Statements by Meyer

Meyer's public statements on issues have me completely baffled and his latest one is no different from the previous ones.  I cannot understand why problems he mentioned in his statements cannot be solved on a professional basis and am asking again what does the statements imply.   Lets see of what he said about issues and what has been done consequently and whether the problem(s) have been addressed:=

Hougaard's Problems as a Scrummie

When it became evident that there were performance problems by Hougaard as a scrummie last year - Meyer limited his response to the fact that Hougaard has kicking problems  and they would solve it through coaching.

Did Hougaard had kicking problems only - there are diverse opinions on that one.   Some says that Hougaard's reading of the game was not up to standard and that there were some problems with his passing game as well - others deny it and said that Hougaard's naturally is the best attacker and defender on the fringes of scrums and mauls.   Be it as it may what happened next is the main question.

Apparently the kicking coaching was done - but the result was not acceptable to Meyer.   The easy solution was to move him to wing thus avoiding the final solution of the problem.   Hougaard himself decided that in future he wants to play at scrummie - so he came back off the bench in the CC game between the Sharks and the Bulls.   In that game the Kicking Probllem was even worse than it was when Meyer made the above statement.  So apparently the kicking problem was never solved despite   Meyer's "we will coach it out of him"   statement.

Was Meyer's definition of the role of the scrumhalf really so restrictive that that kicking is the overriding element determining their effectiveness in games?  It seems so since the areas where Hougaard was particularly strong - namely attack and defence around the fringes - was not even a consideration at all and he was moved to the wing - where he was only moderately effective.

The question remains - would it not have been more effective to get the services of an experienced scrummy - like Divan Serfontein - to deal with all aspects of the Hougaard game and to enhance his all-round performances.   Such a person would also advise him better about when to kick and when to exercise different options.    My own feeling is that issue has two different elements, namely - 

*   the issue of physical kicking; and/or 

*   the even more important issue of reading of the game and determining when is kicking called for and when should other options be more appropriate.

Lets accept that Hougaard's strong point is not the kicking game - but other elements of his game - so to turn him into a kicking scrumhalf is unlikely to go beyond a fair level of competence.   However, is the emphasiis on kicking not having a detrimental effect on those other elements?

Is the Meyer approach of emphasizing the kicking element only is dealt with in terms of a very restrictive manner - and not on a comprehensive manner to bring out the best in Hougaard as a scrummie.

The Backline Issue

From the start there were serious problems with the backline fielded last year by Meyer.   He then made two statements of interest, namely that -

  *    Morne Steyn has kicking problems and that would be addressed by coaching; and

  *    That SA does not have the backline players playing attacking running rugby and that  the type of game played by other countries is just not possible.

It is the second statement that showed really what is problematic in Meyer's line of thinking.  Is it the backline players he selected that cannot play running rugby - or is it the situation with regard to all backline players in SA?

That question is really interesting.   If it is a problem throughout SA - why could at that stage the Sharks last year and the Cheetahs play a different format of backline rugby?   It obviously was not a universal problem in SA Rugby - it was the over-emphasis placed on selection of bigger physical players as against players with proper ball sense and skills sets that was the real problem that was in evidence.

The only thing Meyer said about fixing the evident problems was that they will fix Morne Steyn's kicking deficiencies by coaching.   For the rest it was evident that nothing would be done about it - nothing about measures taken about fixing the other evident problems.

The above was followed by the following statement this week and I quote it before writing some comments on it:-

 "I also feel that our backline play has not developed as much as it should and I hope to share some ideas with the franchise coaches. It's something that we have already addressed I have seen an improvement, but we have some very good backline players who could do much better."

This statement came very late in the day isince the problems was clear from the first test played last year and became progressiely worse as the test season continued - the only exception being the test in Pretoria - where the backline did function better.  It also contradicted his previous statement about backline play deficiencies in SA.   

However, the question remains - what is being done in respect of overcoming this problem.   Meyer's comments are interesting -

  *   that he has spoken to the franchise coaches and "he has seen some improvements lately - nobody else saw improvements, since at least one franchise (The Sharks showed a serious decline in performances); and

  *   he would share some ideas with the franchise coaches.

Unlike in the case of the breakdown situation - no presentation to SARU, no technical advisors on backline play - nothing but a chat with the franchise coaches.   Is that indicating the series malaise backline play in SA is in - or does it indicate a complete lack of awareness of he situation and what is required in respect of backline play?  I think  this remains a total blank insofar as solving of the evident problems are concerned.

Lock Situation

Again I am quoting what he said about the lock situation - since it really is indicative of a lot of things applicable to Meyer's coaching approach:-

""The problem is that No.5 lock is your most important player in the pack, because he runs the line-outs, he runs the far side defence and he is also your main taker of kick-offs.

