Springbok Assessment (Game 1)

I've just finished my sweep through the game, and this is my impression of what transpired.

MAN OF MATCH

The Boks physically dominated Argentina. It wasn't even remotely competitive in contact. Eben was the standout performer from start to finish. He was absolutely brutal on defence, as a carrier, tackler, cleaning rucks. Everything. He repeatedly threw the Argies around like toys and plowed into them making chunk yardage seemingly with ease. He never dropped his intensity and looked hungry throughout. Of all the forwards, he was the only one to maintain his intensity throughout. Eben is my MOM.

FORWARDS

Marx was another powerful weapon. So too Whitely and Steph. Louw was most prominent in the first half, and as the game wore on Whitely came to life. Mal had good moments. His scrummaging is still questionnaire and but he was productive outside the scrum. Beast was very prominent in the first half and one of our primary carriers. Not as powerful in contact as some of the others, buy was very secure in contact. When they arrived, Kits and Thomas (TDT) were always involved on attack and defence. Van Staden didn't stand out for me. Disappointingly Kolisi was invisible most of the game. He had some powerful carries and tackles, but they were so far and few between. Where was the communication? He had no presence of the field whatsoever. 

BACKS

Let's start with the half backs. The passing was iffy at times, particularly early on. Faf was very busy, he was everywhere. I loved how much pressure he applied on Argentina. Catching their carriers behind the gainline or cutting then off. He was quick and calm. Tough as you could possibly expect. A few wayward box kicks, but overall I am happy with what I saw. Pollard was very effective ball in hand and linked up well with Willie. Was very strong in contact and another calm presence. Faf and a Pollard have an appetite for seeking out and dominating the opposition. Very combative. Willemse was a mixed bag. That pass to van Staden was ugly, but he had some other very good deliveries, like the long pass out to Mapimpi. Some good tackles and sound position play. I'd say he looked raw at times, credit to him for settling down after that try though. I think some of the criticism was a bit harsh. Of course against Australia, who like to move 10 and 12 around, he may have problems. We'll see. 

The centres were a marked improvement over those that came after Jean, Frans and Fourie. They were quick into position and very tough. Am was especially good at sealing off the edge. He has a feel for the position that previous 13s have lacked. When play broke down they made sensible decisions, defusing pressure. There were no brain tarts from either player. I'd just like to see them. Be brought into the game more. Esterhuizen was very good as a carrier and cleaner. Another who at times manhandled the Argentinians. When the Argentinians were becoming desperate and varied their play, engaging the defence and stepping, the centres held firm. They may have problems against New Zealand - who doesn't? - but I am very much in favour of retaining them both. They complimented each other well and linked up with the outside backs well. Movement off the ball was what really struck me. Mapoe didn't have much to do, but looked okay. He got heavily handed off after chasing a box kick, so he didn't appear as tough as Am. I didn't like that. We need Serfontein on the bench. 

The back three were very good. Early on Sanchez was probing, particularly Dyanti, but he was solid. Both were solid in contact and assured. Looked intelligent and quick. So much of our attacking game was sparked or run through Willie. He is unquestionably our most important back. Mapimpi was a nice compliment to Dyanti. I can't recall the last time I felt this secure with a wing duo. Both wings were excellent. 

SUMMARY

The Boks started with a lot of carries through their forwards and precious little with the backs. I'd like to see some more variation. When all is said and done, Argentina tried to push the envelope more, later in the game of course - they were unbelievably predictable for the first 50 minutes. There is a lot of potential in this backline, bolstered but a truly powerful pack. I want to see Rassie back them a little bit. It's a truly modern backline: fast, big, strong and tough. 

RATINGS

01 Mtawarira (7)

02 Marx (8)

03 Malherbe (6.5)

04 Etzebeth (9)

05 Du Toit (8)

06 Louw (7)

07 Kolisi (4)

08 Whitely (7)

09 de Klerk (7)

10 Pollard (7.5)

11 Dyanti (8)

12 Esterhuizen (7)

13 Am (7)

14 Mapimpi (8)

15 Willie (8.5)

16 Mbongeni (6)

17 Kitshoff (6.5)

18 du Toit (7)

19 Orie (-) 

20 van Staden (6)

21 Papier (5)

22 Mapoe (6)

23 Willemse (5.5)

Pollard is a class act, but he isn't going to win you a territorial battle. He wasn't bad playing at 12 either. 

My main concern with Whitely is pace. Kolisi was nowhere. You are correct, the loose trio does need some work. Having Duane at 8 changes things considerably. If available. Big if. 

A big test for the midfield will be Australia. New Zealand don't isolate players like they do. Australia will look to pull defenders out of position and attack spaces between 10 and 12 and really isolated 13. If they can stand up to that, it will be a big statement. My big worry when laying New Zealand is that their pack can stand toe to toe with ours. What can we deliver without physical dominance. They won't be able to play so brutally, but they will have a platform to work from. It took Argentina so long to get anything going, partly credit to the Boks, partly the conservative game plan. That play from the scrum though, it was excellent. Totally beat us - Willemse taking the wrong man.

