Some thoughts on reviewing the Bok / AB game

First half first, will review second half later.
Andries Coetzee is a solid, honest player. He may never set the scene alight like McKenzie, but he always makes meters, usually beats or rides a tackle and always tries.
Louw now seems to be too slow to cover outside backs. He got burned twice by being beaten for sheer pace, among others by McKe nzie coming through the middle at minute 34:42. 
Jesse Kriel still can't commit to the rush defence - his passivity in the defensive line has been touched on in the past. At minute 15:21 he backtracks a good 15m while Crotty is carrying, giving Crotty a free, unopposed run and the All Blacks unstoppable momentum. Only Ioane losing the ball over the tryline saves the Boks 5 points.
Frame 1 - black circle indicates where Kriel should be in the defensive line. Barrett is well covered. Kriel should already have shot up to put pressure on the pass or make a spot tackle on Crotty.
Frame 2 - Crotty carries. Kriel has retired so far already that he is not even in the frame.
Frame 3 - Kriel still retiring while Crotty is advancing at full speed, unopposed. Jantjies is left to tackle Ioane with loads of space either side of him for Ioane to attack, and misses.


Below is a similar situation in the second minute. Louw shoots up to pressure Coles (1), who has to pass quickly to Ioane. Leyds, faced with a similar situation as Kriel above, is proactive and shoots up to smother Ioane (2). 
Leyds makes a weak tackle that allows Ioane to offload, but it's enough to kill the momentum and the result is the All Blacks being crowded against the touchline by the Bok cover defense, forcing a wayward pass into touch. If Leyds had backtracked and allowed Ioane to gather steam, there could have been some trouble. 

Our midfield is more or less clueless. Here is Serfontein floating a near perfect hospital pass to Kriel. 
1. The All Blacks are coming up in a flat line of four players against two outside Serfontein. There is plenty of space wide if you can just check the advance of the inside defenders. Serfontein makes no effort to do this. He simply catches and passes immediately, transferring the ball and all the pressure straight to Kriel.
2. Ioane shoots up on Kriel, nearly gets him ball and all. Kriel has just enough time to wobble a pass to Leyds. Leyds is smothered, all momentum gone and the Boks lose 10m. 

Pakie busy lying to Ou Maaikie again.....

Ja, I have no shame.  

 Your comments in this case is interesting.   I am not sure that Serfontein and Kriel w ould fit into the type of rugby is being considered at this stage.    I called them thoughtless at times and if they had any real thinking ability on clever ball play - it is totally absent by now.
Elsewhere I refer to the center problem - I would much rather want to see Van Rensburg and Vorster as our center pairing than the present two with De Allende as back-up.       

 This is what David Campese had to say about the donkey duo in the Bok midfield. (Jan Simpleton, and Jessica Kriel)

David Campese: I heard Allister Coetzee talk earlier this week about what style of rugby he wants to play (a ball-in-hand approach) but, for my money, you can’t just turn around and play running rugby. It doesn’t work that way - you’ve got to have a system which supports that. In Elton Jantjies, the Springboks boast a flyhalf, who is a flair player and has got a good vision for the game. However, they have an inside and outside centre, who can’t pass the ball. The Springboks possess players that can finish (South Africa scored 17 tries during the Rugby Championship), but they don’t get the ball often enough. Yes, the Boks are effective hit-up merchants, they can take the ball up and get over the gain-line, but under pressure I feel that they can’t do anything else. Talking to people in the know, I believe Jan Serfontein and Jesse Kriel were fantastic schoolboy players, but just look at them now – the two midfielders have been moulded into nothing more than battering rams and they can neither see nor create opportunities

Campo is right. Both Kriel and Serfontein were excellent juniors who haven't developed as players and we keep picking them because we hope they may one day show the same flair and skill they showed as schoolboys. 
In the meantime, centres who have showed real skill and flair at Super Rugby level . . . Rohan Janse van Rensburg, Lukhanyo Am and Harold Vorster to name a few . . . aren't getting the same opportunities.
Coetzee's love affair with the Serfontein/Kriel centre pairing is destroying our backline and with it any chance of beating the top sides.

