosie.  The loosie situation is where we will see an entirely different scenario by the end of this year.

The Australasian Tour 

The most likely change will be at the loosies and the return of De Allende at 12.  I also think that with the bigge Australian and NZ players Kril is likely to return at 13.

For the rest there mat e some fringe changes with due regard to injuries to players.             

Damian and Kriel has been the worst centre pairing of the last 26 years. If Rassie wants a job, he must sober up. 

Againdofdoos

The worst center combination would be Fat Fransie and Mapoe - your latest hero.   Hell - you.do not know anything about rugby - do you?

Dyanti looks promising. He'll be relying significantly on Willie to bypass our cul-de-sac centre pair though. Not convinced by Steph. About the best we could do though, centres aside. 

Not my choice, but The likely starting XV will be:

1. Beast

2. Marx

3. Louw

4. Eztebeth 

5. Steph

6. Flouw

7. Kolisi

8. Whitely

9. Faf Deklerk

10. Pollard

12. EsterHuizen

13. Lukayno AM

14. Dyanti 

15. Willie Leroux

11. Mvovo

What Shark said, but: Mosterdt in at 5...Loosies are a mess without Thor.

I said I would choose Mapoe over Damian. Now he tells everyone that I rate Mapoe as one of the best centres in world rugby. Just as he repeatedly says I said Folau was a substandard player. He presents it as a direct quote. This is how dishonest he is. Yet I am the one who is prejudiced and a liar. Whatever pills the institute he resides in gave him, he needs to up the dose. Feed it to him 24 hours a day by drip. 

Listen dimness - I never said  you rate Mapoe as one of the best centers in World rugby - it were you who came up with the BS about him,  Listen if one follows your ideas about selections  would have SA soon on number 15 rating on the log.   Anybody who rates Fransie and Morne must be dimmer than dim insofar as rugby is concerned.  

...notsoclevermike i see that the Argentinians have Ledesma as Pumas coach now for the first time....the very same coach that took the team to seven wins in a row in Super Rugby - given the Pumas and the Jaguares are virtually the same team....therefore these guys have been practising all year for this... so they could be a more dangerous prospect than usual ..

If South Africa selected the players I wanted they'd probably have won the World Cup. I called out Lood for his immobility and poor hands, I called out Damian for his poor defence long before anyone else, I called out so many other things well ahead of time. Sometimes as long as 5 years ahead of the curve. My team would have beaten New Zealand in the aerial stakes, would not have lost at least two RC games of 2015 and been much, much better than what Coetzee dished up, even if we were to still implement his gamelan.

You back a centre that has directly conceded more tries than he has contributed. Who has almost no record whatsoever of aiding the Bok attack. 

Yet, the most successful 10 in Bok history is the worst in world rugby, according to you. You literally said that. You said it was a fact of life. You can't provide any evidence. In fact you only had numbers you couldn't read properly and fallacious conclusions because you couldn't count. When I asked you to explain the Bok game plan of 2015 against NZ in the RC, you could only answer with: "They attacked from all angles" and "They didn't pass the ball to the loosies so it was an attacking game".

Clever Mike, I wish I did have a coaching manual. I'd send it to you for free. You need to level up your game big time. It's atrocious! 

Mozart cannot help himself - he has to write BS on site.  Lies and deception about this one as well -  he conveniently forgot that I was never against Matfield, Burger and Du Preez in their prime - and until the injury of De Villiers in 2014.   Three of them played in the Japan disaster and Matfield added insult to injury in the WC semi. In the Japan test Burger and Matfield were  the real reason for the loss - not the one you manufactured  

As to Morne - I accepted he was the Stade Francais bench flyhalf and nothing more - you must be living in delusion to call him a great.

Etzebeth- was never against him ever - questioning his match fitness afte a nine months absence does not mean I am opposed to his selection.   So keep up the lies.

Because I think that Du Toit is a better player than Mostert is clear.   Du Toit is your pet hate ever since Dave and I mention him as a future prospect.- because he was a thread to selection of the way over-the-hill Matfield.   And as for Vermeulen - he has no right to say which tests he will play and which not.   He was excellent of the first two June tests and a name in the teamsheet in the third test.

The BS you constantly spout on this site is caused by prejudice and a lack of understanding f rugby as a game - added to by favouring of rugby geriatrics.   Total idiocy in your case reig n supreme.

Matfield and Burger were not the "real" issue for the loss. Both made 10 tackles, only 1 was missed, by Burger. This is the highest tackle count of all the Boks. Burger made 15 passes and 22 runs, beating 2 defenders and making 4 offloads. His teammates where more able to play off of him than either centre. Kriel made 1 pass all game. He only had one objective: run. If we look at our half backs, they were no threat ball in hand. They ran nothing. In game we can observe that they really didn't engage the defence. You say you like the flat attack? Well it's basic premise is having to engage their 10 and 12 and force 13 to make a decision. Lambie didn't help his backline at all. In fact, he put a lot of pressure on Jean which in turn affected the rest of the backline. Not that the centres played well anyway, because they didn't. Bismarck conceding 4 penalties didn't help. Jannie missing 3 tackles didn't help. When all is said and done, this is the basic summation of that game: Japan had a better backline that was allowed to get into the game because of our backline being unable to have any meaningful impact and a lack of grunt from the Boks in the collisions (failed to clean rucks as effectively as required). Kriel conceded the winning try in the end, and at no point do you mention that. You did lambast Morné for the Aussie test of 2014, when he failed to find touch. You said that he directly cost the Boks the game, but Kriel doesn't get a mention? He was statistically the least relevant player in the game. Lood and Steph were non-events in spite of both supposedly being more impactful in the collisions. The bulk of the play was sparked by Burger, Victor, Mvovo and Kirchner. You have the gall to speak of prejudice. 

I am amazed - Againdofdoos are using selected stats - just like the dishonest Mozart/   He claims I only use stats for evaluation - but that is not stopping the stupid Mongol from using stats as well.    

So four penalies against Bismarck and four ball spills by Burger - as well as total under-performance by the Springbok forwards - resulting from Matfield' ignoring the instructions as to forward play of Meyer - did not count.   The fact that the Japanese got 9 points from penalties given away by Bismarck did not count in the match - now did it?      Sepite the above the forwards were fine on the said day.   They were not and you are too stupid to understand what really happened.

The backline was ineffective that day because -

*   Burger became the stand-in flyhalf and that neutralized the backline totally;

*   Pienaar at scrummie was hopelessly poor; and

*   De Villiers were the inside center that day and he was poor at best because he was not matchfit.  

But the worst performers on the day was - with the exception of De Jager - the forwards.  

In what WC test did Du Toit play and De Jager was far more effective than Matfield in the Japan test = scoring a try and being the best ball carrier on the day. 

Fine - you live in ignorance and on Cloud 9. so we know what to expect from your BS/ 

Clever Mike, you are on the ropes. You said Victor and Schalk were the only reason why we lost the game. Just by browsing the stats I can see some inconsistencies with your conclusions, as I quite rightly pointed out. 

Ag Himmel

Mozart is ignorant and Againdoffies is a moron.  They still do not understand why Matfield and Burger was poor in the Japan test.

They do not realize that Matfield ensured that the Springbok domination up front was effectively neutralized - he ignored the instructions of Meyer - and was further helped along by the Du Plessis brothers.   

They also do not realize that if a loosie gets twice the number of balls from the scrummie - the loosie is effectively taking over the role of the flyhalf - that was why I called Burger the stand-in flyhalf in the WC/   

9 to a forward is now taking over the fly half position?