Second Opportunity

I think we have a great chance of winning it. The Japan debacle made our chances better - focused the team better than just about anything else could.
Wales will be tough in the QF as they are well coached and are playing inspired rugby but ultimately those critical injuries will prove too much. 
Against NZ and OZ, our biggest concern is 10, 12 and 13. All three very good players, but are still young and have had a limited number of games together. Defence comes with experience. Against the two best back lines in the world it is asking a lot. How much that ends up being a factor, who knows as I think our forwards can be dominant enough to minimize opportunities to opposition backlines - I choose to believe though they will step up in typical SA fashion.

 oimatey
The problem I had was with the first chjoice players of Meyer in the squad - there are about 11 of those of which less than half are still international level players - while some of those had virtually no rugby over the last 15 months, while some had a record of questionable performance.
You refer to the Japanese game where the reason for the loss was clearly the original choice players of Meyer with only Du Preez and Alberts missing.   Etzebeth was part of the problem - but only a peripheral part since his performances were in general very good.  
Since that disaster Meyer has gradually moved away from his original team selections and after a 15 month absence from rugby Du Preez showed he was a vast improvement on Pienaar.   Etzebeth recovered form because he did not have to front up for both locks as was the requirement when Matfield was around.  
There was as beeno pointed out at the time very good players in the squad as well, but indications at that stage were at Meyer would stick with his bad eggs on the field of play.   The bad eggs included Matfield, Jannie du Plessis and Morne Steyn.
However, since the Japanese test disaster Meyer has moved away from some of his  first choice players and as a result the team improved in performances.  The replacement of Matfield by De Jager was a major improvement, restoring out Tight 5 from the Tight 4 it used to be with Matfield.   That gave us the edge in the Scotland test and after Jannie went off against the Scots the team moved up another gear.If Meyer returns to the same team as played in the Scotland test - we will be doomed - hence my comment that our further progress in the tournament will eb determined by selections.
Meyer apparently put a rocket under the asses of the players and they realized that another disaster was going to be very costly for them.  Most took heed and improved their performances.   I still maintain that if Meyer uses the team on Saturday to play through the rest of the tournament we have a chance to progress much further - a return to Matfield. Jannie, Pienaar, et al would destroy our chances in the tournament.                             

clevermike
 
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 19895RE: Second Opportunity
October 08, 2015, 23:56:51

I still maintain that if Meyer uses the team on Saturday to play through the rest of the tournament we have a chance to progress much further - a return to Matfield. Jannie, Pienaar, et al would destroy our chances in the tournament.           

Mike, please help me out here
You and Dave gave this squad no chances at all...... nothing....... and now you say if he gets his selections correct on the day, we have a chance to progress further
Why the sudden turnaround?
Is it maybe because you both got it completely wrong?
 

Stop lying DA  

 What am I Iying about Da ve? 

Its weekend, so I'll bump this up so you don't miss it 

 "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"...Sir Walter Scott could almost have had penned in ou Tokkie and Fatso when he wrote that.
These poor fools aren't sure if they should support the Boks or not. Inevitably one of Victor, Jannie or Pienaar will be playing against Wales, so I guess that means we can't win according to these fellows.

All I know is if we lose to Wales they will be much happier than if we beat Wales.

 Correct, always much happier. Then they can cut and paste their same wirn out arguments: Victor ruined the tight 5 etc. And how about the amount of egg on their faces? JP was fat and slow, a "worthless" selection. Habana was useless. So too Du Preez, Michael assured us he was slow, fat and couldn't pass. Japanese rugby made them soft apparently. Schalk goes and has an epic World Cup showing as well. Then the fan flubs, Damian, Kriel, Lamebie and Steph fail to deliver. I would give them the call on Lood, but they actually said Steph was many times better, that we should build our entire campaign around him! I think it's clear from this that they really don't have a clue. Overly emotional and negative, they'd rather moan about a loss than credit players they hate in a win. 

 Can you believe the dishonesty of these chumps....actually trying to pretend Stephanie is a contributor.

Yeah
That's why I can't let this thread go to bed .
So many things have been said about this team, including Dave saying he would rather field 7 different players instead of Habana, or 3 other players instead of Paige
Needless to say both posters have previously stipulated that this squad was hopelessly pathetic and an insult to Springbok supporters, but now, after a few decent games, it seems that a win or a loss seems to hinge on just one person playing in the team at the wrong time, or in the wrong position, against the wrong opponent.
You couldn't script this any better 
 

 Well Moz is on record for saying we can't win the RWC with the current center pairing...and I think DF agrees. I'd say our chances are about the same as before, but would be a bit better if Matfield play's from the bench. We have about a 35% chance of getting past NZ. If we do and have to face either Ireland or Aus in the finals? 40% Aus. Ireland, with the injuries the had, about 50%, so it was more than a safe bet by Moz to say we won't win the RWC with those centers....I'm still hopefull though.