"While there are youngsters, it will take them two or three years to get up to where Andries is (Agree and that is why he is a loss) and Juandre in a sense. It is not just how they play, it is how they manage the line-outs. You need a guy who can win the line-outs, even if he is not your best player around the park - to find that balance is going to be very difficult."

The immediate question is - what is the role of the Vice-captain in the case of forwards play - if the no 5 in fact is the most important player amongst the forwards?  I am going to quote Saffex's comments on this issue - since they clarifies a lot on what Meyer said above:-

"What I dont get is why Meyer seems to think that the No 5 has to make the line-out calls. The line-out calls could be made by anyone of the forwards. Read at 8 used to make them for the AB's. Bloody hell its hardly a mathematical equation the caller has to solve before making the call.

 Lets face it Matfield stood out as a line-out jumper, for the rest, the locks tends to be of similar strength come line-out takes. A player like Juandre Kruger has hardly stood out come line-out time. He has been solid enough. So his take that the lock must be able to win his line-outs and therefore does not have to be the best player around the park, explains exactly why he sees so much in average locks like Juandre Kruger and Franco v/d Merwe - neither of which are anywhere near Matfield in the line-outs and add nothing in general play. So effectively he is selling us short, for if we are going to have a 5 that is not so great around the park, then they certainly need to be dominant line-out exponents.

 As for the No 5 being the main reciever of kick-offs, what crap, again this could be anyone of your 4, 5, 7, or 8 and certainly does not have to be your 5. Much like your 5 having to run the far side defence - again what crap. The fact that a player has 5 on his back does not mean he has to run the far side defence.

 Meyer is clearly stuck in a time warp. I player X traditionally calls the line out calls, takes the kick-offs and runs the far side defence, then dont dare expect player Y to make those calls. Hell next he will be telling us that only a flyhalf can take kick off or kick for poles"

I fully agree with the analysis of Saffex in this case.

SUMMARY

There are a couple of issues here that stood out clearly:-

*   A serious lack of appreciation and understanding on the part of backline play and a virtual total absence of taking corrective action in the relevant regard;

*   An indication that Meyer main focus on correction of backline play centers around kicking and ball recovery after breakdowns; and even more seriously,

*   The statement made in the past by Carpetmuncher to the effect that likened Meyer to a primary school teacher that has defined a text book according to which each player is to perform and what their roles are - leaving no space for innovation by the players (eg the role of the no 5 Lock being an example).

IS THE LATTER WHAT IS REQUIRED FROM A MODERN RUGBY COACH?   COMMENTS PLEASE.  

I started this thread in the early hours of this monring and then decided to complete it later.  I would like to get comments as to what I wrote above and am looking forward to it.

You should have slept a little longer Mike. When has anybody but the number 5 lock, your main jumper, called the Bok lineout? As for him being the main kickoff receiver.....he is....watch some games. This is just a long, hard to follow diatribe designed to make Meyer look bad. It's a South African tradition, but taken to this extreme, is rather unattractive.

Mozart

Two observations.  as to catching balls after kick offs - it depends entirely where the balls are about to land.  If the no 5 lock is the nearest - otherwise anyone else would catch the ball.   To say he is the main catcher is absolute rubbish.

Secondly - does it take 2 to 3 years to learn to make line-out calls?   Why is number 5 your main jumper?   I checked the stats of the four SA teams who played in Super 15 over the weekend and the following was the case.

Stormers  -  4 out of 11

Sharks     -   2 out of 9

Cheetahs -   4 out of 16

Bulls         -   2 out of 10

Only in the case of the Stormers the number of balls taken by no 5 is equal to the number of no 4.   In all other cases  5 took a small fraction of the balls taken by other players.  I think the story of the no 5 lock being the main jumper is also a fabrication  based on the Mattfield era and dead and buried long ago.  Is that the reason why Meyer hangs onto it as if it is gospel?   Matter of fact a player at 5 nowadays loses the tussle for the ball more than anybody else in line-outs.  In the case of Kruger it is worse - because he is really not the best line-out lock around.

It is exactly that type of argument that makes Meyer inept in his statements and consequently in his selections.   

In any event the above comes from ESPN Scrum and as it does not fit your argument it is bound to be ignored.

Just on more question - is there anything I said in reference to Meyer that was not in statements made by him?   He said what I wrote and his resultant actions did not prrove to be successful correction - now was it? 

I did not used this to discredit Meyer in any way - I mentioned his statements and tried to analyze what happened afterwards.  If there was any discrediting done - it was done by Meyer himself in making the statements as quoted. 

