FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Selecting future Boks....look for the "tell"

Selecting future Boks....look for the "tell"

Started by Mozart4 REPLIES228 VIEWS· 29 Apr 2015, 15:45
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
29 Apr 2015, 15:45
#1
29 Apr 2015, 15:45#1

Great gamblers, if not unsuccessful gamblers like RooiAAS,  look for the "tell" ....the gesture an opponent makes that reveals crucial information.

 

It's the same in finding future Boks. If I may be so bold, most chaps on this site focus on strengths.....Goosen's long range try. But in fact weaknesses will determine most players' fates.

 

 

Take Luke Watson. The AAS and Dave had him better than Schalk, a potential great. But there was a "tell"....every time he played the Bools they totally wiped him out. All the little touches counted niks.....he was a small man in a big man's game.  Pick up on the "tell" and you were never confused by his great games against the Cheetahs.

 

 

Players must have a long suit that can hurt a top opponent. Step for example doesn't....but they also have to be devoid of  fatal   vulnerabilities opponents can exploit....like Marcel popping at the end last week. Fatal flaws will always be exposed at test level.

SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
29 Apr 2015, 16:29
#2
29 Apr 2015, 16:29#2

Watson was better than Schalk at the time......the only reason Watson never made it was everything to do with his warped take on life.


Watson was a class act and a true 6 unlike Schalk who was never a 6. Schalk is playing his best rugby right now as he is playing where he should always have played at 7.


Marcel popped at the end against Kebble, not the highly rated Kitshoff because the man was out on his feet, for obvious reasons, he was only subbed in the 74th minute.


If you cant see that then there is truly no hope......unless of course you think Kebble is a better prop than Kitshoff

DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
29 Apr 2015, 19:44
#3
29 Apr 2015, 19:44#3
 IMO, one of the mistakes fans and coaches tend to make regularly is trying to put players into molds(boxes). A 6 needs to be able to do x,y and Z. The 8 must do m,n,o and p. Rugby is bigger than that. First and foremost, it is a team sport and the team should equal more than the sum of the members. It's the job of the coach to make it happen. Now this is where it get's complicated. If the six is lacking in the role of the classic six in some way, but adds more than your classic six in another, you must try and compensate for that deficiency with another player that can make up that deficiency. It's a process of trial and error to find the balance, complicated by the strengths and weaknesses of the constantly changing opposition. Structure is great to become good, but to be great something out of the box is needed.
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
29 Apr 2015, 20:56
#4
29 Apr 2015, 20:56#4
Agree on compensating,  that's why Victor/Alberts works......I also believe in competitors, the guys who want the ball at the end of a close test. 
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
30 Apr 2015, 10:36
#5
30 Apr 2015, 10:36#5

Neither Matfield nor Alberts should be in the Bok side as neither are the best in their respective positions......especially Matfield.


Its fine to compensate if you had some indispensable lightweight lock like Matfield in his prime......but its an insult selecting him right now when the old man who's contributions are mostly negative and in particular given the quality of young talented locks we have at our disposal right now.  


There is absolutely NO justification for selecting Matfield at test level, he would not even smell my Bulls bench.


He is past it, was long time ago.....all he is achieving right now, is making his name mud and discrediting his legacy.

— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news