Why? He doesn't read the game as well, he loses the ball in contact, he makes half the tackles, he can't throw a long pass. But I'll concede he is more biblical . So if you like your loosies to look like Charlton Heston, go for Strauss. If you prefer to choose a world class flank, who showed in the Aussie QF that he is still a huge contributor choose Schalk.
If you want versatility as a utility player, chose Strauss. If you want change, choose Strauss. If you want to give someone a fair go, chose Strauss. What do you have to lose?
Moz he lost one ball in contact, now you have down as habitual - come on. They are similar players, Josh being younger, bigger and a better leader. I have never had Schalk down as a reader of the game, anything but - the lad puts his body on the line, head down with very little thought process involved.
Strauss on the charge, makes more ground through contact than Schalk does as he is bigger and stronger. Josh drives players back in the tackle, more so than Schalk does - again this is down to his superior physicality. Josh represents to future, Schalk the past - its time to move on and Strauss looks like our only true leader after the departure of Smit. Its a close call between Schalk and Josh, but I'd go with the 25 year old
Both of these players are overrated. Schalk though actually does offer more. Strauss is weak on defence, very slow, has incredibly poor hands for a modern loose forward, he pops up for the odd carry which amounts to nothing, I have seen no on-field leadership from him at all.
Saffex, something Schalk does do well is sum up situations. He pops up at the right place and his linking play is very good. He just doesn't bring the physicality that his fanboys claim. It's ironic that Mozart actually started backing as his powers started to wane, which was since 2010. In fact, looking at a couple of 2005 TNs games in 2005 and even then it was apparant that as a carrier he is largely ineffective. In the past World Cup he was again largely overrated. He was actually eclipsed by Brussow, that being on defence, on the ground, ball in hand and as a link. Spies just about edged him as well.
With regards captaincy? Neither player has the look of a Bok captain. Strauss doesn't even have Bok material written on him. He looks like a Currie Cup player struggling to find his feet at Super level. Spies though is looking like a much better candidate much to my surprise. There are many merits to have an eighth man as captain. I think Heyneke might go down this road.
Card, everything you say about Josh is complete rubbish - its the opposite of what I see in him, hence my summation - complete rubbish.
As for Schalk, he brings plenty of physicality to the game
What physicality? A big thud that pushes him back a step? On defence he is very good, but not because of his physicality. Not one of our more robust players, that's for sure.
Well I trust you will tell us Bismark brings no physicality to the game? If Schalk does not bring physicality, then no-one does. Yes the thuds into players and makes a bit of an impression, nothing profound, but its go forward - my point with Josh is that on the this point he makes more of an impact when he takes contact than Schalk does - more yards are made
The only attribute that Bismarck brings is raw strength. Schalk though is not amongst our most physical players. Strauss is not much of an impact as carrier.
Ah so in your wisdom, who does make an impact as a carrier if Schalk and Josh do not?
If Schalk and Bissie are not physical players indeed who are? Both are extremely physical players. Bissie in particular is amazingly strong given he is a tight forward battling it out often with bigger men than he is.
Burger gets stuck in for 80 minutes like NO other loose forward I have ever seen. He has phenomenal stamina.
Next you will be telling wee matfield was a physical player!!! Hahahhahahahaha. Everyone move one to the left!
Beeno, please stay on track and point out at least one person who stated that Bismarck is not strong.
Burger does have a good work rate, that does not equate to physicality. Being bumped off in contact does not equate to physicality. As a carrier Burger does not make much ground. Burger's real strengths are his positioning around the field in-spite of his lack of speed, his defence and linking amongst the backs. He has a fairly good pass. In terms of physicality, speed, handling and stamina... Brussow trumps Schalk easily. He plays with much more intensity and maintains that intensity through every season.
I am saying Bissie is very physical, intensely so. Do you agree Card?
Nobody has stated that Bismarck is freakishly strong more than I have. Unfortunately, that's where his quality ends. Raw and undirected brute force. That's my issue with him.
If you "want change"? Change to what? Change for what purpose? Why would I change a guy who has the highest work rate in the game....for the purpose of promoting a guy you wouldn't even notice on the field absent his beard?
So Schalk was not physical back in 2004. I love these little revelations by the Card.....like his laughable claim the Boks played 5 games in 2009 without a line break.
In the 2003 QF Jerry Collins was running over Corne Krige with a vengeance. On came the 20 year old Schalk and stopped Collins in his tracks. Schalk was the reason we became competitive in 2004 and a huge part of our TN win.
When Schalk got hurt in 2006 we plunged from a team who won in 2004, was within a minute of winning in 2005.....to a team that was essentially lost.
So much rubbish is talked about Schalk and Jean by the Card and others, one really wonders what these guys actually see when they watch rugby games.
Your losing your touch Moz, nobody mentioned 2004. Here's an encounter with the very same Jerry Collins you mentioned, but in the actual season I was referring to! Sacre bleu, and an excellent illustration of my accuracy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUy_PSQOiXU
If you were to quote me accurately, I know that's asking alot, but still, you would find that I always maintained Schalk had the edge over McCaw in 2004 and rightly one of our best players, neigh, rightfully player of the year. His loss in 2006 was unfortunate and I stated many times over the years that it stretched our resources significantly. That said, Jake ended the 2006 with a loose trio that overcame both Australia and New Zealand. Schalk's loss was not the only reason why we struggled though. We lost Bakkies, Van Niekerk, Pretorius, Butch, Jean, Fourie, CJ, Wannenburg, van den Berg, Paulse, Roussouw, Smith, Habana, Monty, Steenkamp and a few others throughout the 2006 campaign. His loss was noted as significant, but you are exaggerating the extent of it and wilfully ignoring many other factors.
