Sacha's 12

Who is the new long term guy?

We can't have the best 10 in the world having to play with a random selection of 12s. Willemse is NOT the guy at 12.

For me, it needs to be AE until the WC. But then who?

To my mind, the 9 and 12 potions both need to be settled, and settled for the long term...because Sasha is there for the next decade.

Problem is, nobody is really holding their hand up. The best I can think of is Hooker. Moodie is also becoming nice and chunky these days, perhaps he could move to 12. But those are guys that are already Boks.

Is there anybody that springs to mind that isn't currently a Bok?

I can't see it not being DDA until RWC27, much as we don't want that. So any options now is a moot point, Rassie won't look wider. Willemse and Andre will serve as backups.

But there's not much. Roche has promise but he doesn't get game time at the Stormers, Dobbo prefers Dan the Journeyman. Mills might become something but he's not it yet. I don't see any young 12s at the Bulls. We haven't seen Hooker at 12 yet. He could be good there, but he's not playing there.

In terms of physical talent and rugby IQ I think Hooker could be terrific. As he showed in the try that got him injured, gas is not a problem.

But a player needs time in a position to hone his own model. And there is the game plan. Despite all the Brown hype I see no meaningful difference in our backline model. If it’s going to be crash ball and box kicks all the way through the WC, it probably has to be Dud Allende or Esterhozen,

I will lay a R100 bet that Esterhuizen will not be in the 2027 RWC squad,

Hooker is a 12, Moodie at 13, both the same age and 22 / 23. Hooker should move to the bulls and dump the sharks and for a midfield partnership with Moodie.

Would be better if both go to the Stormers.

But you are right we don't have that many great 12s punching through

Agree, Hooker should look to another franchise. What hope with a coach that will play the hopeless Masuku at 12 when he has someone like Marnus Potgieter available.

I do wonder about the Sharks. They've all these big name Boks that are on the verge of retiring from Test rugby and who have won everything there is to win.

In a dressing room like that, it must be difficult for a coach to have full control. Imagine being Plumtree or JP and you're trying to sell an idea to those guys. And you know that many of those faces looking back at you are better players than you ever were, have been coached by better coaches than you and have won far more than you ever have...and they're likely also strong personalities.

How much of your autonomy do you have to give up in order to get those guys on your side? How much of what they have to say do you take on board and incorporate and what measure of your plan remains intact once all is said and done? Then you start dropping games and how does that affect the dynamic?

It's so much different to a game like cricket where you can be Kevin Petersen and cause all sorts of shit, yet keep hitting hundreds, and the team keeps winning. Scoring tries on your own is far more difficult.

I'll also bring up the Lions again. They seem to be working off of the same plan. I very much doubt that Ivan knows more about rugby or tactics than what Plumtree or JP do. Maybe he does know a bit more about some aspects of the game but if you go solely on the evidence on the field one would conclude that Ivan knows exponentially more than either of them. Obviously that isn't the case. I doubt his vision is a great deal better than theirs. But the one thing that I'm very sure is different is that the Lions' environment is far more conducive to producing synergy. And there must be reason for that. The low hanging fruit in searching for an answer as to why must surely be that Sharks have too many chiefs. I could be wrong but that's where I'd hang my hat were I pressed for one answer.