The final word on whether the old Boks under performed.

Firstly here is our data base. Supersport's Brenden Nel's attempt to rate the Bok squad for the WC. It's patent rubbish. Paige who hardly played gets a 6, Pienaar a 5....Lomp a 9, Matfield a 5 even though he was the MOM in the Bronze final. In other words this is a biased report, slanted in favour of newbies. Here it is:

Willie le Roux – 4

Perhaps the most disappointing player in the Bok team given his reputation. Le Roux has had a forgetful year and has departed from his normal expansive style. From a player who would dazzle and mesmerize he is now as predictable as can be and was caught out several times out of position from the back during the tournament. The Welsh try in the quarterfinal was just one example, while his tactical kicking simply wasn’t good. A player who was expected to ignite the Boks during the tournament, only served to disappoint.

Zane Kirchner – 5

Solid at the back, Kirchner only played against Japan and the loss wasn’t really his fault in any way. Didn’t get the opportunity to impress further as the shine was immediately taken off by the shock result.

JP Pietersen – 6

A hat-trick against Samoa and almost an intercept against the All Blacks, Pietersen did well for the entire campaign, and certainly held his own. On defence a star who covered all the bases, possibly could have done more if the Bok game plan was better.

Bryan Habana – 7

Equalling Jonah Lomu’s record will always go down as a milestone for the winger and he showed that while he has lost pace, the tryline still is his biggest passion. But as good as he was, the record wasn’t too be as he fluffed several chances once he drew even to deny himself a place in history, and had a bit of a shocker in the Bronze final.

Lwazi Mvovo – 5

Hard to fault Mvovo for his effort as he played only one game against Japan. The Bok loss and his background influence meant he was a passenger for most of the rest of the tournament.

Jesse Kriel – 6

Kriel made 10 clean breaks, and equaled Habana in this department but would have received a higher accolade if he had done more with his opportunities and not shirked his defence at times. The final try by Japan to win the game came as a result of him going high, while in the Bronze final he also missed a few too many tackles. A great talent going forward, but perhaps more suited at fullback?

Damian de Allende – 7

As good as De Allende was, and he was very good in the entire tournament, he perhaps suffered from his inability to get the rest of the backline moving. Whether by design or instruction, De Allende was good on attack and defence, but hardly ever passed the ball. Still looking good going forward.

Jean de Villiers - 5

While he was a sensational ambassador off the field, De Villiers was a shadow of his former self on the field and his early departure was harsh but perhaps good as it left the young pairing together for the tournament.

Jan Serfontein – 5

Unfairly criticised when he was brought over in place of De Villiers as coach Heyneke Meyer was simply replacing a 12 for a 12, Serfontein never really had enough time to make an impression beyond solid.

Pat Lambie – 6

Can hardly be faulted on tour and grabbed his milestone 50th cap in the Bronze final, but never really had enough game time to impose himself properly.

Handre Pollard – 7

Good goal-kicking and options during the tournament, but suffered in terms of controlling the game, exits and perhaps at times his tactical kicking. A great prospect for the future who should grow as long as he works on his tactical kicking going forward.

Morne Steyn – 5

Played for 20 minutes in the tournament, hardly a chance to show his worth.

Fourie du Preez – 8

Stepped into the captaincy with ease and led from the front. Crucial try against Wales was good enough to put Boks into semis, but not even the talisman could get them through to the final. Du Preez struggled with a back injury and missed the final game with a cheekbone that was badly bruised and concussion. A great servant of SA Rugby who will be missed.

Ruan Pienaar – 5

Despite a decent first half in the Bronze final, never has really looked comfortable in a Bok jersey. Solid and uncompromising, Pienaar remains an enigma in Bok rugby.

Rudy Paige – 6

Given limited game time, Paige looked slick against the USA and should have had more game time versus Argentina. Can feel proud of his uncompromising and infectious positivity around the side.

Duane Vermeulen 8

Still the heart and soul of the side and certainly excelled during the World Cup. But perhaps a point or two off the pace he wanted to be. Still organised the defence to a tee and hugely influential in the Bok side.

Schalk Burger 9

Burger was like fine wine, maturing with age and while some may have question-marks about his first receiver status, the loose forward simply was everywhere and involved in everything. A stellar performance by the Bok veteran.

Francois Louw 8

One of the unsung heroes of the Boks. Started slowly but quickly found himself in the forefront of the Bok assault. Second most turnovers in the tournament tells a big story.

Willem Alberts 6

Alberts had the Boks on tenterhooks early on in the competition regarding his fitness and while he came back and was good against Wales, perhaps didn’t have the impact we all know he can have.

Siya Kolisi – 5

Only receives the average mark because he didn’t have many opportunities and should have seen a bit more game time.