Yet Stransky opines as Serfontein is replaced by De Allende: "He's had an outstanding game, Serfontein."
His stats certainly read like he had a great attacking game, but apart from a long run down the touchline (which probably accounted for about 30m of his 56 running meters, leaving him with about 2m per carry for the rest of his carries) he achieved very little on attack and largely bashed into whatever obstacle was closest to him. And he missed a third of his tackles.
Still better than Kriel, who made 4m in 11 carries. Could be seen as a symptom of what he has inside of him.
The entire Bok backline together made 157m in total. Ioane alone made 149m.
Disagree with Campese about Jantjies. He faded into the background against the All Blacks (as in so many tests). Didn't challenge the line. Never took control of anything. Pollard made an impact.

 I think the situation is that whatever flair Serfontein and Kriel have had in their Junior years was coached out of them by Ludeke and Meyer -  players cannot fgo that much unless thereare extraneous circumstances.    Whatever the reason may be - both are not international centers anymore.  There may be no extraneous reasons  - as the example of Francoiis Steyn clearly shows. 
Mitchell just ignored the two of them iro his team selection for the CC match tonight- which confirms reservations on their part about the abilities of the two players.   One would like to see what happens in Super Rugby next year.
I do not think Jantjies has the temperament to really play under pressure - like happened in virtually all tests he  played in in since he was first selected.   He is not a player that would run the backlie as a good flyhalf is able to do.
 

Our slow loosies also turned into a liability at crucial moments. Louw got broken past twice in the first half purely because he couldn't get to the runner, just like Du Toit in the second half with McKenzie and Du Preez with Ioane (although I still believe Du Preez simply didn't make an effort - if you can touch the guy on the shoulder you're close enough to get him with a diving tackle). 
McKenzie stepping Louw, the much debated event: a simple case of a faster, more agile player with too much free space to use. Having reviewed that incident numerous times now I don't see any way Louw could have gotten to McKenzie. The faster man simply had too much space to attack and a head of steam against a stationary opponent. Just my opinion, let's not get into another slinging match about it. I've already pointed out Louw's failure in other defensive situations.

 Pakie
I am not arguing with you, but I think none of the Springboks would have tackled mcKe4nzie once in space.    He is by some distance the paciest AB player and when in space he will win the contest - none of the loosies on either side on Saturday would get to him to make the required tackle.
I believe that the real issue started with a poor kick by Cronje and the lack of defense  against by both forwards and backline players (inclusicve of Pollard)   allowing Havili to put McKenie into space.   Poor kicks is more often than not the reason for tries being scored by the opposing teams.     

 No forward player in the world would stop McKenzie in space.... most of the top nacks would struggle.

Allister Coetzee would do well to take a look at some of the excellent running rugby being played in the Currie Cup this year. There was more backline skill displayed in this evening's Bulls vs Pumas game than we've seen in any Springbok performance in the last few seasons.
Also, Tim Agaba is far more deserving of a quota loosie spot than the pedestrian Uzair Cassiem.

 Rooinek
If it depends on Coetzee the ball will never be passed by backline polayers - he lives by the norm laid down by Meyer that SA players does not have the ball skills to plat a comprehensive rugby game.
Mitchell has a massive impact on  the Bulls team. They need  beeds a tighthead prop and a few other players amongst the forwards to be really a top class team.    

The defence was out of position on the Mckenzie try. The left wing/Skosan was standing too flat, and the fullback was nowhere. The forward tried- but there should have been backline defenders to make the tackle- or at least attempt. 
Mckenzie is not an overbulked creatiner- so his sidestep would be enough to beat most one on ones. 

It’s interesting that now everybody sees the Stepfontein/Kriel problem......but almost nobody supported that point of view 2 years ago. Forwards can’t tackle the fastest backs in space.....but space is what they should to be denied. Our back;ine line up was a disaster for the McKenzie try.....compounded by Stephanie not moving into the gap. Louw may not have tackled McKenzie but he forced him laterally, there was nobody there is the problem. And then Allende was also gassed.

 The problem originated from a sh!t kick and poor defense on Havili.   Poor possession handover kicks allows players to operate in space and disruption of the defensive lines.   Nobody really tried to tackle Havili - neither forwards nor backs (inclusive of Pollard) and he was allowed to off-load the ball to McKenzie with acres of space in front of him.
The idea that a loosie would have stopped that attack is obviously ludicrous and that is proven by his high m,issed tacjke ratio.   Du Toit being picked as culprit is so stupid  that it can  only come from somebody with the most ridiculous lack of rugby knowledge.    Louw was nearest to the line McKenzie was running and he made a poor effort in tackling McKenzie.
I must agree though that Louw was the poorest loosie on the field.   There was nothing he did that did not result in bugger ups - from the kick in where his knock-on put Etzebeth off-side - three points donated to the AB's on a platter - to his frequent handling errors (lack of ball handling skills) and pace-deficiency leading to his high missed tackle ratio.   The constant attacks on Du Toit by one individual is just prejudice BS.   Despite playing out of his normal position as a lock - he was by some distance the best loosie on the field of play on Saturday - and that includes the AB loosies.    

