So Mike you say....

...you picked the Boks. But this seems to contradict that assertion. Are you telling porkies again?

'Jantjies  will be forced to play a kicking game – a repeat of Coetzee’s flop in 2013 when he tried to use Jantjies to play the game he had in mind -  and one can bet it will just be handing handing over ball possession to the Irish.    And then we will have a series of flyhalf stand-ins  - ie loosies pretending they are flyhalfs.    I still think what is going to be produced will not beat the Irish.'      

To which I posted 'noted'. Do you have any reasonable explanations?

 Very, very reasonable explanations.  Jantjies - other than missing three attempted conversions and missing a penalty line kick was as I said at the time a detrimental factor - who contribute nothing.  Our loosies were all atrocious until the second half and did everything wrong with very near to zero contribution - seriously negative.   The Springboks scored four tries where Jantjies played no role in - if he was the chances are they would not have been scored.  The change came when the loosies were changed, Combrinck brought on and the Springboks changed from playing stampkar rugby - of which you are so fond.  The first half was an atrocious display of ineptitude and was only changed when the handicaps I listed above were largely eliminated.      

 Very, very reasonable explanations.  Jantjies - other than missing three attempted conversions and missing a penalty line kick was as I said at the time a detrimental factor - who contribute nothing.  Our loosies were all atrocious until the second half and did everything wrong with very near to zero contribution - seriously negative.   The Springboks scored four tries where Jantjies played no role in - if he was the chances are they would not have been scored.  The change came when the loosies were changed, Combrinck brought on and the Springboks changed from playing stampkar rugby - of which you are so fond.  The first half was an atrocious display of ineptitude and was only changed when the handicaps I listed above were largely eliminated.      

 So when you said 'I still think what is going to  be produced will not beat the Irish' ....that was contingent on all those er handicaps. Problem is, you also said this

 'I tend to agree with ABF,   There are just too many things to correct and there need to be a game plan that was totally absent on Saturday.   However, there may be  wake up from slumber by the senior players in the team and that could help.'

You clearly think we are going to lose but hope the senior players, presumably Willie, JP, the Beast, Strauss, Etzebeth, Louw and Vermeulen....could help. 
Why not just admit you made a mistake....again.

Mozart - you must have a comprehension problem.  I pointed out the real weaknesses and when most of those were removed the Springboks came from the back to win narrowly.   When Mvovo was replaced and two of the three loosies - as well as a more comprehensive game plan played, the Springboks turned the game around totally in the last 25 minutes of the game.   By the way the was a marked improvement in the performance of Etzebeth - not up to his normal standard, but at least better than in the previous test.   The only player who was consistently good from the word go was Du Toit and he is always a factor when comprehensive rugby is played.         

 Okay I get it, you weren't predicting an Irish win.