So why have the Boks had such a horrible year

It's popular to put all the blame on Coetzee, and certainly a top coach would have made a big difference.....but onlyif some other things were also set right. These are the factors that combined to sink us. 1 Our opponents are getting much better. Technically we are now second class at the breakdown for example. The NH teams supercharged with Polynesian backs are no longer push overs. 2 We were unsure of our tactics and bounced around between the Lions and traditional Bok playing styles. There is no doubt the Lions success contributed to the confusion, given no other SA team played anything like the Lions. 3 We lacked leadership on the field, in part because Strauss cannot motivate men and in part because other senior Boks were not empowered to take up the slack. 4 The Bok team has no roots, no continuity. A group of new players were thrown together without the stability of enough experienced players. 5 The talent is mediocre by prior standards. Not one of the Bok backs selected yesterday would have been selected by Wales. We are misled by our own Currie Cup which is abysmally weak. 6 There was far too much chopping and changing even among the poor options abailable....Lambie to Jantjies to Morne to Lambie to Jantjies. The team for Wales was a desperation ploy, an attempt to play to popular sentiment. 7 Which brings us to Coetzee.....a decent chap who has got it horribly wrong. He wasn't responsible for 1 and 5. But clearly he could have ensured better on field leadership, more consistent tactics, more selection continuity. Coetzee is a big partof the problem. Which is why changing him for a competent leader like White would see an immediate improvement in Bok performance.

Well, they apparantly hired Coetzee late, which is part of what caused the problem, so could it be that this time round they'll replace him early on? Possibly in the next few weeks? Especially considering the who restructuring of our rugby etc etc. Surely they'd want to give the new coach as much time as possible. The million dollar question, well two questions actually. 1. Will Toetie be invited to the new Indaba meetings? 2. Which club will hire Coetzee next. The future is probably pretty bleak for him now that he's been exposed. I'd be very interested to see who the new coach is. If it is Jake White, maybe we'll see the best come out of Goosen? Also, I think Maybe Jake will be the right guy to nurture Du Preez and some of the other promising youngsters. I'm confused by Mike's statement that White did badly at the Sharks. Didn't they finish top of the SA conference that year and start the season with a high win percentage? That's roughly what I recall, but i could be wrong. He's had reasonable success wherever he's gone really. Still I'd prefer Ackerman and his team be given a chance. Not only because of the type of rugby they promote but the amazing team spirit at the Lions, which is what the Boks are desperate for. That band of brothers aura. When last have we seen an SA team with that kind of spirit? Strauss, has provided the exact opposite of that. Or it seems so anyway.

 Les take Mozart's comments above and evaluate them objectively:-
"Our opponents are getting much better. Technically we are now second class at the breakdown for example. The NH teams supercharged with Polynesian backs are no longer push overs."
This statement has a serious hole in it insofar as breakdown ball protection and recovery is concerned - we have been second-rate about that for years and nothing was done by Meyer or now Coetzee to correct the problem.   This problem centers basically around our poor loosie selection and usage.  
2  We were unsure of our tactics and bounced around between the Lions and traditional Bok playing styles. There is no doubt the Lions success contributed to the confusion, given no other SA team played anything like the Lions.