And you also ignore the nature of my gripes with Burger. I have praised certain other attributes that he brings to the table, I'm simply stating that his reputation for physicality and his ball carrying are grossly overrated. You say I talk a lot of rubbish, I'm the only one of the two of us that is willing and able to back up my argument with substance. That says alot more about my credibility.
Your provincial bias is not one of your better qualities Moz; it's shackling your better judgement.
What I see in the three examples of Schalk running the ball up is this.....he is stopped by Collins. But there was no thought he wouldn't be.....running crash ball up against one of the hardest hitters in rugby. But there are a few addendums:
1) If the roles were reversed Schalk would have stopped Collins just as decisively.
2) Schalk was the one Bok willing to take the punishment to make the hard yards.....time and time again.
3) The ball came out quickly and under control on the Bok side....the hit was totally negated by Schalk's ball protection. Imagine if that was Strauss.
I quite agree that Schalk has immense bravery punctuated by his willingness to play with a broken neck! The issue is that of physicality. This is but one isolated occurance of Schalk not punching as hard in contact as many would believe. I can drag up examples from any year. Were the roles reversed? It's questionnable. I have watched this game in the past two months and can't recall Burger offering that kind of hit.
That last one is quite funny. Strauss would have been stretchered off. He can't even handle Ashley Johnson, much less a Jerry Collins. Strauss is a poor man's Jaques Cronje; which is saying something!
Or saying another thing Cronje is a rich man's Strauss! At least Cronje was something of an athlete. Where I will agree with you Card is the pattern in that clip shows a lot of what is wrong with Bok rugby. The NZ support keyed on Collins, who totally keyed on Schalk. A quick pass to a wider player would probably have picked up 10 more metres, but we couldn't coach a two step process.
I have to say I love the passion you two display although I must come down very hard on the Burger being one of the most physical Boks ever.
I als ohave t owonder why even last year when Schalk wa Sa player of the year certain folk were trashing him on SS board. Of course there were number of twits there who were blindly anti WP but that is not the only reason explaining this issue. I als owas shocke dtha tthis was again the case when Schalk won te IRB player of the year award. Stil ltherewere those trashing Schlak. Crazy really.
Burger is one of the all time great Bok forwards. Bissie in my opion is another. World class players in the true sense of the word.
Josh Strauss is a fine player and will at dome time play for the Boks I should think. One has to remember that Josh is still growing as a player having arrived a little late on the scene. I actually salute the Lions - they play to their potential as do the Cheetahs. sharks, bulle an Stormers have not as yet. Sorry but I dismiss the game against the reds out of hand as having little real meaning.
If we are being quite honest, Burger was not as integral to the Boks last year as most would believe. I'm not saying he was poor, but in at least three of those games he was eclipsed by Brussow and there was not much between them at Spies alot of the time.
As for Bismarck? He has done nothing of note. I believe he had two strong carries. One of which was out wide against backs around our 22. No big hits and not much of a presence at the breakdown (he is quite consistent in that regard). World class? Definitely not. At best 15-20th best test hooker. At his very best though.
Can't agree. Brussouw apart from the NZ home test was ineffective in 2011. Take the Welsh test at the RWC. He was blown off the ball, outfetched by Warburton.....carried for zero metres and made 15 out of 15 tackles and no turnovers. But Schalk made 16 out of 16 tackles, while carrying for 24 metres and made one turnover.....and I guarantee you, Schalk was much more of a factor in the mauls. Of course poor useless Susspies made only 11 tackles and no metres.
Schalk consistently provides the energy that powers the Bok machine....without him we have no torque.
Moz, Brussouw spent most of 2011 injured and was rushed into the WC, so a true judge of him last year is not really possible. What we can take from this years S15 performances is that he is back to his best.
Without Brussouw, the Boks are stuffed. We cannot afford to play modern day test rugby without a true fetcher and Brussouw is our only option. Schalk and Louw are poor excuses for fetchers - both are quality blindside flankers
Dave I don't disagree. Schalk ceased being an effective fetcher after his neck injury. And Brussouw in 2009 form was a giant. But is this S15 a good read, he also looked good in some of the RWC run up matches....only to bomb at the event.
My own guess is that his body wont allow him to acheive that 2009 form again. He is a small engine that has been running in the red line too long. I have huge respect for him, but small hopes for his future rugby career.
The Welsh test was a farce, another one-sided reffing display. But that said, Brussow was still a big presence. He has been a big presence in every test. He outclassed Schalk in that Samoa test in particular!
As for him not having the ability to physically deal with rugby? That's utter nonsense. He has been hands down our most dynamic loose forward this year with the highest work rate of all our players! his work on defence has been in-human, and his general play world class. I don't think I have ever seen a player with more stamina than him. Your call on 2009 in comparison to preceding years is incorrect. The IRB deliberately depowered the defending side at the breakdown to allow the attacker more freedom in taking contact. Not only this, but the refs have been mandated to side with the attacker rather than the defender. Brussow cannot be relied upon to pilfer ball like a fetcher could in 2009; that said he still does his job very well. his ability to disrupt the opposition at the breakdown is immense and it went a long way to keeping the Cheetahs in that game. As things stand, he is far and away our best loose forward.
Samoa is hardly the point is it? But even there Schalk missed no tackles in 16, while Brussouw missed 2 in 18. As for the other two games, Brussouw was outplayed by Warburton and Pocock. I think you'd find any objective observer believing that.
You might also ask yourself whether Brussouw was great in 2009 because our pack was dominant that year. I still believe the pack that applies more physical power to the rucks and mauls, is the pack that tends to have the dominant fetcher.