Pieter-Steph du Toit – 5

Perhaps one of the other disappointments in the team, given the hype about him. To be fair he had limited opportunities but will continue to grow in a Bok jersey.

Eben Etzebeth 8

Another unsung hero for the Boks who was everywhere in the Bronze final and how he didn’t win the man of the match award only World Rugby will know. Exceptional player with unbelievable heart.

Lood de Jager 9

The Bok player of the tournament who comprises everything the Green and Gold should be. Impressive both on and off the field. Player of the campaign for the Springboks.

Victor Matfield - 5

While when Matfield was on the field his workrate wasn't in question, the untimely hamstring injury that robbed him of playing in other games actually worked out well for the Boks as Lood de Jager stepped to the fore. His ignorance of coaching instructions against Japan wasn’t his best moment, and while he remains a Bok great, will probably want to forget the 2015 edition of the Rugby World Cup

Jannie du Plessis 6

Solid on the field and a part of the rock in the scrums, was eventually overshadowed by the younger Frans Malherbe who excelled in the setpiece. Early yellow cards also saw him being dropped from the starting line-up as he struggled with injury.

Frans Malherbe 8

One of the finds of the tournament, Malherbe grew from strength to strength and looked exceptionally good in the scrum, and grew in stature as the tournament continued. A good look towards the future for the Boks.

Coenie Oosthuizen 5

One appearance against Japan and a yellow card to boot, Oosthuizen was never a factor on the field for the Boks.

Tendai Mtawarira 6

A sturdy performance from the man they call Beast. Ever solid, never spectacular and he looked tired and overplayed. Should do well from the rest.

Trevor Nyakane 8

Always looked good when he came on the field, strong in the scrum and everywhere in the loose. Should possibly have received more game time and more starts in the campaign.

Adriaan Strauss 8

The form hooker in the tournament for the Boks, looked solid and full of fire when he came on and sparked the bench. Perhaps should have started?

Bismarck du Plessis 6

Strangely dropped after the Japan game after an ostensible fallout in the post mortem of the game, Du Plessis never came close to the form we know he can be in. Always good, he never quite reached the heights of former tests.

Schalk Britz 6

Never had much say on the field, but always smiling off the field and gave some great interviews. As a third hooker did his job in keeping motivated and certainly the joker of the pack.

All in all as individuals few had shockers during the tournament. The problem perhaps was as a unit they failed to fire when they needed to, good in defence but never showed the flair necessary in attack to win the tournament

 But lets take this as a worst case for the oldies. I split the squad into players over 29 and players under 29. This based on the assumption that those over 29 are unlikely to make 2019 and are in the category Sapp would describe as old and washed up.
So it turns out there are 18 players 29 and older....and 14 players younger than 29. If we average their ratings in this pro newbie report....
Those over 29 average 6.333.....those under 29 average 6.285. 
Blown out of the water are the following theories:
1) The Bok veterans were our worst performers
2) We will improve when the lower rated under 29 year old players replace the higher rated over 29 players.
And based on my own superior ratings the difference would be a full rating point in favour of the golden oldies. Dispute settled.

 Mozart
You are busy with a theory that does not really hold water.   You mentioned all the players - yet some of them have had very little playing time and those cannot really be assessed properly.   
Take for instance Alberts - he had 108 minutes game time in 5 matches - never started in a game and average very limited game time at the end of matches.   How he can realistically be assessed as being 6 out of 10 is really not on.  The same can be said about a number of other players.   
I think the regular players with say more than 300 minutes of game time should be assessed on the basis of actual performances - there are too many players like Alberts and Brits given reputation marks for doing very little in the competition.  
One cannot with the playing time accorded to them assess some of the players logically in any event.  

 Obviously Carters no Bok but I am watching the replay of the1/4 final vs France and by many bok fans standard Carters one of the rugged and buggered .An astoishing reverse behind the back pass through traffic to Savea for the 2nd try was amazing at any age  ! And obviously the rest of his game and the tournament showed all those young blokes what experience combined with innate skill can produce .All our old 'uns who have left gave nothing away to their younger rivals and all were slated by the know-nothings  who said they were all too old too slow and retained for too long .For the kind of game the Boks played in the semi Morne would have done better .

Moz, you can't just thumb suck an age and call it "veteran"! Since when is 29 old in rugby? 

 The general cut off is 30 years of age.   Mozart turned it to 29 to up his percentage calculation on the dubious ground that 29 years of age will not participate in the 2019 WC.   If you take the 31 year olds and over - the picture looks much worse.
I do not think that there is really anybody who wants the 29 and 30 year olds out of Springbok rugby immediately.  What is wanted is that - unlike what happened this WC - a proper squad should be developed for the 2019 WC and some of the younger players may not be in the picture by 2019.
The WC squad for 2015 was atrocious.  Since too many of the older players could not adjust their style of play, a game plan was decided upon that suited them and the plan used was a serious mess - bad news.
The teams that played the style of rugby the Spri ngboks used have been thrashed in the European Championship thus far and looking at what happened to Toulon and Montpellier is an eye-opener.  