Very good summary, thanks Auge.

OK   Nobody in his right mind would give Louw anything better than a 5.  He was a low work rate player and really achieved mnothing of note - the worst tackler amongst the forwards.  Kolisis did twice the work Louw did in especially making of tackles - which since Louw was the opensider with more opportunity to tackle players.

The other BS is Esterhuizen - he is in fact rather pace-deficient - even slower than useless Fat Fransie became.   So try again.  

Your assessment is as prejudiced as you always are and what you wrote is about equal to 50% correct and  50% utter BS.   Keep it up - you will get nowhere - and Rassie will know better than the BSters as t what must be domne after the Argentine test this week/

By the way who is Mbongeni?  Is it Taute Mbongeni or Engelbrecht Mbongeni?      

In terms of brute strength we are clearly stronger, I never meant that we weren't. However, they aren't pushovers either. New Zealand will have a platform in their game against us. That is a certainty. We must score when  we have the chance and defend soundly. We have power now, power which is much closer to the 2013 EOYT. This team looks more like a Bok team, thus far. Those Argentinians were pounded. 

You are right Moz, even Australia have surprised us. Many a test they supposedly on the ropes, ripe for the plucking, only to manhandle us. Worse still, out scrum us. I haven't really considered us a scrumming nation since the 97 Lions tour. That did change my perception somewhat, and it's never recovered. We have moments of dominance though. 

If we go into the game with the present loosies we may as well give up hope for winning the test - same apples to the present centers.

I am not particularly worried about the Tight 5 at this stage.   They will hold their own.   After all Matfield is not their anymore to bugger up the line-outs as he did in hi s last three games against the AB's.   

Some very good points but coupled with this there must be absolutely no room for any errors in those oportunities that present themselves...this can be the difference...NZ on the attack seldom make silly errors, we do and don't capitalise...how many games have we lost due to simple chinks in our armour.

SB

You remind me now of what Meyer said about SA backline players being skilled-deficient.  That is not necessarily something which cannot be corrected though coaching.   I agree too that it would e difficult in some cases.   

The other problem is poor reading of play  - my late father called it "ball sense"  in backline players and loosies more than in others,   That is virtually impossible to get through coaching it is more of  a natural ability developed from early childhood - some layer have it other not.

However. there is a problem that has plagued SA rugby for decades and that is poor to near-existent coaching of backline players.   White tried to correct that deficiency - but since then zero was done by proper backline coaching.

I was pleasantly surprised by the progress shown in that regard since Erasmus took over as coach,   The June tests were a vast improvement on what happened since 2012    We had some brilliant backline players like Habana and de Villiers up to 2014 - after that the brilliance vanished.  With respect we also lost experience in backline players when the replacements were slow and unstructured, .  .               

SB

There is one other aspect which should be borne in mind as well and that is that the none bar McKenzie and to lesser extent Milner - Skudder and Barrett are really speed merchants.   There ba ckline players really consist of physical players with sufficient pace to perform.   They are more capable of breaking tackles than they are able to beat opponents by pace.

That is why the Springboks cannot afford to field smaller and weaker backline players and  the players should be physically strong enough to compete - and extra pace would be an advantage/   That is why I have grave doubts whether Esterhuizen will ever make the grade - he is very slow for a backline player,

It would be interesting to see how Mapimpi, Nkosi and Dyantyi develop in future,  They are not really all that small  and may develop into top class wings with real pace.    .  

There's some confusion with this term ball sense. It actually means a sense of the motion of the ball in play. Anyone with familiarity with set plays will get what I'm saying. 

South Africa was competitive until the late 90s. There is a resistance to learn. A definite unwillingness. As structures develop, South Africa's response is to feel positive. Too much emotion. New Zealand teach their players to recognize patterns and shapes, and teach them what tools are best for each problem they'll face. South Africa has never done this. 

Reading of play is what strikes me Saturday's team. Movement off the ball, support lines, improvisation  and link up play when play breaks down. They looked comfortable with each other. The centres have a sense for drawing pressure and passing. So too the wings. Esterhuizen was fast enough. An inside centre is not required to be a speedster. He was fast enough and extremely strong and secure in contact. I loved the way he handed that Argentinian into the turf. Am was also very strong in contact. This is by far the best centre pairing since Jean/Frans and Fourie. They look like real centres and play like it. They made no glaring errors. 

It is going to come down to which team is able to force the other to play at their game more. If it is absolute trench warfare, we may actually be able to dominate. If NZ are able to force us to play a more open game, I think we'll battle. The loosies are our big question mark, it is going to take a massive effort from the Boks, regardless of who they choose, just to stay in the game in that area.

