Great to see Taute at 13, where I have wanted to see him all along. We need Taute showing what he is made of at 13 where he played all his schoolboy and Baby Bok rugby.
His rugby style is perfect for 13 - good pace, strength, swerve and step - and the lad is always looking for work. Its just a pity he is playing for the average Lions
Yes it will be of great interest and could help some here get over their fixation with De Jong. If Frans and taute are the future centers then lambie goes to 15 and Goosen and Elton fight it out for the flyhalf berth.
Should concentrate on center as well. In Taute, Frans, JP and possibly Saidie our center combos are assured for years to come barring injury.
Some crucial decisions looming as how best to configure the Bok backline and ensure we have depth in all the positions.
Agreed Beeno - we need to move on from the old boys like Jean, Fourie, Habana, Morne and du Preez..........time to invest in the youngsters coming through. Lambie at 15, JP and Mvovo on the wing, Frans and Taute at centre, Jantjies and Goosen fighting it out for 10 and Hougaard at 9. Sadie will hopefully prove a gem and come into the centre equation as well.
Hmmm, when selecting your centre pair, it's best to go over their attributes as a unit and how best they fill the requirements of what a centre pair are supposed to do. With Frans we have a every facet of inside centre play covered to the highest degree and with de Jongh we have the only outside centre that is creating space for his wings. In a better run backline de Jongh would flourish. Alas, in dom Afrika he is being wasted. The modern game requires pace and skills at 13. Your 13 is ultimate playmaker Smith and O'Driscoll. I've seen enough of Taute to know he is no Bok 13.
Ah Card you back in form. Telling us that de Jongh is the answer at 13 while Taute has no hope - you really are clueless aren't you? Why am I not shocked that you dont think Taute would make a good 13 - its a take which adheres to your pathetic takes on Lambie, Bismark, Jean and Morne.
de Jongh is a complete and utter insult as a potential Bok 13. Given your deep knowledge please enlighten me on why you think Taute will not make a 13 - I look forward to your take for it will be complete bullshit and I will take pleasure in countering every featherweight point you raise on the anti Taute at 13.
The fact that you dont rate Jean and rate de Jongh highly already places you at a massive disadvantage in the credibility stakes when it comes to your assertions of centre play. Take your time........wee de Jongh as Bok 13, bwhaaahaaaaa
Ah and in case you did not know, its your 12 that is the playmaker not your 13. In case you did not know 12 is the most important position in the backline - the playmaker, the creator - your 13 is there to run off the creativity of your 12. The basics of backline play.
I never said that de Jongh is the answer; I see no reason to relegated Fourie just yet. I said he deserves a shot and offers more than any other 13 so far.
As for 13, your 13 sets up your wings and fullback (Smith, O'Driscoll). Therefore your 13 is one of the most important players for expansive game. Your 12 on the other hand has the greatest ability to create space. Hence the highly successful combination of Nonu and Smith. One of the All Blacks favourite plays uses Nonu as a decoy and they play past him and their outside backs into play. Your inflexible thinking is showing up again! Your 10 and 12 are key decision makers though. Now that you tell me that 12 is THE most important position in the backline; then please explain why Morne is THE biggest liability on attack and why Jean failed so spectacularly over the last five and a half years and that is of little to no significance. I really have to hear this one.
Same old, same old...anyone who disagrees with you or your selections knows nothing about the game...Geez, I really am tired of hearing that most arrogant line. What makes your selections so perfectly right all of the time, Dave? ......it comes across as Dave says it is, I'm right and if it differs from mine it's wrong!
De Jongh was much better than Taute.
Moz please dont make it up - de Jongh did absolutely stuff all as did Taute as neither got any ball in a traditional 13 sense. de Jongh got more ball that Taute who I dont think got the ball from his 12 at all. de Jongh did absolutely nothing with the ball he got.
Please dont insult Taute by judging his performance at 13 given he got no ball at all or if he did it was once or twice in traffic - give it a break
Denny do me a favour and shut the fuck up - stop moaning like an old woman, its pathetic
Well Card given your take on Jean is so poor and off the mark, how the hell do you expect me to answer your stupid question. We all know Jean has been great at 12 for the Boks - but hey ho, you are the lone ranger here with your warped views on his abilities.