I'd say even 30 or 31 is fine for a rugby player , but only the special talents are still good enough after that....However, nobody is good enough at 38! 

Also, assessing players playing such a horrible game plan against good teams and a better game plan against weaker teams(Japan aside) is like watching a film through a kaleidoscope.

 
This is silly ... we have to take each player as an individual and judge him accordingly ... irrespective of age ... not because of it.

Players like Carter, McCaw and Nonu played at a very high standard ... and age had nothing to do with it.

If a player can still cut the mustard and just so happens to be better than anyone else then by all means keep him ... UH-DUH!!!!!! ... BUT ... if he no longer has what it takes then for heavens sake get rid of him.

That was the case with Matfield, Pienaar, Jean, Alberts, Jannie, Beast, Lomp, Louw, Morne, Kirchner, Willie, Schalk, Kolisi, and a host of others.

Mozart wants to make his point regarding age ... and only age ... but he never will ... because he's chosen the wrong boys to back as an example.

If he had perhaps selected a McCaw or a Carter or a Nonu or even a Woodcock he would have armed himself with an Uzi ... and the rest of us would have had no choice but to shut our yaps and admire his wisdom.

Turns out he preferred a "ketty" ... and now we're all looking at him ... shaking our heads.

The idea was a good one, Mozart ... just not properly thought out.
 


 

Well if one  uses the 31 and older cut off it does swing in favour of the younger group ..by  6.38 to 6.18. But exclude the 29 and 30 year olds from both groups....the under 29s are 6.28 vs 6.18 for the 31 and older group. Not a difference large enough to legitimize the claim that the old players were the problem. 
One group that is in fact significantly different is the 29 and 30 year olds who average 6.57. Showing the best players tend to be very experienced players often viewed as past their physical best by fans
But let's suppose we accept the argument that 38 is too old and eliminate Matfield....the remaining over 31 year group averages 6.3. Better yet, suppose we lose the bias and admit Matfield with his 97 percent tackle success rate and MOM in the bronze final deserved a 7... The over 31s average 6.36 well above the 6.28 for the 29 and unders.

 Mozart
This kind of calculation is in fact meaningless - since it equates performance with age.  To my mind age is not really a norm for selection - performance is.  In general in my view the following players from the WC experienced players can still play a few years of good rugby:-
Bryan HabanaDuane VermeulenBismarck du PlessisAdriaan StraussSchalk BurgerTendai Mtawarire (?)
The rest are all past tense cases.   If you look at the other experienced players even Fourie du Preez in the last few matches in the RC was nothing to write home about.  The rest were just not up to international standard anymore and where they were replaced during the tournament the younger less experien ced players performed better than they did.       

That's always been my point...good enough is young enough. But if you look at just this simple insight.....very few young players have the mental skills to deal with the pressures of big occasions. Your best players tend to come from the experienced ranks, in NZs case from their 33 and 34 year olds.
In terms of our younger players, Pollard has a very steady head. Injury aside he should be a franchise Bok. Etzebeth likewise. 

Of the rest I think Lomp is next best...but not the star depicted in Nel's rating. To be a 9 he had to shine in the knockouts, not just the easy pool games.Allende and Kriel have a lot to learn. And I doubt Kriel has the physicality to make it at centre. After he literally lost the Japanese test giving him a 6, for that matter giving Lambie a 6, is just sheer bias.

 Mozart
The problem with you are that you developed a serious bias in facour of crtain players and then denigrate any potential other players.   The assessment of those players are always undermined.  
Now you say the younger players do not have big-match temperament - but is that really the case?   Before the WC they had minimal text exposure and in cases like De Allende and Kriel they had a total of three tests as a center pairing.   You need to develop as players and a combination before  evaluation like lack of big-match temperament can be made.   
You criticize the 6 for Lambie - but what about the 6's for Alberts, Brits amd Jannie did squat of benefit for the team and if there was bias - those three are an excellent example of bias.   

 I could buy into 5s for those 3 players and Lambie....none of the four played much or did very much in the games they played. But then Coenie got a 5 after his starring role in losing the Japanese test. In that case he is a 3.

 Mozart 
I can forsee some problems in team selection next year - especially since I believe that Burger was wrongly used in the latest WC campaign - he is not a crashballer.  
However, in essence - the problem areas I can foresee is on the wing, at scrummie and around the loosies,   The center combination may be allowed to develop - though I think that Vorster is a better 13 than Kriel.   
The only loosie secure of his place in the team is in fact Vermeulen - there need to be some clear-up work done.  I see Burger as a rather shortterm impact player playing from the bench.