FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  South African lock pecking order

South African lock pecking order

Started by Mozart18 REPLIES337 VIEWS· 25 May 2014, 21:09
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
25 May 2014, 21:09
#1
25 May 2014, 21:09#1

There is no position we dominate as much as lock. Many nations would give a shorter arm or leg to get a South African oak....even out of our second five best. But rarely has the lock position been so confused. Etzebeth was the new giant, stronger than any other player out there and able to gas Ben Smith up the Ellis Park touch line. His natural partner was Steph du Toit, even though most of the evidence hinged on one CC match.




But then Etzebeth hurt his ankle again.....is this going to be one of those chronic things? And Steph hurt himself ....again....this youngster was pushed too early and he gave no quarter further increasing the risk of injury


Then we found that Flip Flop was finally maturing into a very powerful, test class lock. It looked like Eben might play 5. But Bakkies played a few solid tests which apparently stirred Matfield into action...and he seems to have lost nothing as he showed in a MoM performance against the Brumbies.



Adding to the confusion Willemse, Lood, Lewies and even Botha, another 2 metre giant, have staked claims. With Willemse looking massively strong. Added to which the majority are number four locks....a position at which we now have unprecedented depth.


So how do we rank them?


At number 5 I would go.....Matfield, Lewies, Steph, Ruan Botha


At number 4 it gets harder, but I would go.....Etzebeth, Flip, Willemse, Lood, Bakkies.


Then you have the cross over option of playing Etzebeth at 5, which is what I would do....with Willemse or Flip at 4. And Victor would be on the bench. No lock extant has more skills to contribute to an all out atack in the last 15 minutes.






AJ
Arthur JohnPro1,748 posts
25 May 2014, 21:25
#2
25 May 2014, 21:25#2
 Matfield ??????????
Off the bench perhaps.
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
25 May 2014, 21:29
#3
25 May 2014, 21:29#3
I know I'm being  a bit verbose, but read the  last paragraph 
MD
Monkey D LuffyPro6,277 posts
25 May 2014, 22:58
#4
25 May 2014, 22:58#4
"And Victor would be on the bench. No lock extant has more skills to contribute to an all out atack in the last 15 minutes."

i agree with this comment, but how often are the Boks in all out attack mode???

there are only two situation where the Boks will be going in an all out attack.

1) if they are behind on the scoreboard and a penalty or drop goal cant fix it, then yes, but they really only get in that situation against the All Blacks and only sometimes against others.

2) when they are well intrully in command of match, like when they played a cobwebbed filled pumas team in soccer city who had next to no gametime before the match.

all out attacks dont happen any other times.

if lineout is the only measure by which a lock should be judged by, then matfield is the incumbent 5 period. hard to fault the effect hes had for the bulls in 2014 and i would say from a lineout point of view, hes been one of spXVs best if not the best.

there really is a level of control matfiled brings to the game and i agree he does add value.
but matfields already had his time IMO, and the Boks did sweet F all with him, so give his spot to others to press their claims and leave a decent mark in the world.
wilmese, lady elizabeth, de jager, do toit, du plesiss, flip, f uys, alberts.
plenty of options which have the added benefit of future planning.

all in all, i wouldn't complain about a lady elizabeth and matfiled combo, but it wouldnt be my first pick.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 May 2014, 00:24
#5
26 May 2014, 00:24#5
 Mozart
Are you into the make-believe phase again?  Bakkies was not solid - he was just around to fill a vacancy.  I would definitely not call his performance in the EOYT tests solid - it was rather iffy.
I think that Matfield made some eye-catching ball runs - but he is seriously defective in maul situations and similar tight 5 activities, while moonlighting in the backline.   Not all of these were successful and knocking on of the ball and poor passing as well as a mad kick was also in evidence.   I have looked at the elderly returnees and none will ultimately make the grade.  Just like Steenkamp, Bakkies and Fourie did.  However, like you Meyer is always harking back to the past and not consider the future ib dealing wit the situation - also in respect of lock selections.
So I do not think that Matfield should be a future selection and neither should Bakkies be.  We need hard players at lock and they do not fill that requirement  anymore.  We have more physical and stronger younger locks in abundance and that is a fact.
I would rate the locks as follows - once both Etzebeth and Du Toit are back:-
No 4 
1   Etzebeth2   Van der Merwe3   De Jager4   Willemse5   Botha
No 5
1   Du Toit2   Lewies3   Rhodes4   Du Plessis
Botha plays at  4 not 6 as Mozart indicates above.  Du Plessis is played as a number 7 loosie - but he should actually play at lock.   
None of the above would dream of backline moonlighting - they would do their work up front and be involved in ball carries in the normal course of events.  
Time to move on from the Bakkies-Matfield era.  They were tops for a few years - but by 2010 that success rate went down and it will not return in 2014.              


BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
26 May 2014, 00:30
#6
26 May 2014, 00:30#6
 Matfiled top of your pick Moz!!! I had hoped youwereo ver the conartist.
We do indeed have some great locks"Etzebeth, Flip, Du Toit, Willemse, Lood and Alberts. Then we have Jaque Du Plessis also.
Lewies 22 and 114kg and Ruan Botha 22 and 113 kg are kids and not ready yet. Coming through though and maybe worth a shout next year.
You see Moz although Etzebeth is also only 22 he is 125kg. Lood also is 21 and 118kg or bigger. I have seen him put at 125kg. The 120 kg Oosthuisen is it for the sharks is also a genuine lock in the making.
Moz wee Matfield at 106 kg and able only to catch lineouts and kickoffs is a tight five liability. He fouls up 100 backline moves but sells a dummy and his groupies are totally enoumoured. Hahahahhahaha no wee matfield is no lock at all and would struggle at club level. 
THE VERY LAST THING WE NEED TO DO IS HAND OVER IS OUR TIGHT FIVE SUPERIORITY OVER THE WEE ABS WHICH DUE TO MATFIELD WE HAVE LIMITED. Put in a very strong tight five and increase our loose forward mobility is the way to go.One could try a power pack - say adding in a loose trio of Louw Vermuelen and Du Plessis in NH condidtions. On the highveldt sppeed up the loose trio.

Beeno seeing the bigger strategic p icture of course. 
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 May 2014, 02:17
#7
26 May 2014, 02:17#7
 Let me correct 3 things:
1 Ruan Botha was switched to 5 when Rhodes was unavailable....and the coaches obviously preferred the arrangement, because they kept him at 5 when Rhodes came back. At 2.03 metres and medium weight he is a typical number 5 lock.
2 Bakkies had an excellent return to test rugby....this is hat SA Rugby mag said:
19. Bakkies Botha – 7 

Introduced early because of the injury to Etzebeth and immediately made his presence felt. Physically very strong. Excellent comeback to Test rugby in the past two weekends.

3 Victor is the best lock of the open era....MOM in the RWC final in 2007... he seems to have lost very little.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 May 2014, 05:41
#8
26 May 2014, 05:41#8
 Mozart 
The 2007 WC was seven years ago - when Matfield was 27 years old.   He was at his prime then.   By the time he was 31 in 2011 the magic was gone and he decided to retire.  He has lost a lot - he is even more inactive in the tight phases of the game inactive in tight phases of the game and is still moonlighting in the backline - but less effectively so.   Whether he was the best lock in the open era was debatable - he never was an all-round lock and made his name by two activities - line out jumping and occasional eye-catching ball carries.   Whether the latter in fact contributed much as against damaging backline play is another question.
He had one successful backline carry on Saturday (the first one this year)  and now suddenly that is what count - a real one-incident craziness taking hold.   However, on Saturday he buggered up a very positive attacking move by knocking on the ball and another by an aimless kick.  For heavens sake - he is not a center and that is the end of it. 
If you believe the rubbish written by a newspaper and ignore what Bakkies Botha actually contributed to the game - as supported by the stats - you are welcome to your ideas.  He produced next to nothing in the first test and was bog -ordinary in the second one.    I can remember that immediately after the final whistle was blown how you came on this site with an unbelievable praise song and the went quiet after Saffex pointed out that he was in fact totally ineffective - again supported by the stats.
Rhodes was carded at minute 73 and never came back - so your statement really is meaningless.    He was the 4 in virtually  all the games played by the Stormers and that is a fact also.  Please do not trust your eyes as to anything like physicality - you have always been wrong when trying out that as a yardstick.      
     
