The flyhalf dilemma of South Africa

So Rassie Erasmus will “probably go with” Handre Pollard as Springbok flyhalf in Saturday’s Rugby Championship clash with runaway world champions New Zealand in Wellington.

It wouldn’t be the worst move the head coach could make, of course, even as debate will continue to rage over whether Elton Jantjies warrants retention after the defeat to Australia.

One thing about Pollard that will not have escaped Erasmus’s sharp rugby mind - yes, it remains that, despite recent Bok results shakiness - is Pollard’s record of occasionally producing his best rugby against the All Blacks.

His place-kicking has been more erratic than the incumbent pivot’s of late, but what you do get from Pollard is a greater willingness to operate outside of the pocket.

For the record, the left-footed Jantjies wasn’t one of the worst Boks in Brisbane … even if I must have been blinking when Jantjies did some of the “brilliant” things Erasmus claims he did at Suncorp Stadium.

He still looked a fairly stilted, unassertive feature, to me, and may only have been hailed by some observers because he largely managed to cut out the all too glaring error-rate (though less so off the tee than Pollard) that had been a feature of several prior appearances by him in green and gold.

But even as the 2018 ping-pong between Jantjies and Pollard continues - the latter got quarter of an hour off the bench against the Wallabies without imposing himself markedly - I feel it is fair to say a broad perception remains that neither has truly grabbed games by the scruff of the neck in the up-and-down Test season so far.

In short, the berth has looked too obviously in fallible hands, whichever of the duo has been favoured, from the third Test against England at Newlands back in June and onward through three more internationals.

You might wish throw in another pretty high-stakes match, too: the Super Rugby final between the Crusaders and Lions, where Jantjies again failed to look convincing on a big day.

Against that backdrop, allow me to ask something with the proverbial tears in my eyes: wouldn’t the Brisbane Test have been an ideal opportunity to break away from the labouring (though undoubtedly more experienced) Jantjies-Pollard firm and blood Damian Willemse as starter in the No 10 channel?

Let’s face it, with the shares of the other two so clearly at a lowish point, could he really have dropped standards even lower in the key position?

Pressure on him to magically solve problems would have been less intense, considering flaky evidence from the Bok flyhalf play in several prior Test matches.  

Just an average showing by the 20-year-old attack-minded wunderkind would have been pretty close to “progress” and served up a tantalising, fresh, proper additional option in the slot … yes, perhaps even enough to justify his retention for the demanding date against the All Blacks this weekend.

While I don’t think there should be any question of Willemse being tossed to the wolves in Wellington now - it seems highly unlikely to happen anyway when Erasmus reveals his selection hand on Thursday - it would have looked a lot less risky had he been given an opportunity in Brisbane and prospered (or something close to that) there.

Who can say with great conviction that he wouldn’t have?

Pollard, after all, made his own Test debut at Willemse’s current age and quickly started producing for then-coach Heyneke Meyer some of his own best rugby yet witnessed for the national cause; he has generally looked a less cutting-edge character, in my view, since that freak Bulls training-ground knee ligament injury in early 2016.

Bear in mind also that Willemse was still an especially callow 18-year-old when he first appeared at Super Rugby level for the Stormers - and didn’t look overawed - so it is not as though he is a complete first-class rugby novice.

He has also sampled a morsel of Test combat already, with last-quarter appearances against Argentina in both Durban and Mendoza. 

He has an enormous range of skills, including that quite bamboozling sidestep, is comfortable playing either from deep or much shallower, and there’s certainly little in his body language or physique to suggest he’d lamentably crumble if asked to start for South Africa, whether it be at fullback or flyhalf.

As things stand, the Boks also have a dangerous overload of left-footers in important tactical kicking berths: Jantjies at pivot, Faf de Klerk at scrumhalf and with Willie le Roux the fullback.

My fear is that Willemse remains reasonably peripheral on match days over the next few weeks, and possibly only starts somewhere down the drag in a situation where the Boks have genuinely become “desperate”.

And what if - something I wouldn’t write off, that’s for sure - he quickly excels personally?

Then we will quite feasibly be in an environment where, with Tests to the 2019 World Cup possibly down to a single-figure tally, the big lament becomes “damn, if only we’d shown greater confidence in Damian earlier”.

Meanwhile, regrettably, only revolving mediocrity seems to bloom at Bok flyhalf."

I was at least one site member who favoured Willemse ahead of Jantjies as an option against the Aussies.   Jantjies never ever had a good game on test level and he normally caves in when under pressure.   That being the case he was a wrong selection for that tests and to my mind never should have been a consideration at all.

Jantjies as expected was mediocre against Australia and would have collapsed entirely against the AB's as happened in the past.   

To go with Pollard is obviously a better choice and it is clear that it would be the wrong test for to start with Willemse on Saturday.   I would think that the upcoming home test against Auatralia should be where he should start.

 .  

So Rassie Erasmus will “probably go with” Handre Pollard as Springbok flyhalf in Saturday’s Rugby Championship clash with runaway world champions New Zealand in Wellington.