You miss the point Mike....number 5 makes the call and sets the tempo for the lineout. It's a harder ball to take, because it is more contested. So you fake with 5 a lot of the time and throw short or long.  Five remains the focal point for lineouts and being in the middle is best positioned to make the calls. I repeat my question, when have the Boks not used 5 to make the calls.....or for that matter which S15 team uses another player other than 5 to make the calls. I'm asking perhaps there is one, but I'm not aware of that circumstance.

Ou Maaik. The essence of the number 5 is not taking the kick-offs. It is also not about taking the balls in the line-out. Maybe you should have taken Mozart's advice and slept a little longer, because you totaly missed Meyer's point about the line-outs. There is a reaosn why he mentioned Bekker (and Juandre Kruger). They did not become good no 5's in two/three years, because there is a lot more to it. Matfield was also not a world class lock after his third year in the game. This is the no 5's role in the line-outs:

1. Organising the line-outs.
2. Making the call as to where the ball is to be thrown.
3. He runs the far-side defence
4. He takes the line-out balls
5. He receives kick-offs.

Which other player in SA, is anywhere near where Victor was when he was "on his last legs" as a test player? Not even Andries Bekker, IMO. Bekker has improved a lot since last year, and maybe it had a bit to do with the fact that he was now formally out of Matfield's shaddow. I don't know. I have been a great Bekker basher, and I make no secret of it, but I am prepared to accept that he has been very good last year and even better this year thus far, but still he is no Matfield, at the same age. That leaves us with the question. Who is our new Bekker/Matfield in every sence of the word? Remember that Matfield was also a successful Bok Captain. As they say in Afrikaans: "Ons kan maar hoes, poep of kakpraat" but the likes of Matfield, Bakkies, and even a Danie Rossouw is not going to be filled very soon. The youngsters are there, and they have the potential, but they are not there yet.

 The Kings and Cheetahs 5's do not make the line-out calls

Who does Dave....I'm curious

 Anyone could call a lineout, even the wing or fullback.

However would it not be more pragmatic to a have the key jumper (number5) make the call?

Anyone could take kick offs, but the same logic applies.

The number5 is the tallest and the best in the air. 

They also have experience jumping high with their support props near them, giving the highest chance of securing the ball. (the number5 jumper will typically have the best support prop standing beside them prior to kick off, or even holding their shorts to support the jump.

A hooker typically makes the call when the ball should be into the scrum.(by tapping the looseheads props shoulder to tell the scrumhalf).

A heart surgeon could fix a broken drain, but would you want a plumber to complete your heart surgery. 

It is just a case of specialization

-

In most cases the number 4 lock will stand near the front of the lineout with one prop in front of him, and the another behind him.

Throwing to the number4 lock is usually done on defensive moves as it the shortest throw and the easiest to secure. 

Throwing further back in the lineout is better for attacking moves, but is harder as the throw is longer. 

The further the throw, the more chance of an overthrow and the ball going t the wrong jumper or even the opposition.

Hey ou maaaikie can you provide an executive summary.

I am a busy man. Seesm ou maaaikie was having a nightmare again. I wonder about his mental health!!!

Ou maaaikie try and think positive. Think about good things - like how great the Mighty Stormers are etc.

Thanks

Ceradyne

Suddenly it appears as if the no 5 player is the most important player on the field of play and over-shadows the captain and the Vice-Captain as well.   Maybe it was so while Meyer coached the Bulls - because Mattfield was his captain.   But does that makes the situation still the same. 

Saffex said that Meyer is called in a time-worp and still thinks about rugby the same way he thinks ten years ago.   Mattfield was no doubt his key player - but does that mean the no 5 player today should be accorded the same position at all.    A number of questions arises:-

*   The Vice-Captain under Meyer was the Hooker - has he no say in line-out organization?  Really far-fetched that one.   Maybe applicable when the captain was no 5 in the team,

*   Line-out calls - again a hangover from the  Mattfield era - not necessarily a holy law - other teams do not use the 5

*    Organising defence - This is a joke - Mattfield as captain did it - why did it  autommatically passed to his successors, especially since they are not the Captain or VC

*    The no 5 actually rarely take line-out balls - others do it much more frequently

*    He receives kick-offs - so do 14 other players on the field.

Meyer should be well-advised - forget about Mattfield and move to the present decade.   What he is saying relates entirely to what Mattfield did as captain - it has nothing to do with the present scenario. 

However, there are other statements made by Meyer - what about them?

*   

Moz, for the Kings, Sykes makes the calls at 4, not sure who makes the calls for the Cheetahs, as their 5 is really a flanker, but then again de Jager at 4 is a baby. I might be wrong, Uys at 5, might make the calls.

More often than not, the 5 does make the line-out calls, but its not a hard and fast rule that he has to. The ideal candidate is one with brains, not something one often finds in the tightfive!!