35% is a bit on the low side for me Db

 I was tempted for 40%, but if they get past France, I ecpect them to be almost unstoppable. Hope I'm wrong though.

 New Zealand are inferior to the Boks right now. But as said before, the centres limit our options, and their weak defence means we cannot soak up much pressure. If a game is close on the scoreboard can the Boks hold on to a lead and repel waves of attacks? Damian, Kriel and even Serf (at 12) have shown they cannot do this. For the Boks to win the WC we must hit quickly and be disruptive and physical up front. We must win through our forwards and through territorial superiority.

 The probability of our winning the whole thing....assuming the highest probability opponents is .65x.45x.50 = 15%. Some may say those probabilities of victory for the individual games are a bit high. I disagree, in a WC setting a match between the Boks and ABs is a toss up. In fact there is a small chance we would face an opponent like Ireland where the odds would go up. So I think 15% is a decent number.
NZ and Oz are a little higher. Oz for example is a a 90% favourite over Scotland and probably 55% favourite over Ireland, and they are almost even with the ABs in a final. Giving them a .9x.55x.45 = 22% chance of victory. 
NZ at .8x.55x.55 = 24% is a bit higher....but assuming all three SH giants get through the Quarters, which has not happened since 1999, the odds get closer for the Boks.
Now on to Bok selection, I don't think any one lock changes the odds that much. But a front row forward might as we saw with Koch against the Bargies. And the centre pairing as a whole has influenced many key WC matches...eg Horan was the difference for Oz against us in 99.
There is always a chance a rocket like Kriel could get some space in one of these matches and sprint to glory. But in a WC match that's a very low chance. I'd say it's much more likely to be a test of midfield defences. And in that context Kriel and Allende are a huge weakness. Even if they were strong tacklers it would be a problem, because they don't take the initiative to bring up the line. But they aren't great tacklers....adding up to the factor most likely to being us down.

The loss of Jean as a defensive initiator was massive, blithely disregarded by our dumb rugby media in the frenzy of getting the pairing they wanted.

 Agree Moz, that's why I say, as bets go, it's a safe bet.I'm still hoping for a miracle though and even in the event that it does happen and even if the center pairing made a big difference, I won't be sold on the idea that they are the future. They are far from proven yet, whatever happens in the next 3 weeks.

The future is opaque....some new player may emerge as the new Jean. And centres tend to show very young....Bod did, Jean did.

 Mozart is opaque.  When asked why Albert was so old when first selection as a starting player - he said that Juan Smith kept him from selection.  De Villiers was 21 years old when first selected to play for the Springbok team - De Allende was 22 and Kriel 20.  So did De Villiers keep De Allende out of earlier selection?   Problem is - Mozart raise an argument and then lose reality in the process.
If De Allende was 24 or 25 when he was capped first - his argument would carry weight but he made a nonsensical comment and then try and come up with an argument.      

OK girls....here is my opinion.
Out at semi.
I placed a bet a few months back that the Boks would not get past the quarters.
But prepared to lose the bet in the hope of us going on to win the WC.
Made a few bucks on the Sharks failing to make the semis....pity.
There was an article forwarded to me from a buddy in Durbs in which Smit/Gold apologized to the Shark fans about the dismal performance this year.
Simple solution in my estimation.
Out with the top brass and spend the money on class players.
Just shows that the guys running the Sharks might have been great players but have no idea on how to run a rugby union.
To many hits on the field I suppose.....or is it just plain incompetence?