It wouldn’t be the worst move the head coach could make, of course, even as debate will continue to rage over whether Elton Jantjies warrants retention after the defeat to Australia.

One thing about Pollard that will not have escaped Erasmus’s sharp rugby mind - yes, it remains that, despite recent Bok results shakiness - is Pollard’s record of occasionally producing his best rugby against the All Blacks.

His place-kicking has been more erratic than the incumbent pivot’s of late, but what you do get from Pollard is a greater willingness to operate outside of the pocket.

For the record, the left-footed Jantjies wasn’t one of the worst Boks in Brisbane … even if I must have been blinking when Jantjies did some of the “brilliant” things Erasmus claims he did at Suncorp Stadium.

He still looked a fairly stilted, unassertive feature, to me, and may only have been hailed by some observers because he largely managed to cut out the all too glaring error-rate (though less so off the tee than Pollard) that had been a feature of several prior appearances by him in green and gold.

But even as the 2018 ping-pong between Jantjies and Pollard continues - the latter got quarter of an hour off the bench against the Wallabies without imposing himself markedly - I feel it is fair to say a broad perception remains that neither has truly grabbed games by the scruff of the neck in the up-and-down Test season so far.

In short, the berth has looked too obviously in fallible hands, whichever of the duo has been favoured, from the third Test against England at Newlands back in June and onward through three more internationals.

You might wish throw in another pretty high-stakes match, too: the Super Rugby final between the Crusaders and Lions, where Jantjies again failed to look convincing on a big day.

Against that backdrop, allow me to ask something with the proverbial tears in my eyes: wouldn’t the Brisbane Test have been an ideal opportunity to break away from the labouring (though undoubtedly more experienced) Jantjies-Pollard firm and blood Damian Willemse as starter in the No 10 channel?

Let’s face it, with the shares of the other two so clearly at a lowish point, could he really have dropped standards even lower in the key position?

Pressure on him to magically solve problems would have been less intense, considering flaky evidence from the Bok flyhalf play in several prior Test matches.  

Just an average showing by the 20-year-old attack-minded wunderkind would have been pretty close to “progress” and served up a tantalising, fresh, proper additional option in the slot … yes, perhaps even enough to justify his retention for the demanding date against the All Blacks this weekend.

While I don’t think there should be any question of Willemse being tossed to the wolves in Wellington now - it seems highly unlikely to happen anyway when Erasmus reveals his selection hand on Thursday - it would have looked a lot less risky had he been given an opportunity in Brisbane and prospered (or something close to that) there.

Who can say with great conviction that he wouldn’t have?

Pollard, after all, made his own Test debut at Willemse’s current age and quickly started producing for then-coach Heyneke Meyer some of his own best rugby yet witnessed for the national cause; he has generally looked a less cutting-edge character, in my view, since that freak Bulls training-ground knee ligament injury in early 2016.

Bear in mind also that Willemse was still an especially callow 18-year-old when he first appeared at Super Rugby level for the Stormers - and didn’t look overawed - so it is not as though he is a complete first-class rugby novice.

He has also sampled a morsel of Test combat already, with last-quarter appearances against Argentina in both Durban and Mendoza. 

He has an enormous range of skills, including that quite bamboozling sidestep, is comfortable playing either from deep or much shallower, and there’s certainly little in his body language or physique to suggest he’d lamentably crumble if asked to start for South Africa, whether it be at fullback or flyhalf.

As things stand, the Boks also have a dangerous overload of left-footers in important tactical kicking berths: Jantjies at pivot, Faf de Klerk at scrumhalf and with Willie le Roux the fullback.

My fear is that Willemse remains reasonably peripheral on match days over the next few weeks, and possibly only starts somewhere down the drag in a situation where the Boks have genuinely become “desperate”.

And what if - something I wouldn’t write off, that’s for sure - he quickly excels personally?

Then we will quite feasibly be in an environment where, with Tests to the 2019 World Cup possibly down to a single-figure tally, the big lament becomes “damn, if only we’d shown greater confidence in Damian earlier”.

Meanwhile, regrettably, only revolving mediocrity seems to bloom at Bok flyhalf."

I was at least one site member who favoured Willemse ahead of Jantjies as an option against the Aussies.   Jantjies never ever had a good game on test level and he normally caves in when under pressure.   That being the case he was a wrong selection for that tests and to my mind never should have been a consideration at all.

Jantjies as expected was mediocre against Australia and would have collapsed entirely against the AB's as happened in the past.   

To go with Pollard is obviously a better choice and it is clear that it would be the wrong test for to start with Willemse on Saturday.   I would think that the upcoming home test against Auatralia should be where he should start.

 .  

It shouldn't even be an issue. Stick with Pollard and stop chopping him every time he has an off day. He should have played against Australia as well.

Isnt Pollard the "great white hope " as it were ? Janglies has all the heft and game management skills of a humming-bird.

