Stop the experimentation madness

Who are your five that should not have been on the field?

Serious question. Not taking the piss.

KC

There is a lot of truth in what you say as to what happened over the last 14 years and the main problem is that PROVEN PERFORMANCE has become out of fashion when coaches selected teams.

Some coaches are better than others in that regard.   Take for instance White who became coach in 2004,   He selected new players and although the White squad had difficulties in 2006 - he stuck with the players he identified and they really delivered the goods.

The coaches after that went awry.  De Villiers used the players identified by White and when he started having to replace them - permanent or temporarily - he lost the plot.   In the end the senior players took over from him and did everything to protect   their own interests.   The result was the fiasco in the 2011 WC.

Meyer made some really interesting comments in the period he was coach.    He inter alia said the following when it comes to selection:-

*     He said he picks players on the basis of  whether he is familiar with them (hence the picks of Blue Bulls in 2012).

*     He said that SA backline layers do not have the "Ball Skills"  to play a ball-in-hand game and his game plans were structured accordingly.   That in the main limited backline usage massively and only defense became a real issue.

*    He said that he selects players on the basis that he is "aware of what they are capable of "  -  but then did not add when the players really did not show those capabilities by 2015.

The result of Meyer's  selection approach caused massive problems for his successors.   Too many of his WC squad members were retiring after the series and too many inexperienced players had to be used as a result of injuries and his selection nightmares. 

Coetzee was a disaster at the Stormers after the departure of Erasmus as Director of rugby and he carried that disaster into his coaching job of the Springboks,   Instead of finding players to solve real issues - his selections became chaotic and he in fact  made the problems inherited from Meyer even worse.

I am not sure which five players Erasmus picked for the test on Saturday you refer to as "experimental".    The non-selection of Le Roux and De Klerk was forced onto him - so are Willemse and Van Zyl - two of the five you refer to?   Who are the other three?     

White was never a coach to hand out easy caps. On the 2006 EOYT he did leave out certain players he felt were overplayed though. White was not one or discard tests for experimentation. He rested players in the last two Tri Nations games of 2007, which almost worked. Either way, he never sacrificed tests specifically for experiments. 

Pieter experimented on the 2009 EOYT, which failed. We lost to Saracens and Leicester. We also lost to France and Ireland. Overall, Pieter played core players into the ground.

Meyer blooded a lot of new players. He was the coach who inherited a team who had a lot of retirements and huge gaps. He also presided over an era where test quality material wasn't easily found. He left behind Damian, Kriel, Willie, Eben, Malherbe, Pollard, Duane, Lood, Kolisi, Beast, Louw, Lambie, Jantjies e t al, who the fans were happy with. He left behind more talent and experience than he inherited. All of the above, Lambie aside, are used to this day. 

Coetzee did more chopping and changing. However, he expanded the player pool, which Rassie has benefitted from. 

AO

Can you not read properly.   By the time the WC of 2015 came along there was a long list of newbies with 5 or less starting selections in the squad.   Due to injuries and disastrous performances  Meyer  ended up with having to play totally inexperienced players  to start  in the WC.   

The long list of has-beens and never-has beens retiring  created gaps in the Springbok team after he left himself.   Accept for a few players like Etzebeth, Willie and Duane - the other players on his list were all Russian Rolette players - in and out regularly.

By the way Louw and Lambie  played their first tests before   Meyer became coach, 

Your defense of Meyer is based on skyscraping dreams - not reality,

Bump

KC

I am afraid Erasmus did not have an option as to Willemse and the scrummies.   The other players had minimal game time from the benc h, 

KC

I am afraid Erasmus did not have an option as to Willemse and the scrummies.   The other players had minimal game time from the benc h, 

That is the problem, who would you rather have as our scrummies. Take somebody that just won the CC in Shcreuder and has been around for a while or a complete newby in Papier who has shown nothing of his potential. 

Frans Steyn was a freak when he came on as a 19 year old and so was JP Pietersen, but both these players were performing week in week out for their provinces. 

I also think Papier was responsible for a pass that went behind in the dying minutes which resulted old Andre Carhorzen to try and rumble it up while running sideways. 

The case of full back, but Kriel could have done the job. He is defensively sound and did actually really well as a 15 for the bulls and had one of the most running meters and has a decent boot. 

That would have meant that we would have some experience in the back 3. 

Not sure I agree with this, but Duh Allende never freed his hands or looked for a support runner. 

our backline option could have been

9 Van Zyl, Pollard, Nkosi, Duh Allende, Nel, Dyanti, Kriel

or

9. Shcreuder, 10 Jantjies, 11 Nkosi, 12 Pollard, 13 Du Allende 14 Deyanti 15 Kriel

My point is why are persisting with youngsters. 

Surely we need to build a culture of earning the right. 

In the case of Kolbe, in the early days I was hugely against him as a test player as he only could attack, but never had any defence and easily brushed off against bigger wings. He also had a poor kicking game and often failed to relieve the pressure. 

But he has taken his medicine and now a way more complete player, but only 24. Imagine if we had to bring him in at 21. He would have been ruined by now. 

I fear for Willemse future as well as paper. They run the risk of being labelled quotas. 

Rassie would have been better off arranging some dirt track matches in the mid week to test his wider squad and even through in a couple of barbarian games for them. 

I agree too...except for Bongi I think he is a decent pick. I would have preferred Acker, but Bongi normally plays well...I like Willemse, but it's too soon. Papier looks a good prospect too, but too soon again...Van Zyl..no!...Lood, fine to give him play time from the bench, but it backfired a bit.

Kingcorn

Sorry I do not agree.   De Jager played in the SR series till M ay and was top class.   I am afraid that he made a mistake by getting stripped of the ball when two players went for a tackle on him - but I still think that Erasmus view him as the ideal lock partner for Etzebeth and had to start by playing him from the bench.

Ja, Rassie also started Eben straight back from injury and that didn't backfire, so IMO, picking Lood and Snyman on the bench wasn't that big a blunder...normally only one lock on the bench, so Raszie had it covered.

Lood is a liability. He played as he always does. He is a flat track bull y. When he encounters a team ready to fight, or with muscle, he folds. He couldn't even clear rucks against the depleted English side. Whiteley, who is often said to be too weak, was vastly more physical as a carrier, defender and at the breakdown. 

This from the fool who did not want to see that there were two efforts when the ball went to Etzebeth on Saturday and the effort to form effective rolling mauls failed both times.  Will you ever learn anything about the game of rugby?   

Here are two examples how Mozart assess performances:-

1   Etzebeth tries to barge through and loses the ball.

2    Lomp's last fumble cost us our final shot at a win. 

Etzebeth's possession loss is mentioned - but there is no mention about the consequence of the loss so it caused nothing negative - in the case of De Jager the opposite is stated. 

Try and get honest for a change.