Any coach will tell you 12 is the most important position in the backline. Brian Ashton emphasised that very point in a session we had with him last season.
12 is your creative player who ignites those outside him, he should create with his 13 running off him and your 13 feeding your wings - not your fullback unless your fullback joins the line in every bit of structured backline play your team plays. Smith and Fourie are anything but creative players, they are both great finishers - so hell knows where your angle comes from.
One would swear the AB's were the only side that used their 12 as a decoy runner - wow you've really enlightened me here!!!!!!!
Taute got the ball in space at minute 23....de Jongh cut him down like a poppy. Check it out. Meanwhile de Jongh was starved of ball, but still made a few snipes.
No doubt at all who had the better game and the Lions had all the ball. Taute simply didn't know how to project himself into the game. No feel.
Wow Moz that is complete nonsense. de Jongh did absolutely nothing on attack and nor did Taute as both got very little ball. What utter rubbish to conclude that Taute had no feel after his first outing at 13 and getting very little ball.
de Jongh better than Taute - yeah right!!!
Wow Dave, handing out orders like a field marshall sits well with you. Tell me, Herr Adolph, how is it that your selections are superior to anyone else's?...and why do you regard posters as ignorant when their selctions differ from yours?
Just answer the questions. Thank you.
My pleasure.......anyone has to be pretty rugby ignorant to say players like Jean, Spies, Bismark or Lambie are poor players and then in the same breathe tell us how wonderful a bog ordinary player like Morne is.
I can deal with debate over marginal players like say for instance the merits of Deysel as a test player, but come on how the hell can you take anyone seriously who does not rate Bismark or Jean - hence the use of the word ignorant, for I sincerely believe they are just that - get it? And if you dont like it, do you think I really give a toss?
As for my selections, well yes they are better than anyone elses - Taute at 13 is a far better option than having a wee pretender like de Jongh at 13, Jantjies or Goosen at 10 is a far better option than a ponderous plodder like Morne at 10, who's first instict is to kick the crap out of it, Mujati at 3 is a far better option than any current 3 playing in SA.......should I go on?
Ever considered playing the part of a Bear with a sore tooth?
"As for my selections, well yes they are better than anyone elses"........really Dave?
My take is you throw a lot of names against the wall and very few stick. Then when they flop like Luke Watson, you don't admit you were wrong and go on hammering Jake who saw clearly what you obviously missed. If you want to play selector, you should be more honest about players like Kirchner, Ludik, Murray, Kruger, Flip, Deysel, Strauss etc......admit you got those picks wrong and these guys will never be established Boks.
Hell take Murray.....over and over you berated our coaches for not picking that failure. The evidence was there in S15 game after S15 game, but having picked him you just couldn't cut your losses. Don't ever trade Dave, I have seen guys with your personality literally lose everything sticking with a losing trade.
I too remember how he banged on for years about those bunch of losers, Murray in particular. Murray of course met all of Dave's criteria for centre position i.e. he had weight.....no skill, no speed, no nous, just weight. Recently it's been Flippie and most recent it's Jantjies and Strauss. I'm glad he's giving helter skelter Wooli Bulli a rest, now there's another nightmare of a selection. Schalk Brits was another.... nothing ever good came off for those forlorn hopes.
It seems I have stumped you Dave. For the sake of keeping this on track I will reiterate for you:
"Now that you tell me that 12 is THE most important position in the backline; then please explain why Morne is THE biggest liability on attack and why Jean failed so spectacularly over the last five and a half years and that is of little to no significance."
You received coaching tips from Brian Ashton? Ouch! Your coaching from Barlee was much more useful to you. Remember that one? I do ;)
By the way, Conrad Smith and Dan Carter call the shots in that backline. I never mentioned Fourie, instead O'Driscoll whom you omitted. A lot of hot air elsewhere. Much like your shallow assessment of players.
Moz your problem is that you dont seem to want to grasp the reality of the players I rate - lets take every player you have listed here and give the facts a go shall we?
Watson was never a flop, not even close - his demise had nothing to do with his rugby ability and everything to do with what he stood for. I stand by my take on Watson, he was and is a class openside flanker, had test player written all over him.
Kirchner has played a number of tests for SA and acquitted himself well - at no point have I ever had him as a starter ahead of Frans Steyn - FACT - so he was always on my lists as a back - up 15 and certainly the best option after Frans and now Lambie.