SA team has no strong point over the NZ squad. Wonder how many times NZ sides will have to rub SA fans'face in it.

SA people on this board are intoxicated by their own tales.

No matter what superior points SA fancy to get over NZ, the NZ sides will single them out and beat SA on that.

Last WC semi finals: SA boasted about discipline and being able to milk penalty situations. The ABs beat SA at that game.

NZ-SA famous 57 0: SA boasted about breakdown efficiency. NZ exploded SA on that sector.

SR encounter: SA side boasting about scrummaging. NZ side streamrolling SA scrums.

Last SR final: SA boasting about rolling mauls. NZ neutered the SA side.

SA rugby is aeons behind NZ rugby. SA rugby teams exist where NZ teams want SA teams to exist.

Anything SA teams get, it is because NZ teams decide to concede them.

SA rugby is kept alive by the quota players.

The SA government could not end a team that keeps winning.

Stop hiding. Time to select an all white player team and dominate. Win every WC, every 4N, every SR championship.

When it happens, the SA government will not be able to do anything.

Or accept that SA rugby is hiding behind the socalled quota policy to cover their mediocrity.

Physicality disrupts their game. They don't like to be roughed up. They also don't like suffocating defence. If you can pressure them, they make mistakes. Against New Zealand you cannot defend passively. If you allow them to run at you on their terms you will be destroyed. What I found encouraging about the Boks was how Faf and Am would intelligently rush the carrier, cutting off passing lanes or containing the carrier. They got in the Argie's faces. We haven't had centres who can do that for a long time. They are very strong in contact. Damian and Kriel are soft touches who create pressure for their teammates. We can seal off the outside gaps. Mapimpi and Dyanti were very smart and overwhelming. We have usable pieces to pressure New Zealand. Faf is a terrier like Januarie, who used to give New Zealand fits. And we have a type of strength in the pack that is unrivaled. We'd certainly need to be more accurate. Cutting out those handling errors and sloppy passes. 

New Zealand do have the edge in the loose forwards. However, our tight 5 is no triviality. Whitely put in big carries and hits in the middle of the field in congested areas. Good ruck cleans. Their centres are an obvious advantage, as New Zealand always have a strong stock of centres. However, this duo is a significant step up from what we have fielded in the past. The back three are world class. Our half backs are good, but need to be more accurate. Faf applies alot of pressure. A sm art player. 

Will we win? Probably not. New Zealand can pipe up points in brief windows of ascendecy to take the game away from an opponent. That's a constant threat that can manifest at any moment. We need to put up point when we have periods of dominance. Too often we dominate New Zealand but come away with nothing and then they pull away. Very annoying. 

I will be civil and will add to your definition a sense where the ball is bound to go - in other words to be where the ball is going on field of play and to carry play further.   In his prime Burger was very good at that.- nut as he got older he was not the same.   The only player at present with that sense is Du Toit.

A lot of NZ players seems to have that sense/.      

@Mozart: I remember in Burger's later years a situation where he was the first to three tackles in a row. The commentators couldn't believe it. Hilarious the one debating with their partner whether it was really him. Caught in three rucks, but was back in action making the very next tackle. He was a freak of nature. He was a much smarter and more dynamic player as he got older. We never did use him to his fullest potential, but Meyer did some very good things with him. The only thing I'll say is he started 2009 badly, which helped Brussow beat Peter's mysterious reluctance to use him. He had a poor patch in late 2010. Perhaps fatigue? He just seemed to lose a lot of force. With the Lambie hand off I thought to myself, "That's very un-Schalk like, he'd had munched him before". However, he was back to his best in 2011, forming a pretty nice trio wit Brussow, and Spies. They all played well (despite what rediculous critics).

@Bluebok: I wasn't aware of who was coaching the backline. Like I said earlier, the players are capable of more, so I'd like Rassie to have them do more. We didn't actually run any particular set plays from first phase. There were a few switches and such. It was Argentina who were the more adventurous as the game wore on, with that excellent play. It was off their 7th scrum at 62:53. 9 flat to 10, with the blindside wing coming in behind him and a midfield runner from midfield as decoy and screen. Beats us cleanly. At that point Pollard was 12 and Willemse was 10. What I liked in general play was the positional awareness of the players. I wasn't left frustrated because a player walked out of alignment (like Damian), or was too reactive (like Damian), or was plain dominated physically. That was defence. On attack, they looked comfortable with each other. I believe this unit will build on what they are at present. If given the time. Unless they fall apart drastically in multiple games, I'd retain them. These constant changes to entire units is ridiculous. We need to settle on something. If the Boks can allow their backs to use the ball more we can gauge where Stick is as a coach. I don't think he is an imbecile, it's just hard to form an appreciation of where the backline coaching is as far as attack is concerned. They'll need to be more ambitious as against New Zealand. The back three are very slick, so we must use them. Early days, but there are good signs. The Boks were very purposeful in everything they did. Highly organised.