So what's new under the Sun

Blaas my siel - Mozart are you blind or deluded or something?  Still harping on the kick and chase game Meyer used and comparing them with what is being played this year.   In any event you do not understand the game of rugby.   

In 2012 Meyer played the Stampkar game he always was know for.  Kick away everything and he came with some famous quotes.   One of those were that the SA backline players do not have the skills to play a ball-in-hand game.  There never was any indication that that changed in 2013 and 2014.   Matter of fact some individual players were successful and scored tries,

So lets start with the real scenario and discussed hat happened in the first 9 tests that was played that year as logical comparisons.   fact is every real indicator showed that the game played under Erasmus was totally different from the games played in 2012.

Even though you claimed that there were changes made by Meyer that brought in a different game plan - careful analysis indicated that nothing really changed at all.   The game plan remained the same as the one used in 2012 and it worked for a while and then collapse totally in the Perth test in 2014 and the same happened in the EOYT.

We cannot tell now what will happen over the next two years - the obvious thing is that Erasmus brought in a totally new approach and the signs of success in the longer term is really there.   If the game plan of Erasmus is more ingrained the players will get better and what we see at present can be expanded and perfected in years to come.                 

Actually the game changed a lot from 2012 to 2013. There was a signification change from the first test to the Goosen starting debut against Australia. The backs got a lot more ball. Which Goosen failed to use. 

What are we doing now? First phase, POD of 3, playmaker in behind. The forwards carry it into contact or play it out the back. If they carry it, we have groups of 3 forwards coming around the corner to create quick ball. Screens by forwards and 12 or 13.  Willie linking play outside 10 or being a link between 9 and 10 further out. We saw this under Meyer. Box kicks, more than under Meyer by far. Maul off lineouts, tie in the forwards and attack the seam of crash it up, typically with Kolisi or another forward in the midfield. Less success getting outside the edge of the defence though. We've fluctuated from a long passing game to a clunky narrow and deep game. If you watch the Japan test, there are a lot of similarities to what has been done under Rassie, but with much less kicking. Watch the All Black test in 2014 to see a more fluid game to beat the All Blacks. Not that I disapprove of the tactics on the weekend. 

We are typically too lateral. We saw this again on the weekend. We need someone like André to bring directness to our game so we can legitimately go wide. In 2013 we found space with very long passes from Morné and we had Jean. Meyer's game was more fluid. Of course, personnel was an issue. We struggled to find good strong carriers in 2014 and 2015.

It's interesting. Lügbernin laments Schalk played flyhalf, and speaks of careful analysis. What does he have to say about Rassie using Steph (amongst others) in the "fly half position"? Or the fly halves deeper behind them. Which was of course, Morné standing too deep. They miss so many details and make so many contradictions. 

AO

Please indicate what test Goosen started in - was it the local test in 2012?   You can go back and watch the stats in that game and looking at the backline performance it was probably the best test any side ever played under Meyer.   Goosen was brilliant in that test and are you sure it is just not another of your BS statements you thrive on? 

Goosen handled the ball 30 times - he kicked the ball 5 times and carries very effectively the ball 5 times.   He passed the ball 20 times and the backline players outside of him thrive as a result.   What the hell else could he have done?

Maybe you are mixed up and refer to what Morne produced in the away test and inserted the name Goosen in his stead.  

Actually, Habana sparked every attacking movement that resulted in a try. No, it wasn't the best test either. Not even remotely close. Goosen's only run resulted in a turnover, Habana was "in the flyhalf position" in the build up to the Kirchner try, where Goose n early botched a simple draw and pass. His defence was shocking. Nope, everything came from Habana. There were many far better games under Meyer. All of the 2013 RC tests were better. The EOYT as well. 

Meyer's era can be broken in 3 distinct times,

2012 - One dimensional

2013 & some of 2014 (This is when Willie Leroux was in form, Habana was playing well and JP was ok )

2014 EOYT - 2015 - One dimensional (loses to Arg in SA, and Japan in the world cup. Scraped past Wales in the quarter, and ABS played average in the semi)

Habana playing at flyhalf in that game - are you nuts or something>

I have seen wierd myths from you - but this must beat the others,    

No Lügnerin, I'm using your definitions. How did account for this? Where was the 10? 