Ludik has never made my test side, always had him down as an Bok A standard palyer - FACT
Murray - never selected ahead of Fourie ever and again a uselful back-up certainly better than useless Adi. Murray's injuries got the better of him
Kruger has never made my test side ahead of CJ then, Jannie and Mujati now - not even close, Rate him as a solid back-up tighthead - FACT
Flip was always behind Bakkies, the worlds best - Flip has always made my bench as he would now - he is quality player as he proved yesterday - but again never a starter ahead of Bakkies, but certainly far superior to players like Muller that you would have selected.
Deysel, you have me confused with someone else on this guy, I have said very little about him. At best a good Bok A team player
Strauss is a quality player and only at the start of his journey - looks good enough for me and I would play him ahead of Schalk right now - yesterdays showing convinced me of that.
You see Moz these are the facts about the players I rate, I tend to be positive about our players unlike yourself who slates every second SA player out there. You seem incapable of drawing a distinction between the players I select as my starting Bok side and those I rate as quality back ups to my starters. Your list comprises my back-ups - FACT - there is a difference. I dont expect Kirchner to start ahead of Frans or Lambie so how on earth can we call him a failure. These back-ups get the odd test here and there when injuries occur, they are not expected to be better than the incumbents as they are not as good a player. But all those back-ups have done us proud and had they had the opportunity to play regular test rugby chances are they would have shone - Kirchner, Watson and Flip certainly have the credentials to be quality test players
Denny I take your take on any player with a pinch of salt. Who the hell is Wooli Bulli - no doubt a player you know nothing about - about standard when it comes to you. You profess to be some kind of peacemaker, but then nip in with some pathetic take on me - give us some subtance on the rugby front and I might start listening!!!!!!!
Card, Ashton told us what we already knew - 12 was the most important position in the backline - FACT.
Smith calls no more shots than Nonu does - FACT
Stumped by you - now there is a joke
`Wake up Card - we all know that Morne offers absolutely nothing on attack and that Jean has been our gem at 12 for many years - so whats your point exactly? Your question has Morne and Jean as poor - that makes no sense coming from you - try again and I might bother with an answer. You seem a little confused and have the audacity to say you have stumped me - you on the happy stuff or what?
Dave your picks that I mentioned all played or play S15 rugby....so if you were picking them for anything it must be test rugby, sooner or later. My point is none of these guys offer much at test level...so why bother.
But lets just take Luke Watson. Your contention was always Watson was a great player, done in by Jake White. Well along comes PdV who is very positively disposed to Watson and picks him. Watson either starts or subs in 10 straight tests. Does Watson repay this faith. No he turns in a bunch of poor tests. He was positively outplayed by the Welsh, just scraped by against the Italians and an embarrassment against NZ .
Remember Rodney Soialo picking up the poor tyke and dumping him 5 metres back over his own line. Remember him barging into Victor taking the kickoff rather than supporting his jump. Remember Mortlock running right over him to win the test and Carter going right through poor Watson at minute 66 for his try? A scant 6 minutes after they finally allowed the tyke onto the field.Let me guess you have forgotten all these things.
But surely you haven't forgotten, none of the other Boks wanted him and PdV by then was happy to see the back of him. A total flop.
The trouble with de Jong is his snipes lead nowhere. He makes a break almost diving past his opponent and goes to ground. Where is the off load - nowhere to be seen. Game after game we see these little snipe leading nowhere becasue de jong goes to ground so often and the movement dies with him.
Have to say anybody thinking Bissie, Jean or lambie are poor players has problems identifying talent.
Watson was at his best a good player but not Bok material especially given our depth at loose forward over the years. I think Dave' s comments about good players and back ups is acceptable and one should not be too disparaging about these guys. Flip had a good game on Saturday. Strauss would not let down a Bok side at hooker - far better than Chilli boy.
As for the youngster sit i sa fact the yare injecting new energy into teams. take the bulle for exapmple they ahre enjoying some fresh impetus.
So lets blend these youngsters in using a senior players to show them the ropes.
