The above two respected members loves to make sweeping statements in support of dodgy arguments and one of the most interesting ones are the following:-
Sun Tzu
Not enough game time? Utter nonsense. JJ ended the year with 9 test caps, that is more than enough. On the other hand, Habana needed 1, Morne needed 1, Schalk needed 1, Frans needed 1, as did Van Niekerk, Matfield, Butch, Du Preez, Juan, Brussow, Fourie, Etzebeth... the list goes on and on and the take home message is that great players, even adequate ones, do not need years before they show their "potential". The Boks, neigh, no sporting code, can afford that length of time. It's simply an excuse people use to bat off criticism aimed at their favourite player and divert the blame to the coach. How long will it be before humans concede moral relativism simply doesn't work, coddling oneself in a self-weaved deception is never the solution. JJ failed, Lambie failed, Goosen failed, Jantjies failed, Bekker failed. No fault can be directed anywhere but these players themselves, they had the chance to prove themselves and were found wanting.
Mozart
Agreed Sun, you are spot on as usual. Almost every great fullback, wing, centre, flyhalf, scrum half, hooker, flank and eigthman in Bok history has started positively, if not explosively. Almost every poor starter has not recovered in subsequent tests and gradually disappeared......guys like Basson, Olivier,Cronje etc. We continue playing these guys, often by necessity....but they are never satisfactory.
I would make a slight exception for locks and props....particularly props. Technical skills do require some experience at top level. That said Etzebeth was explosive from the start, even though he continues to get better.
DISCUSSION
Aside from the fact that Sun Tzu mentioned some dodgy players like Morne Steyn (who never really matured into anything that could be classified as good) and Juan (I am sure he meant De Jongh - mentioned earlier in the thread by him and a favourite of Mozart too - a complete failure as a Springbok if ever there was one) in the dame breath as soe other top players
According to Sun Tzu the " the list goes on and on" and our local antiquated thinking sage Mozart jump into the fray with "Sun, you are spot on as usual"
The above two sages have some really weird ideas about who they regard as failed players and who should be classified as successful players. They are also two of the worst one-game or worst still one-incident junkies imaginable. One incident in a game is sufficient to create an idea that the player is a great performer and that stays with them for years and is quoted endlessly.
The cases where players have been "good or explosive" in their first test is a rarity that really never occurred. Most players show signs that they can develop - but their first matches are a step on a long road to built up performances. Problem is that aside from Morne Steyn, Du Preez - he was wicked in his first few tests in 2005 (especially the Murrayfield and Twickenham tests where I was a spectator), Frans Steyn (his defence in the WC final was a nightmare that could have cost us the Cup), etc. Some players mentioned did show early signs of development - had good games over a period and went into serious decline - WHICH AT PRESEBT SGOULD NOT BE IN THE TEAM OR EVEN CANDIDATES FOR SELECTION.
Where Mozart gets it wrong in rhetoric "Almost every great fullback, wing, centre, flyhalf, scrum half, hooker, flank and eigthman in Bok history has started positively, if not explosively. Almost every poor starter has not recovered in subsequent tests and gradually disappeared".
Lets look at facts. Since 1992 there were 297 players who have been selected for the Springbok team - how many have these two gurus listed? Very few - amongst them some abject failures - whilst amongst the 297 players there has been many with indifferent starts - who developed into top players.
One thing is clear - when these two said a player had a good game watch out - that player buggered up badly or did nothing during games.