The main problem is we are backwards insofar as our game plan is concerned - or rather a lack of game plan.    There is no real game plan adopted by Meyer and ultimately Coetzee.   The story about traditional rugby playing styles is utter BS.  All players throughout the world has the same access to training and nutritional programmes and to think that one can beat them physically up front is a pipe dream.
4 The Bok team has no roots, no continuity. A group of new players were thrown together without the stability of enough experienced players.
If the experienced players were any good they should have been selected.   However, the rot started with the so-called experienced players in 2014 and the question arises which experienced players should have been selected.   The names raised by Mozart = like the Steyns has a poor performance record since 2012  and would rather bring division to the team than add value.
5 The talent is mediocre by prior standards. Not one of the Bok backs selected yesterday would have been selected by Wales. We are misled by our own Currie Cup which is abysmally weak.     
Is the talent really so weak or is the selection shambles compounding the problem?  The issue is not really with the players - but the non-existent game plan and the really poor caoaching.   We have 7 individuals - not a real backline.   There is no consistency in selections and no backline coaching of note. 
"6 There was far too much chopping and changing even among the poor options available....Lambie to Jantjies to Morne to Lambie to Jantjies. The team for Wales was a desperation ploy, an attempt to play to popular sentiment. "
There was too much chopping and changing in the team, but to refer to popular sentiment is totally groundless and amateurish.   That makes the statement really worthless.
"7 Which brings us to Coetzee.....a decent chap who has got it horribly wrong. He wasn't responsible for 1 and 5. But clearly he could have ensured better on field leadership, more consistent tactics, more selection continuity. Coetzee is a big part of the problem. Which is why changing him for a competent leader like White would see an immediate improvement in Bok performance.
There is no chance the White would necessarily succeed as coach - he has the same out-dated game plan as Coetzee.   He was fired by the Sharks and Montpellier precisely about a seriously out-dated game plan.   How can we be certain that a coach with no record about backline coaching would succeed in an environment where the game plan used by most teams are a vastly improved version of what was used in 2007?   

.


   

 Moz your argument falls flat on its face when you consider the talent on display by the Lions who beat 3 of the 5 Kiwi Super 15 sides convincingly....so mentioning CC form is bullshit.
Fact is we have more class young talent at our disposal than we have ever had.
The blame lies squarely at Coetzee's feet. His game plan if there is one is archaic and his selections are diabolical.
Had Ackerman and Swys been our Bok coaches this year we would have won 80% of our tests....much like Jones has done with England using the same players the failing Lancaster did.
We all know what Faf, Jantjies, Janse v Rensburg, Venter and Combrink have to offer.....we were never going to see that under Coetzee.....Hell even Etzebeth looks ordinary under this clown.
Coetzee is our Lancaster.....we need to find our Eddie it's that simple.....we have far better players than England do...its not even close 

Super Rugby is not International rugby Dave. And the Lions players are by and large not suited to international rugby. Ackerman and Swys flopped with the A team and were soundly beaten in the lowly CC by a team with no more talent than the Bokless Lions. It's easy to lay the blame at Coetzee's feet....but if he had the 2009 Boks he would have won 80% of his games. Face it all your faves flopped horribly against the ordinary Welsh Wallies.

Moz, let's look at this differently. Assuming Coetzee had taken over from Lancaster, what would we be saying today, as concerns the quality of the English national side? They'd probably also have had a shocking season and England's fans and pundits alike would be concerned about the state of English rugby. There'd be talk about how they have no depth, how vastly inferior they are to the side that won the world cup, how there is no cohesion etc etc. As pointed out, unless there is literally not a single player who played for the Boks this year who is really test standard, since not a single player played well, then we have to conclude that Coetzee is probably 90% of what is wrong with the Boks. Or what?

"Super Rugby is not international rugby Dave"...YEAH RIGHT!

If that's the case, why are the Pumas camouflaged as the Jaguares in the competition? Oh, and Ackermann defeated the Argentinian team emphatically in Johannesburg, using the so-called "poor" Lions.

How's that?

Dave the difference between CC and Test games is major with respect to dedication, talent and laying it all on the line.
I have had the pleasure of meeting, chatting and getting to know quite s few ex Springboks and AB's in my time and everyone without exception has told me that it is a major step up to run onto the field and represent your country.
The opposition are hell bent on winning and have no fear of taking u out whenever possible. Most guys are hell bent on hitting u hard in the hope that u will stay down.Basically it is a completely different playing zone that not all can adjust to.
A very close friend of mine was a Springbok center and he describes a rugby test match as similar to going to war.
With saying that I am convinced that most CC and SR players have talent etc at that level but are unable to deliver when selected at international level. Either they are outclassed, not tough enough or just plain scared.
Plus it is not helpful when your side is burdened with less skilled talent as is the case in SA rugby with the ANC mandate. The teams u play at this level are all guys selected on merit as opposed to the SA side and this is not fair on the guys who are placed in such a situation.
Unfortunately non of us are in a position to make the necessary changes that are required so we will just have to suffer and hope that clear heads will eventually prevail.
In Jantjies case I would suggest that he is scared stiff (actually petrified) whenever he receives the ball in a test game as opposed to facing a CC or SR team (what else could it be?), while most others are out of their league.
That latter also holds true for coaching staff.
Cheers.