 I actually think your best centres were not playing in that game. IF the backs shut down the space. Mckenzie would of not moved laterally and beat Louwe and Stephanie for pace. He is by far the fastest player in the Abs, Barring Barrett possibly. Obviousley Louwe was a detriment in this attacking phase. Kriel and Jan are still way too passive on defense. IF they are more committed to a rushing defense. Like Abs employ so well. It would shut down the space much quickly. It was just poor decision making. I Think Abs making better decisions, was the difference in the game. 
R Janse Ranseberg and L Mapoe. Are Centres I think are multi facet players. Where are they? Injured?

The problem wasn’t a poor kick....it was the wrong kick. We should never be kicking up and unders that come down on our own 10m line.....we should have kicked for touc or for territory.. That said the big problem was the chase. Pollard was the only player putting pressure on the ABs. He was beaten laterally....easy if you are chasing, that’s why you need a line. Both Havili and McKenzie found space on their outside. ....after that Stephanie and Allende proved inadequate.

 Weren't you guys over analyzing the Barrett Winning Try few years ago? Lol. Same thing huh. I agree it was the wrong kick. But even a bad kick, cam be made good with a good chase. Their was no chase. And Havili is a skillful player. He created space, partially allowed to do so. Offloaded To Mckenzie. Once Mckenzie beat Pollard, the only player who put pressure on Mckenzie. After that Louwe, Stephanie, and Allende were not relevant. 

 How kick for touch when the kicker was a meter outside the 22, stooge?   It was always wrong to kick possession handover kicks - full stop.   The whole description dreamt up by you is totally ridiculous and Pollard was not the only player did not follow up the kick he was between other players and never even attempted a tackle on Havil;.
The rest is as false as your normal description of incidents on the field of play normally is and to blame Du Toit is really absurd.   The clip of the incident I saw did not sho w him anywhere near McKenzie and fact is McKenzie was the paciest player on the field on Saturday and not the fastest Springbok player would catch him.      
Fact is aimless and poor kicks often enough lead to disaster and that is what happened here.   But then you have a kicking mania and does not know the difference between an aimless/poor kick and a kick with objectives - you wrote it on site yourself.      

Of course none of this would have happened if Stephanie just took his lineout.

 Breaking it down. Around the 65th minute mark Stephanie lost the line out. Abs brought it up kicked it down field. Then around the 68th minute mark, a bad box kick from Ross Cronje. In the sense they should of been looking for territory. Havili then beat very passive defense from Pollard who was pretty much the only Boks player chasing. But not the only one their. Havili then swooped across the field. And beat Malcom Marx, De Allende (Who basically just grabbed at air). Then Beat Louwe and Stephanie for pace. De Allende and Skosan tried to run him down but he was too quick. Of course if The Boks got their lineout right when they were in the Abs half. This would of not happened. Decision making. 

There is no real link between the lost line-out since the Boks regained possession before the poor kick - which you ignored  and then falsified beyond credibility.    You have a history of falsifying or trying to cover up incidents on the field of play going back years and it clearly indicate a prejudiced ignoramus with no real rugby knowledge.   Stop makin g a fool of yourself and others would appreciate any positive  postings you may come up with. 

There is no real link between the lost line-out since the Boks regained possession before the poor kick - which you ignored  and then falsified beyond credibility.    You have a history of falsifying or trying to cover up incidents on the field of play going back years and it clearly indicate a prejudiced ignoramus with no real rugby knowledge.   Stop makin g a fool of yourself and others would appreciate any positive  postings you may come up with. 

 While yes the Boks regained possesion. After they lost the lineout. You could argue if they had a succesful lineout. They could of camped in the Abs 22. Scored, got a penalty .Abs just have this winning habit though, they rarley lose. So they just know how to win. End of day I just think deficiences in some of your players. Steph, De Allende, Pollard, Marx e.t.c. Were to blame, and contribute to the space Havili and Mckenzie created. Havili was tackled by one of those players. He woulden't of put Mckenzie into space, and he probably woulden't of scored. And like I said. IF Ross Cronje, or anyone else in the backline found touch. And looked for territory. Then the try would of not happened too. 