Meyer has a great deal of talent at his disposal. Theres no reason why the Boks should rule the roost. Ditto ou pdv but he was no coach and lardy and wee victoria ran the show to their own ends -or you may argue stepped in to full a vacuum or - the correct conclusion - a bit of both. These were wasted years. If a Jake had continued as he should have then we would have been the top rugby nation over the last 4 years. Those years have been wasted Meyer had better not waste the next few years.
Moz, I dont get how you refuse to take in the reality of what I have just told you in my last post. You know as well as I do that you know exactly what I mean but you are just unwilling to concede that I am right about where these players stand in my pecking order.
No, these players were not selected for my Bok starting side as you well know I like to pick A sides, Emerging sides you name it. You know I have never selected Kirchner or Ludik ahead of Frans or Lambie at 15, Murray ahead of Fourie, Flip ahead of Bakkies, Kruger ahead of Jannie or Mujati, Deysel ahead of Schalk, Alberts or Smith - should I continue?
Moz the reality of my choices as I keep pointing out, is that I rate these players as back-ups or Bok A team candidates.
If I was selecting a Bok side today, it would be 15. Lambie 14.JP 13. Taute 12. Frans 11. Movovo 10. Jantjies 9. Hougaard 1. Beast 2. Bismark 3. Mujati 4. Etzebeth 5. Bekker 6. Brussouw 7. Strauss 8. Spies........so if I happen to mention that I rate JJ Englebrecht that does not mean he is better than JP and should replace him, same goes for Chiliboy or Flip or Coetzee or Sadie etc.
As for Watson, I am talking about his abilities as a rugby player and nothing will ever convince me otherwise - Luke was test material through and through. The fact that he was/is a wanker is his own doing and the overriding reason he never had a test career. I know the Boks never wanted him and who could blame them. You bring up Watson being run over etc, what about Lambie flooring Schalk - it happens
Dave I can remember you wanting Kirchner for the Boks on a number of occasions. Likewise with Murray and almost all of the players mentioned. Not necessarily all the time.....but for example you wanted Flip when Bakkies was hurt. None of these players will be a success in tests and there were better alternatives. Rossouw is way more effective than Flip. That's why the Bools and Boks chose him ahead of Flip Flop.
But let's stay in the present. Taute was a zero at 13 against the Stormers, but you chose him ahead of Jean and De Jongh....nuts!
Mvovo was completely outplayed by the NZ wings last year...and confronted with the likes of Digby Ioane he showed all the same errors. Being gassed to the ball by Ioane and then one metre from the line, allowing the guy to offload. You take the penalty there if you have to.....such rugby naivete' is not for test rugby.
You pick Jantjies over Morne, even though the Bool keeps winning games and Jantjies fails to control them.
Mujati a test flop is suddenly going to prosper....Strauss instead of Schalk is myopic and continuing with Spies is just a dead end. He did zero to help the Boks at the RWC.
Even young Etzebeth , who I also rate, has to provide more proof against top quality locks. And has to get more experience, before he is chosen as a Bok starter. For the sake of his own career if nothing else.
Having potential is not enough....a player has to be properly prepared.
But mainly I get erked by your failure to accept what happens on the field of play. All the points I made about Taute, Mvovo, Jantjies and Strauss have been obvious in the last few weeks., So we don't have to search history to find your strange penchant for falling in love with a player and sticking to him through thick and thin.
Dave has a few key failings that account for these issues:
- He does not understand the value of each individual
- He does not sum up the game and cannot discern each individual's part in that (ala Divvy)
- What he can see is often clouded by bias or hatred for certain individuals
Alot of these players he picks have never displayed the goods; it was all too premature. He has made some good calls ahead of time, but his brash attitude leads him into trouble. Put a burly beard on Dave and you have George Custer; the comparison doesn't end there.
Each to his own opinion is another Dave does not understand, he loathes anyone disagreeing with him as he is fiercely loyal to his choices. A player only has to do a couple of good things for him to be declared as a class player ready to be a Bok. Seeing we're only on a MB where selections count for nothing I find it hard to understand why he gets so heated and abusive and why he monotonously tries to shove his selections down one's throat. Waylon Murray is a classic example of one of his several flops, there are others, even when it gets to the game of cricket, Vernon Philander and Alviro Pieterson if Dave had his way would never be in our test team.