Mozart
If Coetzee had the 2009 team he would not have flopped.   That is a very weird statement because there was a huge difference in rugby playing style since 2009 and the game has changed massively,
The players Meyer had was some leftovers - actually the majority of the team made up from the 2009 squad and failure started to set in badly in November 2014.   That is unfortunately what happened with a 50% win record in and from November 2014.    That fact is consistently ignored by you.
The lowest point under Meyer totally ignored by you  was in the Japan test in 2015.   The team that day comprised of the most experienced team in Springbok history - but they were poor and all this "iffing" is rubbish.  
There was a variety of reasons for the present scenario - but the issue is not your consistent attack on players and ignoring of the fact that there are other factors as well.  
The most important is the fact that most of the players lack experience on higher level and that the development of teams - especially new team configurations - takes time to develop and in the process the really talented players are identified and combinations developed.   The same applies to the rubbish that falls by the wayside.  In that regard there are critical issues that compound the situation:-
*   Coetzee never allowed combinations to develop and he floundered in selections from test to test;
*   weak players not suitable on international level (eg Jantjies, Morne Steyn, Willem Alberts and quite a few others) have been selected, dropped, selected a gain, etc;
*    the selection strategy was crazy and was the result of playing players out of their positions to which they are accustomed to on lower level and then expecting that they would succeed in new positions;  *    the selection of sub=par players based on transformation strategies. 
The problem with your argument is that you make out that there is a "traditional" SA rugby game plan and that is a plan not being used at present.   That whole approach is utter BS to put it mildly.    The same methodology in physical development is a science practiced by most  top sportsmen in countries world wide - so it is not true that SA players somehow has a superiority in physical development to allow for forward domination.
So if players has to compete they have to be smart and ways has to be developed in teams to beat their opponents mentally as well as physically.   This can only be done by playing clever players with ball sense.    That aspect has in the case of Meyer and Coetzee fell by the wayside.   Meyer had to contend with players who were
*  set in their ways and could not adapt their playing style; and*  through aging lost their competitive edge.
Instead of identifying players with the necessary talent to develop on international level and nurturing of those players - Meyer set a bad example of virtually no new player development in the four years he was coach and that example sabotaged his last year as a coach and has had a serious impact on what Coetzee inherited. 
Coetzee inherited a very bad situation and for him to succeed would have required a top coach to overcome.   He never was a top coach and to pretend otherwise is rubbish as well.   He flip-flopped in selections and has no idea about a game plan to be used.  He stuck in the main with the White plan he was accustomed with under White and that is by now seriously out-dated and a sure formula for losing tests.  
There are problems that have persisted under Meyer and got worse under Coetzee,  The main problem is the loosie situation.   The present loosies need to be relatively pacy, clever followers of the ball  and competitive at breakdowns.   The main loosies used by Meyer were pace-deficient and seriously defective at ball protection and recovery.   They are also seriously defective in ball sense and skills so in the present scenario useless.   That situation was made worse by Coetzee when the loosie combination was seen as a real option for BEE selections.    None of the loosies were acceptable this year and that is where the ball losses became endemic and even if balls were recovered the process was slow and allowed for limited usage of the recovered ball.
There is clearly an option to develop international player combinations from the present pool - but that will be a slow process and that scenario can only develop with player selection based on merit and ability without having to implement transformation as a norm for team selection.  Making a bland statement that all players are deficient and not worthy of Springbok selection and then use a prejudiced and seriously defective choice of players to attack like you do - is absolute rubbish and not remotely dealing with the issues to be addressed.                   

           
   

"Super Rugby is not international rugby Dave"...YEAH RIGHT!
Very few provincial stars step up to become test stars. Look at your man Francois Venter, Currie Cup hero. He is bog ordinary bordering on incompetent at test level. How about this year's CC final - it is light years removed from test rugby. There are almost no defensive lines, holes everywhere for players to run into. It all looks good from an entertainment perspective, but ultimately it's children's rugby compared to the test arena.

