Stop the crazy position changing carnage

This is a serial Bok occupation. We have two good players at one position....and we try and turn the least favoured player into something else. Think about the list of failures:

Smit to prop

JP to centre

Hougaard to scrummie

Pienaar to scrummie

Assorted locks like Rossouw to enforcer loosies

Spies to 8th man

AJ Venter to lock

James to centre

Frans to flyhalf

Braam to centre

Monty to flyhalf

Taute to centre

Delport to wing

Snyman to wing

Paulse to fullback

Brent Russel to flyhalf

Pretorius to fullback

The list goes on and on. The lucky ones are the guys, like JP, who revert quickly to their natural positions. The unlucky ones....guys like Pienaar, dragged kicking and screaming into positions they didn't want to play....only to be declared failures in their new roles.

It's not a physical thing.....the player is what his mind tells him he is. JP might have looked like a potentially great 13.....but he had no clue how to defend at that position......his software told him to push players towards the sidelines. He struggled with head on defence.

Leave these guys at their natural position....and if we have two great scrummies....count your lucky stars.

 Many of these players original positions were the ones listed as the changes. 

Brent Russell and Frans Steyn both started as flyhalfs. Pienaar was a scrummie that was moved to Flyhalf.

Smit to loosehead prop was fine, it was at tighthead a disaster.

Roussow was excellant at lock and loose forward in most games.

Percy would probably have been a better flyhalf in his latter years than a fullback

braam was just useless where ever he played, and was the only kicking option at the time. They moved him from flyhalf to cause less damge, much like the experiment last year of moving morne steyn to fullback.

Snyman could not pass to save his life, and was faster than most wings.

Moving from wing to fullback is not major- it is pretty routine for most in their career to shift between the 2 positions.

Steve Larkam from Fullback to flyhalf was a master stroke.

Mozart

Some movement of people in positions make sense and basically because yoiu occassionally find that players can in fact play effectively in different positions without too much damage to their careers - Larkham was a typical player that could fit in in other positions - but that is indeed a rarity.

Some moves are disastrous and can affect the whole playing career of players - an example being JP Pietersen.   His passing and defence games at center was poor - with the result that he could have gone under in the process.   When placed alongside a top 13 like Jordaan - he suddenly blossomed as is evidenced by his try on Saturday - as well as the one scored by Jordaan.    

We are indeed lucky that this Board is not read by the selectors - especially since some of the contributors want to move players all over the team to create vacancies for their favoured players.

SHark it doesn't matter where they played first......it matters where they succeed first. And I disagree with almost every one of your claims.

Rossouw was far too ponderous as a loose forward...Spencer's exploitation of that was a big factor in our 2003 RWC loss.

Brent was a highway at 10....he succeeded at wing in test rugby.

Frans is far too slow on the kick at 10....he got charged routinely.

Snyman had all his best tests in 98 at centre.

Smit was never a good loosehead...he hung on by the skin of his teeth. Looseheads are supposed to provide pressure.

Mike..... Larham moved early and succeeded....one of the few. Christian Cullen by contrast was a great 15 and a disastrous centre. Wilson was a dominant wing and a fumbling fullback.. Giteau was a fine centre and a useless scrummie.....etc, etc.

Exactly Sharkbok - Hougaard has always been a 9 and will continue to be one. Taute played 13 at school and for the Baby Boks for 2 seasons. JP started as a 15 and was good at 13, Russell played most of his career as a 10, certainly did at Selborne and for much of his time in SA

So because he was a schoolboy scrumhalf, he has the credentials to play test scrummie.....oh boy. The evidence was right there to see in the Saders game.Why the hell do you think they subbed on Vermaak at minute 45....because Hougaard was winning the battle at 9? Nope they realized they had to get some snap in the passing and Hougaard was better deployed to the wing. 

I do not like to go into history in this case.    Lets agree in rare cases it may be possible to move players from one position without disrupting their professional careers.  However, to claim that school boy rugby - and even Under 20 Rugby is indicative that the situation should continue to professional rugby is a fallacy.   After all - as a school boy Etzebeth played in the backline - and who in their right minds would play him there now?

Elsewhere a theory was written about another idiocy - namely to play Marcel Coetzee as a center - but I think that was more as a joke and not with real intent.   Meyer would laugh his head off if somebody even suggest that to him.

I think the general position here is that the argument ranged around a few present players - and would like to mention them in particular:-

Spies - there is general agreement that his move to number 8 from wing did not produce the desired results.   He is speedy - the overhauling of Whitehead is proof of that - but Whitehead is not the fastest player around.   He has not got the forward drive requuired from a no 8.   Has oit ever happened that he contested for the ball in suitable situations - I have never seen it myself - but others may have.   I would say the move was a plan by his coaches to move him in an effort to utilize his services better - but it did not work out as expected - so it was a flop.

Hougaard   - The movement from wing to sscrummie was also an emergeny measure - because the first choice scrummie (Fourie Du Preez) was not available.   Hougaard is an abrasive player - but that is not what a scrummie should be.   Because he is not a natural scrummie - his service to the backline is erratic and so is his box kicking - too many charged down and too many ineffective.   While a ten man game was on - he could be a scrummie - a very average one at that.- to allow for flyhalf to stand way back and kick the ball.    Although he is better than in the case of the movement of Spies - he has deficiencies as a scrummie and should preferably not play in that position.   On the other hand we do not really have top scrummies around - with the rare exxception of Pienaar.   McCleod was atrocious on Saturday - really the weak link in the high performnce Sharks team - while the other candidates are very average at best.   Despite that general deficiency I would still not play Hougaard as first choice scrummie.   He is not a  good enough scrummie.

The one player I am worries about is Francois Steyn.   He got much heavier and much stronger than he was in 2007 - and although very strong - his speed has gone down considerably and he is nowadays a better crash ball player than a really fast and effective center.    However, he does have the real instincts to play at center and he remains one of the leading 12's in the world.   We have none better and he remains my first choice 12.

The ideal situation should be never to move a top performing player to another position and create obstacles in his professional career that could be avoided.   Moving a player from 6 - 7 is OK - but plaease do not move him out of his comfort zone - it could cost the team and himself dearly.  Never move a top performing player to artificially create vacancies for other players.   That I believe should be the norm.  

Oh boy Moz - the reason Hougaard went to the wing was because Basson got injured. There was nothing wrong with Hougaards service at all - never has been and nothing changed in terms of service when Vermaak came on

Oh boy Moz - the reason Hougaard went to the wing was because Basson got injured. There was nothing wrong with Hougaards service at all - never has been and nothing changed in terms of service when Vermaak came on

 and everyone forgets the greatest positional change in the modern game.

shane williams - From Scrumhalf to wing.

the biggest problem with those changes was the rugby administrators and coaches were and to a lesser extent just clue less of how certain players function. if one has a look at the list its mostly backline players that the coaches tried to move but they are just clueless to understand that a simple move from one jumper to another is far more complex and just a simple move. NZ and aussies can coach that changes to there respective players because they understand the dynamics of running lines ext ext. we dont and that is the sad part. for me the biggest failure must be pierre spies to what i think could been one the best wingers this country has ever seen. could almost have been a lomu style winger but offered a lot more with the ball in hand and skill wise and stepping wise. he could have been a lot more i feel

Sapp.....Hougaard never went to wing when Basson got injured. That happened at minute 37, with Venter coming on....not Vermaak.

You are correct, thats when JJ went to wing and Venter to centre. Hougaard replaced the injured Ndungane and Vermaak went to 9