The 2012 season was a mixed bag. The pack required a complete rebuild. No attack without a platform, but he began to open up the game as the team developed. The EOYT was more direct, and succeeded. 

As 15 was a very attack oriented season. Unfortunately, we lacked the leadership in Jean's absence and we were undone by injuries and a woefully out of form Willie in the World Cup. The fan favourites blew four tests that year. Especially a shot at a final. It was anything but conservative. Meyer made many bold moves. I didn't agree with all of them.

I wouldn't say better. It's largely the same, but more linear. The basic setup is the same. Right down to Willie. The big difference is personnel. We are only now beginning to see an upswing in personnel. Meyer was in that awkward phase when the old guard was phasing out and the next generation was yet to really find its footing. Meyer kept the team very stable during a very vulnerable period. Coetzee ensured it fell off a cliff. 

Kak - if it is largely the same why the facts as listed by me which deflated your story totally.   Why the increase in scoring of tries?  Why the  higher points against NZ - higher than anything that happened in any test under Meyer?   

You can carry on with your ramblings - but the answer remains - you are talking kak as per normal.  

Lert me assure you - the wheels came off under Meyer in 2015 and the plight continued under Coetzee.   The old guard was not phasing out - he convinced firther retruning of retired players and he had zero succession strategy - otherwise there would have been a reasonable pool with 10 to 15 test experience - which there was not.   

Mozart

We have had ramblings from you in the past abut "Traditional SA Rugby"   now it is good conservative SA rugby.   Pleas eexplain - simnce the previosu phase was prived to be BS.  

Listen we are talking of a comparison between 2012 and 2018  You are trying to get away from discussion of the huge improvement under Erasmus compared to what happened in similar tests in 2012.   Compare apples with apples.    You do not k now what is going to happen next year  in the WC,   So 2019 is to be compared with 2015 when comparisons are made.   

The wheels came off when Coetzee implemented his static robotic patterns ala Stormers rugby. They were too flat and predictable.

Meyer's game was more flexible, but relied upon decision makers on the field and grunt up front. When Du Preez came in play improved dramatically. We struggled for personnel. Lood, Damian, JJ, Damian et al cost the Boks big games. Lambie being comprehensively outplayed by Pocky-san.

Any honest person can observe these things. I have posted several games so people can see for themselves. I have nothing to fear from video evidence. Everything is consistent.

Interesting the amount of aimless kicking under Rassie, but Lügnerin doesn't mind. What a hypocrite. 

AO

How many movements were sparked by Habana - if all such movements were sparked by Habana - cow come Goosen was credited with a try assist?  You were caught lying again - and it does not look good.   Habana carried the balls 9 times and passed it three times.   So how did Habana spark the attacking moves - he was basically on the end receiving the balls.

I am sorry - but every remark you made gets more dishonest than the previous one.  It is becoming impossible to believe anything on write on site 

If you concentrate on objective assessments you may yet be a good member - the way you are going is destroying that chance.

Try 1 - Habana at first receiver, gets the attack away. Boks have overlap, Goosen fails to draw and pass which allows the defender to take Kirchner ball and all. Luckily Kirchner breaks through and scores. 

Try 2 - Habana at first receiver scores. Goosen not present. He threw a couple of hospital passes several phases prior. 

Try 3 - Boks maul from lineout, score. Goosen not involved. 

Try 4 - Quick throw. Habana to Strauss. Strauss back to Habana who scores. Goosen not involved. 

Goosen is subbed for Jantjies and Australia suffer strings of injuries, at one point going down to 14 men. 

Try 5 - Eben at first receiver. Eben to Jantjies and Jantjies to Louw. Louw makes a break, passes long to Habana. Score. 

Goosen received all the praise. The media said Habana was passed his best and needed to be cut. Where was the Goose to spark any attacking play? By far the most important player on the field was Habana. How would you like your egg?