Take the de Jongh as an example. I just put that forward as a possibility. His form is undeniable; it's certainly worth consideration. I find it more interesting talking about these combinations and what they may bring as opposed to mud linging trench warfare. I just wish Dave was more open minded.
Well being open minded is exactly the point and I hear what he says about Morne Steyn and I have no issue with it but the reality is that he cannot accept that the likes of Quade Cooper and Carlos Spencer don't win WC's. Steyn however limited is more suited to WC rugby than those two would ever have been and no-one can point a finger at Morne for the Bok's exit at the WC. Jantjies his new Bok saviour supposedly runs and passes more than Morne does and kicks less. Jantjies according to him is going to ignite the Bok backline.
Well it would be nice if it all came true but like I've previously said, igniting the Boks attacking prowess is going to need a lot more than a lone attacking flyhalf. Are the Lions less of an attacking team without Jantjies?...are the Cheetahs less of an attacking team without Johan Goosen? Fact is the Cheetahs were our best attcking team long before Goosen came along and the same can be said of the Lions.
When Jones coached our backs he didn't just single out coaching Butch James he worked on the whole backline. I rest my case.
Yes Moz I have selected these guys when the incumbents have been injured - pretty obvious and standard call I'd say. If Frans or Lambie were not available for the Boks the Kirchner would have been my call. I also completely disagree with on on the merits of these players. Kirchner has been good at test level as has Flip. I dont care what the Bulls did, Flip is a far better lock than Danie.
You bang on about me not taking into account the reality of the situation or what happens on the field. Bullshit, I call it as I see it. I know for a fact that Taute and de Jongh recieved very little ball in their match and therefore to conclude that de Jongh was better is a complete and utter joke. I have seen enough of Taute and de Jongh to conclude that Taute would make a success of 13 at test level while de Jongh would be a complete liability. No way in hell would I select Jean at 13. If he is going to still play test rugby, he has to beat Frans to the 12 spot and that wont happen.
Mujati was not a test failure at all, he was solid, no better or worse than CJ or BJ who had extended runs there. But Mujati played for SA years ago and thats what irritates me about you - you are incapable of admitting that the guy has moved on and your take of his performance last year in that game was a complete joke. Mujati is one of the best tightheads in the game, so why oh why would a coach not want him to play for SA again. Is Jannie that good that you would not entertain the idea of wanting to have a look at him? Its just madness
As for Morne v Jantjies - give me a break, we are talking Bulls v Lions here. Do you really expect the Lions to win as many games as the Bulls. Morne is the Bok 10, how many tests do we win with this guy running the ship. The guy is a bog ordinary player with a good boot. Jantjies on the otherhand is a real talent and has that allround game to take us forward.
Eztebeth is proving his worth game after game against the top locks out there. I have seen enough to play him in my test side, just as the Kiwi's or Aussies would. I'd play Eztebeth or Flip at 4, we win both was.
Card, love your bullshit take on my player knowledge - this coming from the guy who slates Bismark, Jean and Lambie - case closed, I need say no-more
Just keepin' it real dawg ;)
Wow Denny, time to calm down - I loathe no-one......in fact I like you, Moz and Card.......the fact that I disagree with you is par for the course - who cares. Abusive????? I might throw mud at you from time to time when you resort to your childish digs - mine is always reactionary, never initiated.
As for Pietersen, no I dont rate him at all, one big score against a nobody Kiwi attack does not make him a test bat. Philander I was completely wrong about, the guy has been awesome
Dave makes good points and others that one would not agree with him on. That is par for the course.
I even find oaks who disagee with my impeccable views strange as that may be. In truth there are only two views, mine and the wrong one. However I have to concede that others have the right to their ignorance and need not be villified because of their ignorance - well not too much!
Taute got a very nice launch in one move I opined on elsewhere. If he was explosive or elusive he might have broken the line. But he looked like the Queen Mary and his wake was straight and slow. And so de Jongh just sliced his legs from beneath him.
The Lesson? To break a test line you need more than enthusiasm. You need power, or pace or a step or rare timing....like Russell you need to be able to ride a pass outside your marker. Straight just aint going to do it.
Taute is simply Ludik revisited and we all know how that turned out.
Oh what rubbish - Taute has long shown he has pace, power and a great step........wee de Jongh is another one of your Adi's - a hopeless cause - at least Adi had size on his side!!