 The attack is still on individual players aka the Mozart imbecile approach.   His side-kick Pakie at it again.  They do not understand what is going on and blame players - while the whole system is at fault.  
They do not understand Meyer was effectively fired because of the wheels coming off under his coaching and the situation got worse under Coetzee.   The matter has been dealt with extensively by a large number of rugby writers - but the idiot approach persists.
There obviously was a substantial list of players who are not test material - but that would always happen in the process of development of a squad.   An easy example was Jantjies - he was tried out and failed under Meyer - he failed on Super 15 level in 2013 under Coetzee, but Coetzee selected him continuously in a position where he was totally inept.     That was not the only weird selection - but it is a typical example as to what went wrong under Coetzee.
Did it ever enter anybody's m ind that the players who did well earlier in the test season got injured - was out for months and then blamed for poor performance on return.  Also that players who did well in earlier matches lost hope and could not maintain that performance.      

 I have had the pleasure of meeting, chatting and getting to know quite s few ex Springboks and AB's in my time

Name them.

So are we saying that for the most of the SR season players are cantering along? I seriously doubt that. Because it obviously means that as soon as any team suddenly approaches their league games with a test mindset then they'd win their games and ultimately the league. How about the players who are trying to be selected for their national squad? Are they entering games thinking we'll I'm not gonna give it everything because I need to leave something in the tank for if/when the National side picks me. No, these guys, for the most part leave it all out on the field every week. There is no great difference between beating the top NZ club teams and beating top international test teams. In fact, I think the opposite is true. Take the top five finishing SR teams this year and look at the attacking and defensive quality on display during most of the season. Now compare that to what we've seen at international level. Overall the SR served up a much higher quality of rugby, when it's top teams played each other. And it makes sense. It makes sense because these teams are together for most of the year and there is a much greater synergy present. So this synergy and fine-tuning if combinations is irrelevant when leaned against "going to war" as stated above? I don't buy it. What also baffles me, is that a rugby team is made up of 15 players. Each national squad has around 30 players. And we assume that only on the rarest of occasions are there players outside of that 30 who should be there but are not due to the squad being full. So what we are saying is that the amount of players who are good enough is roughly determine by the size of the team. Those two things have nothing to do with each other especially considering the vast difference in population sizes. Who is to say that SA, NZ or Oz might not have 50, 100 or 150 players that have the required skills to play at "test" level? I think that the "step up to test level" is an idea perpetuated by people who have been watching rugby since before the days of international leagues and when much less games were played per year and at a lower standard. Before the professional era matured properly and and before the $ mean more than national pride. Watching the Pumas play, looks very very similar to watching Los Jaguares.

 plum
I think that the story about players is often misleading.  When pointed out that some players are not performing on SR level - the same people said in the past that players who under-perform on SR level will perform on test level.  
Normally when Super rugby players in NZ does well - the relevant teams will be represented in test sides and provide the key players for test selection.   If you take the present squad you would find more Hurricanes, Highlanders and Crusaders players in the test side than in the case of the other two franchises.   I can understand the NZ system - not the SA system.
From what Mozart has been writing one can only think that his prejudice against some players takes over.   He has no idea about rugby and neither has his side-kicks.     

How many great Boks can we name in the last decade versus great provincial players?
Most of the Bok greats for the last decade come from the 2007 squad. Matfield, Bakkies, Schalk, Habana, Fourie DuP, Percy, Jean, etc. There's been precious few great test players for the Boks outside that squad for the last decade - players who could dominate their opposite numbers. Perhaps a few like Bismarck, Eben and Vermeulen, with Pollard shaping up well before his injury. 
Meyer and De Villiers capped around 60 new Boks between them. Most of them just faded into obscurity without making any impact.
But sure, keep believing the fantasy that every good provincial player is a potential test great. The facts say otherwise. 

