Should Bissie be getting subbed?

Ex Keo

Somehow I just can’t imagine the Chiefs, Crusaders or All Blacks not playing Bismarck du Plessis for eighty minutes, if the world’s best hooker was a starting option.

South African rugby is blessed with talent and depth in talent at hooker. Du Plessis is the best hooker in the world, by some distance. Adriaan Strauss would challenge for being in the top three hookers playing globally and I would still put Saracens’s Springbok Schalk Brits in the top five international hookers.

And don’t forget Toulouse-based Springbok Chiliboy Ralepelle, who would make most international squads.

Hooker is the one playing position in which South Africa is supreme and has an advantage over New Zealand.

The All Blacks have survived on two grizzled veterans in Andrew Hore and Keven Mealamu and a youngster in Dane Coles, who hasn’t looked convincing and who would struggle to make a South African Super Rugby franchise.

If New Zealand had Du Plessis to choose from, then the rest of the rugby playing nations, South Africa included, wouldn’t need to bother. It would simply be an unfair contest between No 1 and the rest.

That the Kiwis don’t currently have the unique qualities of Du Plessis gives South Africa – and the rest – hope.

Du Plessis is a colossal presence but because of the limited game time I – for one – am always left asking for more. I am also left wondering, why there isn’t an 80 minute investment in his performance every time he plays?

So much about the South African game is premeditated and we saw this when Bok coach Heyneke Meyer substituted Du Plessis on 50 minutes against the All Blacks at Ellis Park, with the Boks about to feed a scrum five metres out against a shaky New Zealand scrum.

Meyer had promised Du Plessis 50 minutes and Strauss 30 minutes. In Cape Town a week earlier he had made the promise of 50 minutes to Strauss and 30 minutes to Du Plessis. In both matches he did not waver, in spite of the performance.

Meyer will make an argument that he has the two best hookers in the world in his squad and he needs to keep both sharp. There is a case to be made, but these two players are not of equal stock, which is no sleight on Strauss, who in my view shades the rest of the best. Then there is Du Plessis, who is a bit like the current All Blacks in his status as something a bit out of the ordinary.

McCaw is the greatest modern day forward. He has played 120 Tests for the All Blacks, including 53 Tests against South Africa and Australia, with half of them away from home. He has started 116 of these Tests and of those 116 he has started he has played the full 80 minutes 95 percent of the time.

Legendary Bok and Bulls lineout specialist Victor Matfield, who had an on-field presence the equal of McCaw and Du Plessis, also wasn’t easily substituted.

Du Plessis hates being substituted – as would McCaw or Matfield (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA) – because he knows he is the best.

Why is he being short changed? Not only at the Boks but also at the Sharks.

Du Plessis spent the bulk of his early career playing a secondary role to Springbok hooker John Smit, who in his last two seasons of international rugby should have been the secondary selection.

Smit was a magnificent leader of the Boks and the right choice to start, both as a player and leader, until the end of the 2007 World Cup campaign.

Thereafter Du Plessis should have been unleashed on the world to torture opposition hookers and terrorize ball carriers at the breakdown. He is a loose-forward and hooker rolled into one.

He commands the attentions of more than one attacker or defender because of his strength and work rate.

Yet the Sharks also subbed him on Saturday against Western Province , with 15 minutes to go and one score in it. It was a winner take all match with the big prize the right to host the Currie Cup final.

The Sharks, in that last quarter and especially in the last three minutes when they carried the ball for 15 phases but made no impact, were desperate for the mongrel, go forward and presence of the world’s best hooker.

But he was on the sidelines, as he was at Ellis Park a week earlier, because of a tactical substitution.

It boggles my mind at least that there is anything tactical in taking off a player who is the world’s best in his position when there is the option to play him for 80 minutes.

Beeno

Sure he can be subbed  - but not when the Springboks are on attack five meters from the AB line and a scrum has been called.   That was a downright stupid decision on the part of the coaching staff.

 Sas..you hit it on the head when you mentioned team player.

 One of the major differences between NZ and SA is we in the Pacific have a group orientated culture whereas in SA it is more individualistic culture.

Individualism and collectivism are subsets of broad worldviews, which have been called, respectively, atomism and holism.

Atomism is prominent in the western cultures and refers to the tendency to view things in terms of their component parts hence all the anal over analysis (analysis paralysis?)of individual players around here.

By contrast in the Pacific we hold more or a collectivistic view that people are not separate units, but rather are part and parcel of a larger group (i.e.,brothers, extended family, ).

So we're worlds apart from SA's way of thinking as the Pacifica view of the person falls at the extreme collectivistic end of the continuum, while the SA view would fall closer to the extreme individualistic end.

Using Bismark as an example of SA individualism; he shows he has the valued characteristics such as mastery of certain skills ie hooker , being able to perform under pressure–by competing with and doing better than others.

Collectivistic cultures though are more likely to emphasize cooperation among group members as the basis for success in competition .

 This contributes to why the All Blacks and NZ teams are so strong and successful (along with we're fitter , more talented and broader skill sets attained from beng proficient in multiple rugby codes.)

But rugby is a team sport ( there's no I's in team) so Bismark would probably struggle with the team orientated culture in NZ . 

Mozart

Fourie has a reputation for good play - but he has some rather serious deficiencies insofar as -

*   giving away of penalties; and

*   a low tackle count insofar as an open side flank is concerned.

In essence I think he is more a loosie than a hooker.   His line out throw-in is a gamble at best and he is very small for a hooker - hence limited strength insofar as  scrumming is concerned.   

Agreed Fourie is a dual purpose/position player...Strauss is a damn good hooker only. I've heard others suggest this that Strauss could be effective as a flanker but I fully agree with Sasuke...it just doesn't make any sense.

I believe Bismarck can be subbed but only at the right time...HM's timing was bad. This is not the first time he's got the timing wrong...it has happened many times. Other than that HM has got a lot right and he's proved himself better than most of us gave him credit for...if only he would trim the dead wood.