 Mozart is amazing in his discussion of the Springbok chances - in fact he ignores key elements needed to win the WC.  The key issue remains the domination needed up front and the quality of balls provided by the backline.  He disregard the backline as an attacking option completely
Basically he claims that 90% of the functions of a flyhalf is kicking and he also has an idea that ball protection and reocvery in vreakdown situations is really not a requirement.   
When it is said that Matfield at lock is a similar drawback to what Koch represented i the Argentina game - he ignore it.   He does not realize that the tight 5 as a unit determine whether their is competitiveness up front.  He perhaps realizes that Matfield is deficient in that regard because he suggest that Alberts must be in the team to provide the grunt absent in Matfield.   That reason takes no account of  Matfield's absence from playing a role in Tight 5 - so Alberts must cover for both the missing lock and the loosie.  At best AQlberts is a lousy low work rate and inefficient loosie.
The whole scenario is chaotic and poor - weakening teh Springbok side up fronmt and making them non-competitive.   
His main argument centers around the center combination - no attention being given attacking play and mentioning only defense.  Like a stick needle in a gramophone - he talks about the Aussie test as a example of poor defense.  In that he preferred not to be reminded of the fact that the test against Australia were -
*   De Allende in that test played his first game at 12;*   Kriel played his first game as a Springbok*   De Allende and Kriel before that never played in any game as a center pair; and*   it was the first game that De Allende played outside of Pollard as a flyhalf.
i would have been surprised if their was no defense deficiencies in that game - and said in comments that De Allende must up his defense.  However, I realized the four points mentioned above impacted on the defense issue and did not like Mozart became a drama queen harping on nothing else.   That the two youngsters did do some good things in attacking play was never mentioned by any of what I call the drama queens.
There has been a noticeable improvement in defense in subsequent matches - with the only failure being in the Japanese test - where the performance of the team as a whole was pathetic and the circumstances that a defenseive laps let to scoring of the winning try by the Japanese.    
I have reason to believe that the Springbok Tight 5 would be weakened beyond repair by the inclusion of Matfield in the team and would even pick Du Toit at 7  to give us an extra option in line-outs and in strengthening the forwards as a performing unit - making us stronger in the Tight 5 and giving us dominance up front.
          
         

Oh sure let's put Stephanie in there...that way we can lose more possession.

 What possession losses are you talking about?  What we gain is supremacy up front, which we would not have with Matfield in the mix.  

 There you go...against the mighty Eagles....one penalty and one turnover in 18 minutes on the park....equal to eight possession losses per game. Just a kid pretending to be a Bok....it's a joke.
(L)du Toit0/000/0/2000016/14/010/0

 Du Toit's main role was to ensure that effective rolling mauls from line outs was successful and that happened twice when he was on the field of play.   
Why just use Du Toits figures as an example and miss out on those of Matfield for instance.  Matfield has been worse than Du Toit in penalty donation and ball losses - it virtually happens in every game he played in and wants to hear about that.
Matfield is useless as a lock - and until you realize that, discussion is clearly not going to change your mind.  .           

Geez Moz you do speak a load of crap, if PSDT is pretending to be a Bok, what the fuck is the current Matfield doing.
PSDT was on the field for all of 17 min against the USA and his stats match some that had been on all game.
This kid is twice the player useless Matfield is these days. Matfield is an embarrassment these days and you know what is really sad......our fucking useless coach wont have the balls to retain Lood ahead of this old liability
8 possession losses per game.....what a load of fucking rubbish
Lood has already made your name mud, last year you were telling me how crap he is. PSDT is as good if not better than Lood......by the time we see the end of the s15 next year, you'll be smarting on another I told you so. His partnership with Etzebeth under Eddie Jones is going to have you taking cover.
You really dont have an idea when it comes to players......you back washed up hasbeens or sad excuses like little de Jongh
Imagine seeing so much negative in de Allende and Kriel.....boy oh boy......are we going take have years of ripping into your rugby ignorance.
Lood has made your name mud in more ways than one.......PSDT, Kriel and DA to follow  

 Dave
Did you read what Mozart suggests for Saturday's game?
He wants -
*   Matfield on the field of play for 80 minutes;*   Etzebeth for 60 minutes; and*   De Jager for 20 minutes.  
I have not heard something sillier in years.   De Jager gets the MOM in the game against Scotland and must then be pushed out to make way for Matfield - who has been bog ordinary to poor in all games he played in over the past year one of the main reasons for the Japanese disaster.       

Yeah can imagine he would.....he likes to back losers much like our coach does.
If that selection is made, one consolation is that it will be the last time we ever see Matfield in a Bok jersey.
I look forward to the day its his last.....I am hoping we have already see that day.
Fingers crossed the old man is still crocked......its only a hammy, hardly life threatening

Say something new will you...some insight. Like the one I just provided you, that with Lomp and Etzebeth one plus one equals one and a half. Etzebeth's best game was against Samoa...ask yourself why.
Think, reason....challenge your preconceived notions. Grow fffs.  

Well given that Moz is taller than you, he would have the advantage... I assume 
Oh... you said centre

I see
So are you saying that you are the equivalent distance in height between Victor and Lood, as in being 4 cm taller than Moz

Nope I am saying that I am 3 metres taller than Moz  

Lol, ok Dave  

 Yep on your soap box you are taller Dave.....on the ground , however, I look down on your bald spot.

Which was how long ago?