Yes that’s the way I see it: . 1 We got the penalty and kicked it out well into the AB half. It should have been the launching pad for phase play with the prospect of a penalty shot. . 2 Stephanie allowed the AB jumper to get in front of him....the Abs immediately sliced off 35 metres of territory. . 3 Sopoaga’s tactical kick allowed us to get the ball back minus the 35 metres. . 4 The subsequent Cronje kick was poorly directed and trapped Kriel on the far side of the ball, but the Boks failed to put pressure on the receivers.....Pollard and Louw being beaten laterally as no real line formed. . 5 But after the Louw miss a big gap opened up inside Stephanie that McKenzie penetrated.....at the crucial point he only just slipped between Allende and Stephanie, who were no more than two metres apart as he sliced between them. One more step by each and there was no gap. Which would have negated McK’s pace. . 6 But just before that Stephanie fatally back pedalled watching and starting to line up the AB outside McK, instead of recognizing the danger. He could have closed the gap completely but misjudged the whole thing. Of course if Allende was a step quicker he could have closed the gap as well. . 7 Should we attach any blame to Stephanie apart from the lineout? Well it was a tough situation for a lock, but he was playing flank. Judged by flanker standards it was poor defensive alignment, clumsy reaction and poor reading of the movement.

When the most biased and prejudiced fool on the board starts looking for reasons why the player he hates the most cost us the game . . . and he comes up with tripe like "he could have closed the gap" and "poor reading of the movement" . . . that's when you know you're dealing with a rugby noob who never played the game and whose rugby comments are best considered comic relief.

 Mozart
You are a nice one trying to blame individual oplayers and with your history it is really a joke.
lets go back to the AB test in 2013.   The paceless  Alberts missed a tackle on Read - who just ran past him as if he is not there.  After that Morne missed a tackle on Smith - who scored a try.   Then Morne buggered up completely - after a possession turnover seconds before halftime in his own 22 Morne instead of kicking for touch passed the ball ending with Engelbrecht got the total blame for the ensuing try.   Same test Barrett got the ball in the Springboks 22 - De Villiers went out of the defensive line and Barrett dodged him easily and then Morne was supposed to make a tackle - but Morne's only ende up slapping Barrett on his back.   You absolved Alberts and Morne from any poor defense and blamed Engelbrecht only for the loss.  
Next take the AB test in 2014 in New Zealand.   Line-out 5 meters out and the Bioks are set up to use a rolling maul.    Matfield fumbled the ball and the rolling maul opportunity is lost.    The ball went out to the opposite side of the field and a stupid pass is made to De Jager virtually on the touchline and he is pushed over the touchline.   So De Jager is to blame for the whole situation - not a word about the Matfield foul-up and the deficient scrummie pass 
Then the AB Johannesburg 2014 line-out 7 meters out from the scoreline and the Boks have the throw-in.  Matfield buggered  up the line-out and Whitelock won the ball - followed by an immediate score from that line-out loss.   A thousand excuses why Matfield lost that line-out and when Lambie kicked the winning penalty from 55 meters out it was according to you not a "pressure kick.
Now to the Perth test that year - the Aussies were penalized in the Boks 22 with Habana serving a yellow card and Morne made a complete hash of the penalty landing the ball in-field on the halfway line and the Aussies counter-attacked and scored a try.   So Lambie gets the blame for a poor tackle attempt - not a word from you about Morne's foul-up.
Not enough in the 2015 WC semi Matfield was brought from the bench.  He missed the first line-out - not a word about that one from you - and then when the Boks were circa 15 meters outside the AB 22, the AB's were penalized.  Matfield did a neck wrench on one of the AB players and an easily convertable penalty is turned around.   The attempts by you to justify the penalty uirn-around and the effect of it is not mentioned by you at all.
The list goes on and on.   You attack your hate players and try and protect your favourites.   However, your attacks are often enough based on rubbish deductions and now you have reached a limit.  Instead of pointing  out the numerous foul-uos of Louw like the kick-in ball he tried to catch and put Etzebeth off-side by his knock-on of the ball.  Three points gotten by the SB's ias a result means nothing in your book.  Two other knock-ons by Louw - one of which ultimately resulted in AB points is not mentioned either.   Jantjies is not blamed for a charge-down kick leading to an immediate AB try - but Du Toit is blamed for a missed line-out leading for scoring of a try 9 minutes later after the Springboks regain possession.
This is why your postings on your pet hate players is total junk and nobody in fact believes the rubbish you come up with.  I can go on and on -     

". . . but Du Toit is blamed for a missed line-out leading for coring of a try 9 minutes later."
Yes . . . you can almost picture Moffie's thought processes after the game . . .
"Uh-oh, Stephanie was brilliant throughout! One of the stand-out players. What am I going to do after all my trash talk? Can't let the Gimps see me with all this egg on my face! What to do? Hang on . . . I know . . . I'll spend a couple of hours trawling through the game looking for a single mistake from Stephanie and if I find something I'll blame the entire loss on that one incident! Brilliant! The Gimps will lap it up. I'm a genius!"