Pakie, I don't disagree that Matfield for example, was a great player. So was Habana. Bakkies is a legend and JDV was good. But how did they perform under Meyer? When we look at some.of the AB greats, many of them played until they were 34/35 and many were involved at the most recent WC. They played well until the end. The opposite is true of the great players you've mentioned from SA. So what happened to our guys? Did they lose their skills, forget how to be succesful or simply decide to play poorly. No, none of the above. They were badly coached under Meyer. And then this begs the question. How many other good young players were badly coached under Meyer, and are now badly coached under Coetzee with the result being that it now appears that they are not up to "test match" standard. And again. Why, if we have such a lack of real talent are teams filled with our players in Europe? Even Ricky Januarie is still employed as a foreign professional. Anthony Johnson, not that he is amazing, but he is a full professional plying his trade overseas, along with hundreds of other SA players. The answer is then that yes SA produce the vast majority of the world's professional rugby player's, yet we don't produce very many good test players. To my mind that is just statistically impossible. Take Jake White's club team, packed with SA players and put them up against a full strength AC team. I think it's clear who'll win. Hell a rag tag Baabaas team selected from players who can't get into test teams, gets chucked together, have a few training sessions and then run into the field with the simple mandate "run the ball"...and we can't beat them. Now take a Bok team chosen and coached by Jake White, JA, Hansen or Eddie Jones and play them against a team coached by AC. Where will you put your money. In not one instance will you put you money on AC. It's clear to me where the problem is. So, I'll ask again. Why on earth are we even discussing players when it is clear that teams containing players who can't make our national squad make the Boks look bad? It just makes no sense to me.

 It's quite simple, start with the coach before looking at the players, I daresay a proper coach, not the clueless Coetzee would have picked the right players and set a course. After 12 games I still don't see a pattern of play, after being told that the team had trained well we witness a team falling apart. The team's performance is the sum total of Coetzee's ability as coach.

 Pakie
How many of the players capped by Meyer -
*   played less than 1 test coming from the bench;*   played less than 2 full match before benching or injury;*   played less than 5 matches as Springboks?
The only players capped by Meyer that was allowed to play consistently - namely Etzebeth, Vermeulen and le Roux.   For the rest there was NO team building under Meyer, so the argument remains that Meyer buggered up badly.
Take the example of Hansen.   When the old guard retired last year their replacements all had more than 16 caps.   A few new subs with less games was also introduced by Hansen - but the replacements were experienced players.
In the case of Meyer the replacements he made was temporary without a plan for squad development.     

Combover........the international players I have meet do not include any of your family members such as Tobias, Rose, Jantjies, Paige fortunately.
The guys I have met are true internationals selected on merit, fortunately.
We all understand your position but remember it is not our fault for your shortcomings or issues.
Cheers. 

Combover........the international players I have meet do not include any of your family members such as Tobias, Rose, Jantjies, Paige fortunately.
The guys I have met are true internationals selected on merit, fortunately.
We all understand your position but remember it is not our fault for your shortcomings or issues.
Cheers. 

'The only players capped by Meyer that was (sic) allowed to play consistently- namely Etzebeth, Vermeulen and Le Roux' Apart from the fact that the sentence is gibberish it's also rubbish. Pollard 19 tests Coetzee 28 tests JJ 10 tests Kolisi 16 tests Allende 13 tests Kriel 13 tests Lomp 19 tests Malherbe 12 tests Nyakane 23 tests Strauss 23 tests after not playing for the Boks in 2011 Just to name a few. Every possible test candidate was given a chance by HM, most got many chances......and almost every one flopped. This rubbish about hordes of unused test talent os embarrassingly off the mark.

 @Plum. "Pakie, I don't disagree that Matfield for example, was a great player. So was Habana. Bakkies is a legend and JDV was good. But how did they perform under Meyer?"

This is the issue with SA rugby. All of those players mentioned became Springboks because of certain skills and attributes that they already had and not by what they learnt under any Bok coach. Now go back and check where, when and under who were the skills of those players developed.

Did Eddie Jones, or Jake White for that matter, teach FDP, JDV, Jaque Fourie, etc any basic skills in the run-up to the 2007 RWC? No nothing, fark all. Eddie Jones made tweaks to their attacking and defensive patterns. Stuff that guys like AC did not have the foggiest of. He, AC, did not have it then and he certainly has not developed it since then. His track record, this season has proved it............ again.

His "successes" at the Stormers were on the back of their defensive play due to the input of Jacques Nienaber. Only problem was that he had no clue how to get the Stormers to score tries.