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 May 2014, 07:23
#9
26 May 2014, 07:23#9
Actually you ineffable fool, I was referring to Rhodes being unavailable for the Bools game. After which for 3 games Botha has been  playing with a 5 on his back. Mike did they ever offer you special education .....you need help Oom.






CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 May 2014, 12:43
#10
26 May 2014, 12:43#10
 Mozart
Stop talking kak - no you cannot because i t happens all the time - that one game is now suddenly the alpha and omega - when Rhodes was not available.  Look at the subsequent and preceding games and see what happened there.  You are a fool when it comes to player identification since you know zip about rugby.  If anybody needs help in a rugby sense  - it is you. 
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
26 May 2014, 14:43
#11
26 May 2014, 14:43#11
Forget Matfield, he is a liablity........the real lock pecking order is:


1. Etzebeth2. PSDT3. Lood4. Jacques du Plessis5. Willemse6. Lewies7. Flip8. Ruan Botha


BO
BoklogicPro1,978 posts
26 May 2014, 15:40
#12
26 May 2014, 15:40#12
Saffex, where would you place Matfield and Jurie Van Vuuren though?? ;-)
On a serious note, surely Flip has to be a lot higher than that too?? Bresler doesnt make the list??
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 May 2014, 17:59
#13
26 May 2014, 17:59#13

Jacque du Plessis is better than Matfield but he is regularly playing perfectly ordinary rugby at flank......what a joke. Any real rugby fundi reading this rubbish would laugh.

 

OOm you are always wrong but never uncertain. D oes this help re Botha.....the subsequent games....feel free to grovel

 

Bools

3PPat Cilliers4LJean Kleyn5LRuan Botha

 

Force

2HDeon Fourie3PPat Cilliers4LMichael Rhodes5LRuan Botha


Cheetahs

1PAlistair Vermaak2HDeon Fourie3PPat Cilliers4LMichael Rhodes735LRuan Botha
CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
26 May 2014, 18:00
#14
26 May 2014, 18:00#14

No 4
1. Etsebeth
2. Willemse
3. Flip

No 5.
1. Bekker
2. Matfield
3. PSDT

Du Plessie is a flank.

Lood is not Bok material.

Lewies has impressed ... needs another season.




MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 May 2014, 18:06
#15
26 May 2014, 18:06#15
Yep I missed Bekker....at his best a dominant lock. And I tend to agree about du Plessis. He is a flank and frankly not even as impressive as Potgieter in his first year. Lood is probabably over hyped as well.....I think okes just like the name.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 May 2014, 18:35
#16
26 May 2014, 18:35#16
 Lood is probably over-hyped - Matfield is definitely over-hyped and so is Bakkies.
Du Plessis is not a flank forward and he should specialize as a lock.  Neither is Alberts a flank forward or loosie at all - he normally is sub-par and too slow and a very poor ball handler to even be considered.
CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
26 May 2014, 18:40
#17
26 May 2014, 18:40#17
 
Ummmmmm ... who mentioned Alberts??

I seem to have missed that post.


MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 May 2014, 19:00
#18
26 May 2014, 19:00#18
Alberts the MOM in our last test against France and maker of all his 19 tackles against the Blues two days ago....is not "to even be considered". The staying po wer of this plank is awesome.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 May 2014, 19:20
#19
26 May 2014, 19:20#19
 He missed half his tackles and made virtually no impact - bar carry the ball a few meters and got tackled by the opposing flyhalf.  That last few meters made him MOM.  A rael joke that one.
The ball protection and recovery of this plank - he is thick as as a plank - is awesome in a negative perspective as well.  His invention of the Alberts Treeby tackle technique is similar.  
I may change my mind on this Plank once I see even one case where he protects tackle ball or recovers a ball in a tackle breakdown situation, where he enters mauls and not loiter around at the back of it leaving other players t do the hard work and when he even makes one decent pass to another player.
Thick plank he is and thick plank he will remain.  Thanks for giving A;berts a suitable nickname  - Thick Plank Alberts is very appropriate.  


— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news