Mozart

I have no problem with 5 making the calls - since he is in the middle of the line-out - but does it need three years to learn how to make calls.   You said no 5 is the main jumper - real crap - he is not.   The other roles so importantly the other "functions"   of a number 5 are all crap - they were Mattfield functions as a captain - not automaticlly the functions of the five - letting the 5 supersede the functions of the Captain and Vice-Captain is crazy.

This debate confirm more than ever the impression that Meyer still mentally thinks like he did in 2004-05 and forgot that circumstances and players have changed since tthen.   Not an ideal situation - that one.

Number 5 is the main jumper is "real crap"....Oom Maaik, I used to think you were a polite guy. But it turns out you are not.

Mozart

Sorry if I upset you about my word usage.   I am not and never intended to insult you personally.  

Let me get back to the real issue here.   I agree with you that Meyer is a decent guy and that he is probably as capable as any other expereienced coach to take charge of the Springbok team.   

However, I believe Meyer's main problem is the way he deals with issues in public statements.   He may mean it entirely differently and honestly - but what he says has implications that could lead to a variety of interpretations and impressions that he may not have intended in the first place.

Maybe Meyer should prepare himself better for public statements and realize that what he says could be open to all kinds of interpretations.  He should as far as possible avoid to issues like for instance  kicking - because although he might not think so - it may be interpreted that he regards that as the only improtant functions of some players like the scrummie and flyhalf.

The one major area where I believe he falls short in is his dealing with the backline play that has been a negative issue for years now.   He states that there are problems - but I really think stronger actions than what he says are to follow are necessary in this case.   Why not a presentation to SARU and the appointment of backline experts that could enhance the capacities of present players and identify future top backline players and develop their skills further?   

Not upset Oom Maaik...just bemused that you have become so shrill...and about something so accepted as the leadership role of the number 5 lock.

Mike, I agree with Mozart when he says: "Not upset Oom Maaik...just bemused that you have become so shrill...and about something so accepted as the leadership role of the number 5 lock."

You are making too much of nothing. you are hellbenty om criticizing anything and everything about HM, or anybody that you dislike for that matter. You take everyting that you can find and then disect it to the minutest of detail, so that you can rip the person apart.

I am not even going to continue with the argument about the 5 lock and the gap that Matfield has left, because that is the essence of the story. He does not have the luxury of a Matfield at the moment. Yet, you are bitching about his statements.

The very first sentence of your reply has given me enough confirmation that you have made up your mind and that is it. "Suddenly it appears as if the no 5 player is the most important player on the field of play and over-shadows the captain and the Vice-Captain as well". That was never said or implied. What is the use of debate, then?

Ceradyne

Did you actually read my last message in reponse to Mozart's comments?   I do not regard the lock issue as critical at all.   What I did say is that Meyer makes some statements that can be wrongly interpreted - as mine was perhaps in this case.   No doubt Meyer was bearing  Mattfield's role in the Bulls team at the time he coached the Bulls  as an example of what could be expected from a no 5 lock.   The interpretation of what he said may have gone awry from an interpretation perspective.. 

In any event - my gripe is in fact not with the lock issue - but rather with the backline problems.   That is where I really believe we struggled for years now.   As stated I would rather see that this aspect be assigned as high a priority as the breakdown issue and that they start with a genuine recovery and upgrading programme for backline players.

It seems that the key problem remains the center situation.   It seems that the Sharks backline has completely collapsed and reading between the lines - I think Plumtree is about to give up on  ever getting Frncois Steyn back to full fitness.   If he does recover - he will probably be at full back - but for some reason or other - Plumtree has found him unacceptable in that position as well.

Insofar as the center situation is concerned - I think the key player at this stage is De Villiers.   In any real upgrading process there seems to be only a minimal number of players to take and try to develop furhter.   Here I think the following are really the only ones to consider:-

   *    Serfontein and De Allende; with outside chances to

   *    Whitehead, Engelbrecht and Jordaan.

De Jongh showed some signs of life from an attacking perspective - but his defence has collapsed to an unaccpetable level an his recent test performances in the EOYT last year were dismal.   Chances of him becoming and all-round good center is totally out - I believe.

I really think that they should take the five centers mentioned above - and put them through a high priority development programme - with key expert advisors and see whether a solution to that programme should not produce the required results of back-up for De Villiers at 12 and filling of the 13 position with an appropriate player.

As to the wing situation - we actually also have limited resources and the younger players like Rhule and even Mvovo needs fiurther upgrading as well - so as to have adequate cover for Habana and Pietersen.    

Lets rather in debating the issues raised - look at the backline situation comprehensively - and forget about trying to coach people on kicking skills and leave the rest  unattended..