One thing about Pollard that will not have escaped Erasmus’s sharp rugby mind - yes, it remains that, despite recent Bok results - is Pollard’s record of occasionally producing his best rugby against the All Blacks.

Please note oaks!!!

Ou maaikie you could well find Rassie gives Willemse a start at home against Oz if P ollard doesn't shape with the boot. The only problem Pollard had actually was his goal kicking which is very good.

Willemse should be played off the bench at least.

There is zero really wrong with Pollard. Willemse is a great prospect. Jantjies not too bad and the rugged Robert Du Preez would could also do a job for us. Flyhalf stocks are just fine.

Get the team working properly and all the players will do better. Some of the oaks here remind me of Mad Maxine who was screaming for Trump to be impeached from literally day one. Rassie is a shrewd coach and will do as well as anybody given the circumstances he is in.

Ah but Moz any old 10 can kick a few goals ,only one in all history has scored 4 test tries in a game 

No Steyn BSter - not one was even a half-decent flyhalf.   Stood too deep in the pocket because of too slow in decision-making, poor out-of-hand kicking - shocking defense - all showing a deficient flyhalf.  Morne is praised for one gaimn line attack in all tests since 2012  and Fat Fransie Steyn was poor as a crashballer.  In one year the latter broke a record for ball possession handovers on Super rugby level.

All three present flyhalfs as well as Goosen and even Jantjies are better than the two players you put on a pedestal.   Get real for a cha nge dimness.

As Wardad said so clearly - flyhalfs can routinely convert kicks at goal - much more is expected from them than that.  

So Pollard has a record of occasionally playing his best against the All Blacks does he Beeno?

So what ecactly are we taking note of, that you predict he might have a good game or he might have a bad game.

I am sure no matter which way he plays beeno will be screaming "i told you"

Pollard is the 10 I would select for the Boks. He should be backed up by Janties but Willemse should be developed slowly. For RWC it's Pollard and Willemse for me.

by the way,.... how do you do to always write awkwardly your posts ?

BP beandork shoves a nine inch nail into his pinhead bung holes just to make sure any extant brain cells have been sufficiently cowed .

Then it laboriously taps out its posts ,its why he resorts to cut and paste jobs so often.

We don't have anything to lose by playing Willemse. Both Pollard and Jantjies are not test standard 10's ... in fact I don't know which one's worse.

I thought it an obvious call to make, and in fact expected it against the Ozzies. Jantjies at 10 came as a bit of a shock!

The boldness that Rassie brought with him has vanished. He's cowering in the corner now ... totally clueless about the next step. 

Pollard is over rated. The pressure has taken it's toll ... he's just not good enough to don the Bok 10 jersey.

The clock is ticking ... we don't have the time to waste of these failures. Let's face it, we cannot expect to compete at the WC with either of them.

Oz should have been Pollard to start with Willemse coming off the bench. As it is now Pollard will face the All Blacks after a three week layoff following an indifferent performance against the Argies. He should have started last week to give him time on the pitch.

Sticking with Jantjies is the real waste of time. 27 tests without so much as a whimper of potential at that level, but yet there he is.

Yes ... I agree ... It would be best to blood a youngster proper ly from the bench.

You and I both know that Willemse should have had a couple of caps under the belt by now ... with Jantjies back at home playing CC.

I honestly don't know what the issue is. 

CC

I think the problem is with Jantjies.   You must take your mind back to a match between the Stormers and  the Lions at Newlands in 2011.   The match was lost by the Lions for a variety of reasons - the real reason being a disastrous performance by Jantjies.   

Mitchell got so mad by the poor performance that Mitchell lost his cool and benched Jantjies early.   The next step was that Strauss - the Lions captain - and Jantjies concocted a letter attacking Mitchell and persuaded the other team members to sign the latter.

This actually resulted in action being taken by the Lions franchise and Mitchell was fired,   In terms of SA Labour Law the matter ended up before the CCMA and at their hearing all the players bar Strauss and Jantjies distanced themselves from the letter.  The only two "witnesses" who appeared at the enquiry was in fact Strauss and Jantjies and their evidence was discredited and the ruling favoured Mitchell 

The upshot is that Jantjies showed a malicious tendency to use  extraneous and falsified means to get his way in the rugby environment and I think he is at present using the political environment to the full.

The problem is that Willemse is a youngster who has had the sponsorship of the Ruperts after his primary school years and that can be sued by malicious politicians against him.   Jantjies is malicious enough to sponsor that kind of attack on Willemse.

As far as I am concerned Jantjies is a player that should never have played on test level and who used politics and other malicious means to enhance his situation as a player.   Bad news that one.        

What was that BS statement about?   Memory bein g created again?

So that was career-defining dimness"   Why not keep up the BS all the time - stinking c u n t?    

Cannot even spell my surname correctly.   Your pervert attack caused it - so you must live with what followed,  

Pollard in general play is considerably more usable than Jantjies. Do remember though, Rassie opened the game up for the backs against Australia. Poor Pollard had fewer opportunities. Rassie has a lot of work to do to gain my respect. He is rewarding failure.