 Exactly Rooinek - the man is an utter prejudiced fool.    His anti Du Yoit campaign  started when du Toit and De Jager threatened Matfield selection for the team.
However, the issue really stank to high heaven - Mozart on attack is an ugly and vicious spectacle.   In the RC season he must have started at least 5 threads dealing solely with attacks ion Du Toit,   That alone shows up his BS efforts.  
We all criticize performance by players - but that in he case of Mozart goes overboard when it xomes to his pet hates..   As  to Du Toit where he used the  physical attributes of Matfield and ascribed them to Du Toit,    Long neck - thin shoulders - thin wrists.   He did not mention thin legs - but Matfiel's nickname was Kiewiet -  because of his thin legs.  
We should not waste time to respond to his BS.   Any reasonable response goes straight over his stupidf head,  

but Du Toit is blamed for a missed line-out leading for scoring of a try 9 minutes later after the Springboks regain possession.
The lineout loss occured at 67:55, McKenzie scored at 68:42. In other words, less than a minute later.
We're all free to draw our own subjective conclusions, but the timeline of events in the game is not subjective, it is verifiable. Get it right.

Correct Pakie, if a little pedantic.
Whether it was 1 minute or 9 minutes, possession did change twice after the lineout so to blame McKenzie's try on Pieter-Steph du Toit's lineout loss is still a stupid comment that only a rugby noob would make. Might as well blame the very first mistake of the match because everything else would have happened differently if not for that.

Correct Rooi but that is exactly the hypocrisy that I was referring to. Thou shall not try to pin that try on PSDT but feel free to keep on pinning a try that was scored after umpteen missed tackles following a missed lineout kick. Even if it is about four years after the incident, on someone who you passionately dislike.

What I see on the tape is :
The line out happened at 67.50
Tulpulato jumped in front of PSDT and gets the ball against the throw but the throw seemed too low and in front of PSDT. It may not have been PSDT's error.
TKB to McKenzie at first receiver, to Todd, ruck recycle, TKB to Sopoaga, kick. Boks receive ball and recycle in ruck, clearing kick from next ruck by Boks 9.
Havili takes catch with space.
Pollard on chase but there were also several others on chase. There is a defensive line of Boks including Marx, Etzabeth, De Allende and others. There are also a few ABs mixed in the defensive line. What I see is the Boks seem to have relaxed for a second on defense there was some confusion.  McKenzie runs across field to his right. He didn't make his cut into PSDT's lane others should have been defending the space McKenzie cut into.  It was not a matter of just one player missing a tackle. De Allende has a shot at a tackle but seems slow footed. Others also had a shot. McKenzie is so quick and fast he was through the line in a second.
So problems started with the throw in, kick wasn't great but the real pro b lem was Boks defensive players seem to be in position but relaxed or were confused for a second - probably wondering where McKenzie would go.

Stephanie misread the situation, he should have been moving in to tackle McKenzie vs back peddling to line up on the next AB. It’s that simple.

Of course none of this would have happened if Stephanie took his lineout.

 Lowe was the first player to miss a tackle on the McKenzie try. Lowe was running to his right, McKenzie cut to Lowe's left leaving Lowe with outstretched arms and off balance falling in the wrong direction.
It wasn't just his error though, s ee my account of the try above.

I read it. The throw might have been a bit low but Stephanie has the advantage of the call....he has to move towards the ball. On the assignments, there should have been another defender in the gap.....but there wasn’t. This is where players have to use judgement and not rely on process. Mckenzie ultimately went through a 2 metre gap between Stephanie and Allende. Stephanie’s hesitation was fatal.

 I have seen all - the line-out loss - the poor defense against Havili and the fact that he did not cover the line McKenzie was running is all due to Du Toit.   How hate can drive a madman that far is beyond me - but there you have it all.     The lies remains endless from a desperate fool.