This is getting a problem since the dunces got involved.   Now suddenly the chief dunce come up with numbers of tests played - but what did he produces?   Just the latest number of test appearances, with most of the tests played this year and not under Meyer.   In the case of Meyer the number of test appearances include bench appearances and not one of the players other than the three mentioned and Coetzee  were the only once with regular appearances.  The rest was occasional players coming in to cover injuries and then vanish from sight again.   
The Springbok backline prior to the 2007 WC was poor in attacking play and the players who were assisted by Jones said how much they have learnt from him.   It was much more than tweaks according to the players involved.
   

It's simple Tok, follow the bouncing ball....you said HM only capped 3 players consistently, intimating the others played less than 5, less than 2 and less than 1 test. My list simply blows that lie out of the water, What's your next clueless theory.

 Thanks for your list - but most of the players had very few games before the 2015 WC and in the case of the center combination between Kriel and De Allende they had in total three starting games.   The players made turns to play under Coetzee - where most of their games came from.  
However, in the case of Coetzee rank stupidity prevented development of combinations - so effectively 2015 was a wasted year i nsofar as team development is concerned.   

 Actually Tokkie once again you are dead wrong, I carefully stated these are tests played under HM. Take just one example....Allende played 13 tests under HM as I stated, he has played 22 tests in total. Kinda blows up your whole argument in your stupid gloating face doesn't it. Some of us provide accurate information, you should try it, it would save you a lot of embarrassment.

Ok lets take the issue of De Allende.  In 2014 he played in two tests and then came from the bench in two others.  In 2015 he played in three tests before the WC and then 6 in the WC campaign.  
Great experience for him in team building only in the WC with a game plan where the functions of the flyhalf was taken over by loosies and he never really got a playable ball.  No sane person would use the WC for team building purposes.   
That really was not what I would call team building by Meyer.   The same applies to Kriel and it was a farce to claim that Meyer during his term of office can be accused in team building.       

 Changing the subject again Tokkie. By your own count he played in 13 tests, exactly as reported. If a player cant make his mark in 13 tests he probably never will. You have this view players need to be taught skills and nurtured at Bok level....how much hand holding did Jean or Habana need? HM gave every conceivable new Bok a shot.

 Mozart
How can a backline player not "make the grade" when the game plan was non-existent and consisted mainly of passing balls back to forwards and when the flyhalf fails?   That makes a fool of your constant harping about backline players.  

Rugby played by Victims....it had to come to that. All rubbish, any rugby player has an opportunity, even in a losing team, to win his individual contest if he has some self pride. And they do....look for example at a player like Hogg who game in/ game out turns in brilliant performances in a losing Scottish team.

 It's a little difficult to become a great at test level if you're ignored. 
It's a little difficult to become a great at test level if your rightful spot is constantly being filled by the elderly hasbeens of yesteryear. 
Let's be fair here.

 Mozart
Your idiot sidekick said Meyer capped 30 players as new players and I disputed the idea that utmost players never had a chance long enough to fit into a combination you went on the rampage.   You tried to find fault and came up with nine names - the tenth name (Strauss) was already a Springbok before 2012.  
I left out the name of Coetzee - since he was not in any test team this year from the only consistent players mentioned.   So lets look at how the rest was made up of your the 9 names and how teambuilding and player combination development could happen in the WC.
When evaluating the case of De Allende and the seven other players you mentioned lets look at the number of tests they played in before the WC - like I did in the case of De Allende:-
*   Two players (Engelbrecht and Kolisi) was sub-standard and did not feature regularly in the team after their initial selection;
*   Pollard had like Coetzee no rugby this year and I left him out of contention as to my statement above.   Even then he was in and out of the Springbok team a number of times and he played most of his tests in 2014 and in the WC.  
Your inclusion of players in the WC games in your list is totally funny.  No player combinations are developed in the WC especially in view of the stinking game plan of Meyer.   Coetzee even had a worse game plan - if indeed there was one.  
Meyer as coach was a dismal failure - Coetzee was an atrocious failure and to justify falure by blaming players you are prejudiced against is diabolically ignorant.